After a long struggle, the mother proved that her 7-year-old daughter was not to blame for the Maxima fire

“The cause of the fire is not clear, and in the absence of absolutely no objective data on the actions carried out by the minor, there is no basis to allege that the mother, as the daughter’s legal representative, is considered responsible for the damage”, the Vilnius Regional Court said.

A panel of judges chaired by Judge Vaclovas Paulikas noted that without a thorough investigation, the exact cause of the supermarket fire had not been identified, and the video in the file attempting to blame the seven-year-old girl “does not unequivocally confirm the cause. neither from fire nor from fire “.

In this way, the judges put an end to the case, in which the insurer ERGO Seguros SE intended to pay almost 27 thousand to the mother of a girl. losses suffered by a Maxima shopping center in the capital. The insurers had paid such an amount to the company that operated the supermarket.

To prove that the seven-year-old is not responsible for the store fire, the mother was not immediately successful: Prosecutors who investigated the circumstances of the fire terminated the pre-trial investigation because the minor could not be prosecuted due to your age. , and the Vilnius City District Court partially satisfied the claim of the insurers, awarded the insurance company only 311 euros for the property damaged during the fire. In addition, in the ruling, the court determined that the mother did not provide adequate care to the minor.

But this decision, which was appealed not only by the mother of a minor, but also by the insurance company, was overturned by the Vilnius Regional Court, which reevaluated the data in the case.

According to the file, a fire was found on the shelf in the industrial goods department of a Maxima XX shopping center in the capital. The fire, as recorded in the videos, broke out when a girl abandoned it.

Her mother said that she had gone to the Maxima store to shop with her two daughters that day.

“I walked with them and bought items, and my seven-year-old daughter went to dances that interested her,” said the mother. – She did not have matches in her hands, in addition, our house uses an electric stove, so children do not know how to use matches. While we were at the checkout, we heard a fire in the store. When we left, the fire department and the ambulance had already arrived, and a week later I received a call from the police and called me for questioning, where there was a lot of pressure and my daughter was forced to admit that the merchandise had been set on fire. “

A minor who was suspected of setting a shelf on fire was also questioned about the fire.

“That day my mother and my sister went to the store,” said the girl. – I was interested in the ball with the sponge drawings, so I went to touch it – I stretched out both hands towards the ball, there was nothing in my hands. And then I went back to my mother. “

The girl said that she did not notice the fire in the place where she was looking at the ball, and also assured that she could not use a lighter or matches, because her mother had forbidden her to use them from an early age.

At that time, after watching videos in the mall, it was recorded that the girl ran to the shelf with nothing in her hands and put both empty hands on the shelf, but did not see exactly what she was doing, but after 10 seconds . the girl took her hands off the support and walked away. When the girl had already left the industrial goods stall, the store visitor noticed the smoke after half a minute, and when mosquitoes began in the hat, an open fire appeared from the stall.

Because the girl had clenched the fingers of one hand in her fist, experts indicated that they may have contained matches or a lighter. However, they did not provide categorical conclusions, and the mother of the child said that clenching her fist does not mean that there is something in it.

“Even if the girl had an object in her fist, it was not identified in the expert’s report, so there is no basis to say that the object caused a fire,” said the mother. “It should also be noted that the images on the girl’s hand (palm) do not show anything like a lighter, gas burner or matches, which the insurance company has gone to great lengths to prove.”

According to her, it is not even logical that a girl, who was only seven years old at the time of the event, “could light a lighter quickly (according to the video material, in 10 seconds) and set the merchandise on fire in the store.”

“During that period, a young child may simply be interested in a toy or other item placed on the shelf,” said the mother, after the fire was extinguished, the site of the fire itself had not been examined before it started. the fire.

No one from the mall staff or visitors saw the Maxima fire break out, so only the mall videos were trusted. And you could only see for them how a girl comes to the shelf, who raises her hand and puts it at the bottom of the shelf, but you don’t see what exactly she did, and then she came off the shelf.

After viewing the video, security guards discovered that the fire could have been caused by a girl who was in a store with her mother and sister at the time. In addition, the store staff indicated that before the fire in the industrial goods department for 10 min. There was only this girl in the period, so it was possible that her actions could cause a fire.

A pre-trial investigation was launched into this incident, during which the Vilnius County Fire and Rescue Service indicated that the cause of the fire was a strange and suspected fire source. As the girl was only seven years old at the time, the pre-trial investigation was terminated as she could not be prosecuted. Although the parents appealed against this decision to both the higher prosecutor and the court, their appeals were rejected and the Vilnius Regional Court, which issued the final decision, noted that “the circumstance that a minor does not constitute a crime because it was not old in The moment of the offense does not in any way mean that in the present case no act of an offense or criminal offense was committed.

After the entry into force of the court ruling, the insurer appeared before the court demanding the payment of almost 23 thousand. Eur. Damages caused by a fire in the trade hall due to goods damaged during the insured event (clothing and toys for children, food and accessories for animals, paper towels, personal hygiene items, etc. industrial goods).

After analyzing the data of the case, the Vilnius Regional Court noted that none of the witnesses had confirmed that they had seen the minor start a fire, “but only a part of the witnesses had seen the video and assumed that the actions of the girl they could have caused a fire. fire in the supermarket “.

According to the judges, the criminal case file contains several photographs with a possible fire focus area: a rack shelf, but it is not clear from the photos or the video whether it is the same rack and an identical shelf with the girl extended.

“The girl did not show any exceptional reaction, no strange, suspicious behavior of the girl was recorded,” the court emphasized. – In addition, the plans of the criminal file for the placement of the merchandise in the fire zone show that the merchandise was set on fire, but there is no record in the file that said merchandise could have included fires such as lighters or matches. “

In addition, the judges noted that no evidence had been gathered that the girl already had the necessary tools to light a fire in her fist, such as a lighter or matches.

The firefighters’ findings were also taken into account – they indicated only the most likely cause of the fire – an unusual source of fire, but no objective data; the evidence supporting this version was provided by the personnel of the Board of Fire and Rescue or the insurers.

“A detailed examination of the scene of the fire has not been carried out,” said the panel chaired by Judge Paulikas, who may not have examined and / or looked for signs of a short circuit in the workshop.

Therefore, in the judges’ opinion, the insurance company’s allegations of minor acts of fire (unidentified intentional or negligent acts with an unidentified outside fire source) are just presumptions that are not sufficiently substantiated by all the evidence. gathered in civil and criminal proceedings.

“Although the young man put both hands on the store shelf, and although the video of the case does not show exactly what the girl was doing at the time, it is not possible to unequivocally say that the girl’s reaction was unusual and / or their pace increased. “, – noted the court.

According to the judges, the cause of the fire is not clear, and in the absence of absolutely no objective data on the actions carried out by the minor, there is no basis to claim that her mother is held responsible for the damages. .

“Without establishing the mother’s crime and the causal link between the damage and the crime, it makes no sense to establish another condition for civil liability: the damage suffered,” said the court that dismissed the insurance company’s claim.

The judges awarded more than 2.6 thousand damages from the insurers to his young mother. Euros.