[ad_1]
“We sympathize with all those affected by this horrible tragedy caused by the irresponsible and unjustifiable behavior of drivers. We respect the court’s decision and agree that damages to loved ones must be compensated. However, we do not agree that our company should also compensate the damage, so we will appeal the ruling of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal ”, announces CityBee in a press release.
According to the company, such a court decision would negatively affect all long-term car rental and car rental companies and impede the development of the innovative digital transport and mobility services sector in Lithuania.
“We are convinced that a court ruling would set a precedent when the responsibility of a person who behaves irresponsibly and violates the law is also transferred to the service provider or the owner of the vehicle.
This means that, whether they are car rental companies or scooter and bicycle rental companies, they become responsible for how the vehicle is operated by the person who actually uses it, ”the report says.
According to the company, after the tragic accident, fines for driving while under the influence increased dramatically.
“Our rules are stricter than the laws of Lithuania, because we apply the 0.0 per thousand rule to all customers. And if it is broken, the person loses the right to use CityBee services for life and has to pay a fine of 2,000 euros ”, says the company.
15 minutes Remember that the panel of judges of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal agreed this Thursday with the conclusion of the regional court that the owner and lessor of the vehicle driven by the convicted R. Savukynas UAB Prime Leasing is also responsible for the traffic accident and the damages caused .
According to the jury, the rental company UAB Prime Leasing did not comply with the obligation to act with caution and diligence, handed over the car to an intoxicated person, which caused a traffic accident in which people died and were injured.
«The lessor, in the development of the car rental business, by assigning the right to use and exploit vehicles to third parties, has not taken any measures to ensure that the prohibition of driving while intoxicated is complied with at the time of transfer .
In addition, there are greater requirements for responsibility, diligence and diligence on the part of employers, so the mere fact that compliance with mandatory legal requirements imposes a certain economic burden cannot by itself exclude their civil liability, – the panel states of judges.
[ad_2]
