Naprawienie krzywdy wyrządzonej w wypadkach komunikacyjnych w świetle badań aktowych
Authors: Kondek Jędrzej 
Published: February 2023

This paper is a result of research conducted at the Institute of Justice, concerning case law on redressing loss and wrong caused as a result of road accidents. The analysed cases ended in 2015. A number of conclusions can be drawn from the research. In the analysed cases, all claimants were natural persons, which should not come as strange, considering both the contents of Article 445(1) and the difficulty with the construction of a personal interest of a legal person infringed as a result of death of a specific person under Article 448 of the Civil Code. Moreover, these claims are non-transferable before an action is brought, as provided for in Article 449 of the Civil Code. Most claimants were represented by professional attorneys. The attorneys were always chosen by claimants, even when they were exempt from court costs, which happened much more often than in civil cases on average. In principle, the defendants were insurers, which demonstrates that redressing the wrong caused by road accidents is basically dealt with through commercial insurance. We should not find it strange, considering, on the one hand, the relative ease of seeking redress or compensation from the insurer (compared to the person who caused the accident, while on the other hand, the mandatory nature third party liability insurance and the prevalence of casco insurance. In the majority of cases, compensation was partially paid by insurers in indemnity proceedings, but this compensation was (in the cases of claims discussed in this paper) mostly a notional amount (the media being PLN 10,000). The proceedings lasted considerably more than the average in the category (register C), but we should observe that oftentimes this was caused by the particularities of adduced evidence. The need to obtain an expert opinion (sometimes opinions) and to hear witnesses and parties made it impossible to resolve the case in a single hearing, while often making it necessary to wait for time-consuming evidence to be adduced (mainly for expert opinions to be prepared and for parties to respond to the opinions). Contrary to widespread belief, the sums sought in the statements of claims were not very high, the median being PLN 37,000. These claims were, in the vast majority of cases, at least partially allowed. Claims were dismissed in full in just above 3% of cases, while allowed, on average, in 2/3 of cases. The sums awarded were not very high, with the median of awarded compensations at PLN 20,000. An analysis of standard deviation of claims and actual awards shows that in case law extreme (i.e. exorbitant) claims were considerably moderated. Not too often, just in some 15% of cases, the disputes were settled amicably. This can be explained by the fact that where parties saw any room for concessions, they did so at the stage of claims adjustment, while actions were only brought in cases where the parties were in dispute. The high ratio of (at least partially) allowed claims is accompanied by a fairly high level of stability of case law of first instance courts in the analysed cases. It is noticeably higher compared to average stability of case law in civil litigation in general. All this shows that – contrary to the expressed concerns – there is no escalation of claims of the injured parties or sums awarded by courts. Both the claimed and awarded compensation is within reasonable limits, additionally moderated by courts, which often allowed the claims only in part (that is, in principle and not as to the amount claimed). However, the high ratio of allowed claims and the high level of stability in case law do point out to irregularities in the claim adjustment procedures conducted by insurers. It can be said that at the pre-litigation stage the compensation is unjustifiably lowered, with the sums paid being rather notional in character than a true assessment of the loss/wrong. More adequate practices of the insurers, i.e. awarding higher compensation amounts, should contribute to both reduction in the number of cases concerning compensation coming before courts and to limiting court costs and costs of proceedings which insurers are obligated to pay (insurers were ordered to cover costs of proceedings in as many as 68% of cases).