1
08.04.2021
Slovakia
Anton Dulak
Damage Associated with the Operation of a
Motor Vehicle
 Judgment of the Regional Court Trenčín of
22 April 2020, Case No Cdo 5Co/4/2020
Brief Summary of Facts
 The claimant sought compensation for damage to a
motor vehicle damaged in an accident from the driver of
another vehicle (defendant 1) and her insurance
company (defendant 2) for damage to a motor vehicle
which was involved in an accident.
Brief Summary of Facts
 The cause of the accident was a collision with a wild
animal, which ran onto the road from a field next to
the road, thus entering the path of the defendant’s
motor vehicle
 As a result of its collision with the defendant’s car,
the wild boar was thrown into the air and into the
claimant’s approaching vehicle.
Brief Summary of Facts
 The court of first instance dismissed the claimant’s
action on the ground that defendant 1 did not
infringe any road regulations as imposed by law,
 The appellate court dismissed the judgment and
returned the case to the court of first instance for a
new hearing,
 The Court of first instance, in its second judgment
ordered defendant 1 to pay amount claimed,
 Defendant 1 appealed, the appellate court upheld
the second decision of first instance as correct.
Judgment of the Court
The damage caused by a wild boar being thrown into
the air by a motor vehicle and subsequently thrown
into another oncoming vehicle constitutes damage
associated with the operation of a motor vehicle.
2
08.04.2021
Commentary
 Arguments (court of first instance, first judgment):
▫ Defendants 1 and 2 had not breached any legal
requirements
▫ There is no liability for damage caused by the
operation of a motor vehicle either
 The damage was caused by circumstances that did not
originate in the operation of the vehicle itself. An animal
being thrown into the path of an oncoming vehicle is
both an external and unpredictable circumstance
Commentary
 Arguments (appellate court):
▫ The damage had been caused by the special
nature of the operation of the motor vehicle …
“there is no doubt that the motion itself (rolling
motion of the wheels) and the speed of the vehicle
are a special, specific feature of its operation …
The operation of a motor vehicle thus present a
cause for the wild boar to been thrown against the
oncoming vehicle”
Commentary
 Arguments (appellate court):
▫ Without working of the movement and speed of
the defendant’s moving vehicle, the animal would
not have been thrown against the claimant’s
oncoming vehicle
▫ There is no difference between a “thrown stone
lying on the road” and an “animal suddenly
running onto the path of a motor vehicle on a
road”
- Thank you -