News

The Panevėžys Regional Court has issued a final ruling in a criminal case regarding a traffic accident that resulted in non-severe health damage to a cyclist. The judicial panel upheld the court of first instance's verdict, which imposed a 2,000 euro fine on the female driver found guilty. The court critically evaluated and rejected the arguments in the convict's appeal, which sought to avoid legal liability by unjustifiably shifting all blame for the collision onto the victim.

The accident occurred on the morning of October 2, 2024, in Panevėžys, at the intersection of A. Jakšto and Stoties streets. While turning right, the driver of an Audi A3 collided with a man crossing via a bicycle path. Upon impact, the cyclist fell onto the hood of the car and subsequently onto the asphalt. Medical experts identified a thoracic vertebral fracture, which left the victim unable to work for three months.

In her appeal, the convict maintained the position that the cyclist appeared "unexpectedly" and was traveling at a high speed, leaving her with no technical possibility to stop. The defense relied on a consultative conclusion from a private company, which claimed that the primary cause of the accident was the cyclist's own actions.

The Regional Court analyzed the arguments of both parties in detail and emphasized that the defense relied on subjective assumptions rather than objective data. The judicial panel refused to follow the private expert's conclusion favorable to the convict, as it was based on assumptions, "statistical average speeds of cyclists," and probabilistic versions of the driver's ability to see the cyclist. The court also questioned the reliability of the conclusion because the expert failed to cite any legal acts, procedures, or methodologies used to conduct the study.

The court noted that traffic conditions that morning were good, visibility was not restricted by any objects, and the victim was wearing bright orange work clothes with reflectors and riding with lights on.

"The driver did brake, but her braking was delayed; the car eventually stopped fully covering the bicycle path, whereas it should have stopped before the crossing," the judicial panel noted, highlighting in the verdict that the driver's reaction to the obstacle was late.

The court established that the driver's claim that she only saw the cyclist at the moment of impact only proves her criminal negligence. As the operator of a source of increased danger, she was obligated to monitor the environment and yield to those crossing her path of movement.

While the court acknowledged that the cyclist's behavior was also insufficiently attentive, this does not eliminate the driver's guilt. According to judicial practice, had the driver followed Road Traffic Rules and yielded to the cyclist, the accident would not have occurred even with the violations committed by the victim.

The judicial panel also rejected the defense's request for a new complex expert examination, stating that the evidence collected in the case – witness testimony, diagrams, and conclusions from state center experts – is entirely sufficient to determine the truth.

The ruling of the Panevėžys Regional Court is final and takes effect on the day of its announcement.

When citing or otherwise distributing this information, please indicate the source of the information.

Contact for the media: