A main theme in claiming damages from a traffic accident is the attribution of co-liability to another part. The "ideal" case where it is totally clear whose fault it is, is rather rare and generally lawyers try to distribute some degree of fault. Issues such as excessive speed for the conditions, poor tire maintenance, the influence of alcohol and driving without glasses that are required by the drivers' license are dimensions that affect the co-responsibility.
Special cases like boarding on a vehicle when it was known that the driver was under the influence of alcohol and the case where the driver was known that has just received his/her drivers' license have also been judged by the Greek courts.
The following three cases cover specific topics of co-responsibility in accidents with motorcycles in Greece with the percentage ranging from 0-50%.
Private passenger car and motorcycle collision
Exit from parking position without using direction Indicator.
Fault 70% of Private passenger car driver who attempted an uncontrollable and sudden leave from the temporary parking place, without making his intentions known in a timely manner with the use of the left direction indicator (Flash) and without waiting for the roadway to be freed by the passing vehicles, resulting in his car to be found in front of a motorcycle. (art. 5.8, 12.1, 21.1, ETC).
30% fault of plaintiff motorcycle driver, as it was moving over the limit of the permissible maximum speed 30 km/h, (article 12.1, 19.1 and 2 of Road Traffic Code), so they did not notice in time the car moving forward and vertically (which is exemplified by the collision surface of the private passenger car, on which the motorcycle crashed, the rear left door), while it would easily evade the accident if it were capable of an avoiding maneuver taking into account the width of the carriageway (5, 50 m) and the lack of other vehicles on this.
Private passenger car and motorcycle collision
The position of the body of the driver of the motorcycle as a factor of co-liability
A crash of a motorcycle which tried to enter into a petrol station in the opposite direction and a private passenger car which was attempting to overtake it. Fault of 70% of the private passenger car driver and 30% contributory fault of the driver of a motorcycle.
Reasons for appeal were rejected.
Objection to accident causation due to incorrect positioning of the body during the maneuver to avoid the accident
For the extent of his injury the motorcycle driver was judged to be co-responsible by 50%, accepting the relevant claim of the defendants, that during the maneuver that he made and in order for his motorcycle not have a collision with the vehicle, he put his body in such a position, putting his foot between the motorcycle and the wing of injurious car. It was considered that any other plaintiff's action would have protected his leg and would have reduced the physical damage caused.
Head on Collision of Private passenger car and Bike
Corrective Eyewear-Lack Of
The exclusive fault of the driver of a private passenger car who-without wearing the eyeglasses, as defined in the driver's-license attempted a sudden shift to the left in order to enter the Supermarket parking, leading to be found in the course of a driving motorcycle.The fact of using ordinary sunglasses, rather than eye sight, coupled with the fact that the perpetrator driver confessed that he was driving up towards the direction of the sun, it was considered that prevented him from seeing well and to perceive the motorcycle driving from the opposite direction.
Compensation for personal injury
The plaintiff victim suffered a fractured leg. Apart from the Hospitalization expenses he was awarded enhanced food expenses.
Exclusive Nurse mother and fiancee.
He was also awarded for their diet and daily expense of renting a qualified lounger to remain next to the victim.These services were provided for free by the plaintiff's mother and fiancée. And although these people within the relationship that connects them with the plaintiff with the legal and moral obligation to stand by to provide assistance and to show love and affection towards him, the aforementioned exclusive nurse and caring services, are not included in their legal obligations.
Moreover, the fact that the above services were covered by the relatives of the plaintiff, cannot be provide a benefit to the defendants and debtors and avoid payment by them of the compensation of the claimant, who, because they lacked cash to cover the needs of those with payment (deposit) of costs needed before their application was to be made, was forced to use familiar faces as a nurse and a domestic worker.In addition they were awarded daily food expenses to the mother and his/her fiancé, who performed the role of an exclusive nurse, as well as the relative expenditure by renting a lounger/chair, in order to be able to lie beside him during his hospitalization.
Awarded an amount of 20,000 euros.