However, his allegations are unfounded – Vilnius district court, having examined Mr Digri ‘s appeal against the Ukmergė court ruling in June, ruled that the bus driver was to blame for the accident.
“From the technical point of view, the main condition for the traffic accident was that D. Digrys, the driver of the Neoplan N 116 bus, did not control the uneven section of the Kėdainiai-Ukmergė road with slippery, wet snow-covered road surface. resulting in the loss of stable movement, slipping off the road to the left and overturning ’, Fire Trump According to the presiding college, the accident was caused by an uneven and slippery road covered with wet snow and the speed chosen by the driver.
According to the judges, it was the speed chosen by the bus driver that led to the accident: . “
The court hearing the criminal case found that D. Digrys was justifiably found guilty and fined 100 MGL (5 thousand euros).
The court awarded the victims of the insurance company almost 18 thousand. EUR 20 thousand for property damage, and almost 20 thousand euros from the company that owned the bus. For non – pecuniary damage. Another 10 thousand. D. Digrys will have to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The traffic accident in Ukmergė district happened four years ago, when in 2017. On December 7, at about 10 a.m., the bus Neoplan N116, driven by D. Digrio, derailed and overturned. More than 30 children and accompanying teachers traveled by bus to the theater in Vilnius from Kėdainiai. Fifteen bus passengers were injured in the accident.
The bus driver, who was found guilty of the accident, did not plead guilty in court and said the accident was due to poor road conditions and the speed he said was safe.
“At 60-70 km / h. the speed of the bus was completely stable, the unevenness of the road did not carry the bus to the side, there was no need for a sudden stop, which allowed me to conclude that the speed was safe, the driver told the court. – It is normal for a smart and caring person not to deliberately reduce their speed just because of some hypothetical, imaginary obstacle or deformation when they feel that their chosen speed is safe. In addition, the traffic rules prohibit driving unnecessarily too slowly, interfering with the normal traffic of other vehicles. “
The driver noted that, given the condition of the road and the sense of stability and control of the bus, he had no reason to drive at a lower speed and could not see, know or anticipate a particularly sharp and intense descent in the shape of a 16 cm step leading to the bus wheel slipping will lose stability, drive off the road and turn around.
“This accident is a case in point,” Digrys explained, asking the appellate court to acquit him of the charges.
However, judges who disagreed with such statements noted that, according to the experts’ findings, it was the unsafe speed that was chosen and the cause of the painful disaster. According to the judges, if the bus had been traveling at a lower speed, there might be no turning of the bus through the roof, the driver would be able to restore the bus’s straight-ahead movement, drive to the sidewalk and stop
“The expert pointed out that in the current situation it was possible to avoid a traffic accident or such consequences that would lead to criminal liability if the convict had chosen a safe speed,” the Vilnius Regional Court emphasized. “The College notes that it was Mr Digri’s choice of speed on an uneven, wet and snow-covered road that led to a further movement of the bus on the road after the slip, during which there was an accident and the health of the bus passengers was slightly and slightly disturbed.”
–
The court also examined the roadworthiness of the road on which the accident took place, not only in terms of road roughness measurements but also in terms of road accidents, but did not identify any black spots in terms of the number of accidents.
“There have been more than one bus running safely on the road before the accident, and more than one bus has passed the site safely after the accident,” the court said. that the speed chosen by the driver was unsafe due to road surface damage and weather conditions.
In addition, the judges emphasized that even if it could be stated that the Kėdainiai-Šėta-Ukmergė road is unsafe, it does not mean that the driver is not obliged to choose such a speed that he would be able to straighten or stop in time if the bus he was driving on the road.
The court also noted that a warning sign “Rough Road” has been erected in front of the section of the road where the accident took place, warning of road waves, hills, potholes, irregular joints with bridges and more. Also, the day it happened accident.
“Therefore, the driver was obliged to drive at such a speed that he could control the vehicle at any time without endangering the transported passengers,” the court emphasized.
According to the judges, driving at a speed limit does not in itself mean driving at a safe speed: “D. Digrys was obliged to drive at such a speed that in the event of the situation it would be possible to restore the direct movement of the bus or stop the bus and avoid a traffic accident. “
–
It is strictly forbidden to use the information published by DELFI on other websites, in the media or elsewhere, or to distribute our material in any form without consent, and if consent has been obtained, DELFI must be cited as the source.
