Stypizowane stany faktyczne, w których refundacja kosztów najmu pojazdu zastępczego nie jest adekwatna
Typified cases where reimbursement of substitute car rental costs is not adequate

Summary/Abstract: The purpose of this article is to present selected cases (presented in a typified form), where the practice of reimbursing the substitute car rental costs to the aggrieved party in a motor accident may be doubtful or even unjustified. First, the article discusses the cases, where the party at fault in the accident is not obliged to hold the mandatory liability insurance at all or has not fulfilled the obligation to enter into the insurance agreement. As to that aspect, the authors resolved that, inter alia, in the compensation law there are no axiological grounds for differentiating a party which suffered damage caused by a person covered by the mandatory liability insurance from a party which suffered damage caused by a person who is not legally required to hold the insurance. Then, the authors focused on problems related to co-liability and the aggrieved party's involvement in causing the damage and their consequences in the discussed regard. Further on, the article presents, among others, the aspects of overlapping entitlements to receive a substitute car (e.g. with the additional accident or assistance insurance), vehicle co ownership, and cases similar to co-ownership of a vehicle (particularly damage to property of one spouse caused by the other spouse). Finally, the authors analyse the problem of inability to use the car due to circumstances other than a motor accident (e.g. bailiff seizure or theft) or cars temporarily deregistered as per article 78a of the Road Traffic Law. The authors conclude the article by stating that the concept of pure economic loss of use – as to the loss of the car – has not been recognised in Polish case law and in the compensation law doctrine.

• Details
• Contents