Lawyers’ advice to the victims of the ignition in the Moscow subway

Moscow, June 5, RAPSI

<…>

A power cable ignited at the span between “Biblioteka imeni Lenina” and “Okhotny Ryad” of the Sokolnicheskaya Moscow subway line during the morning rush hour. According to the latest information, 59 persons were injured, three of them in the ICU.

All six stations of the Sokolnicheskaya line within the “Ring” were closed for entry and exit. The movement of the trains was reinitiated at 12-00. Another smokescreen arose at the same span later, but it was soon overcome and the movement reestablished.

Compensations and possible trials

Lawyers believe that the management of the Moscow subway should itself offer compensation to the victims. And those, who are not satisfied with the amount, can and should go to courts.

Evgeny Ustin, advocate of “Thine Solicitor” Bar Association, is convinced: “If the subway does not fix an amount of compensation for the discomfort and damages, the victims are fully entitled to go to courts to recover the damages, and they may count on receiving the compensation”.

Maxim Poliakov, Docent of the Administrative Law Chair of Oleg Kutafin MSAL, points out that the passengers, who were injured, incurred moral or material damages as a result of the accident, may claim compensation from the administration of the Moscow subway judicially as well as extrajudicially.

The MSAL docent explains: “For that, the passengers should register in writing the fact that they were in the subway at the moment of the accident, demand that the station officer issue the certificate of injury or destruction of property, and then file a formal request to the administration of the Metro annexing thereto all documents collected”.

The member of the Academy believes that there is good chance that the compensation will be exacted in court, if the management of the Moscow subway refuses to pay the damages.

M.Poliakiv explains: “If the passenger evaluates the physical or material damages he suffered as serious, and that he also incurred serious physical pain and suffering, he may fully count on the compensation of moral damages. In this case, the commensurateness of the damages and the monetary amount, within which the passenger will evaluate the harm done, is the key criterion. In any event, the amount should be reasonable and, if at all possible, confirmed by the respective cheques and receipts documenting the money spent on medical treatment or purchase of objects of property”.

However, Alexander Bolomatov, Associated Partner of the Law Firm "YUST", believes that documented material damages are more than likely to be compensated, but expects many complications regarding moral damages.

A.Bolomatov elucidated: “Compensation of moral damages for similar occurrences is not usually done. Formally, this case is a case of rendering undue transportation services. The practice of such cases for claimants is negative. No collective claims may be filed in such cases, thus a claim may only be filed on one’s own behalf with confirmation of the fact of transportation, proof of moral damages (medical certificate of nervous disorder as a result of the jam and excitement, etc.)”.

No dismissal and no right to register truancy

Lawyers stress that those, who came late to work because of the collapse, do not need to be afraid for their workplace: the employers have no right to dismiss their employees for such a forced break of the work schedule.

They recommend, however, that those, whose bosses are especially severe, collect proof that they arrived late for a good cause.

The docent of the MSAL chair says: “Passengers may request that the station officer or a cashier of the metro issue a certificate documenting their stay in the subway during the accident”.

M.Poliakov went on by saying that photos made with mobile phones or other gadgets may also serve as proof, but in this case it is recommended that the “absentee’s” face and the picture showing that he was in the accident area be present in the photo.

The member of YUST elaborated: “If the employer doubts the employee’s allegation of the today’s happenings, he will have to, in the first hand, demand the written explanation. If the employee fails to submit it within two workdays – the respective act is drawn up. Only after that may the employer apply any disciplinary punishment”.

According to the advocate, the decision of the management, if there is a disagreement, may be applied against to a court within three months of the day, when the employee became or should have become aware of the breach of his right – for example, reading an order to apply the respective disciplinary punishment to him.

A.Bolomatov pointed out: “In court, the employee should allege that the today’s occurrence in the subway and the relevant transport collapse of widely known facts requiring no additional proof pursuant to Article 61 of the CPCRF (grounds for exemption from proving)”.

Source of the publication – see here.