Fatal collision in Mykolaiv: a Mykolaivoblenergo driver received a 4-year suspended sentence, the widow was denied compensation

Because the driver acted within the scope of their employment duties while operating an insured company vehicle, the vehicle owner or the insurer must be held liable for the damage

Цей матеріал також доступний:

02 Apr 2026

0 0

In Mykolaiv, a driver of JSC «Mykolaivoblenergo» was tried who hit a man and he later died in hospital.

This became known from the verdict of the Inhulskyi District Court.

The case concerns a traffic accident that occurred on August 13 last year on Myru Avenue. The driver in a UAZ vehicle of JSC «Mykolaivoblenergo» drove off the roundabout near the bus station onto Myru Avenue and was moving toward Budivelnykiv Street. At the pedestrian crossing he did not notice the man and hit him.

As reported earlier, the first aid to the injured person was provided by a nurse who happened to be passing by the scene. She reacted promptly and began performing external cardiac massage on the victim. As a result of prolonged resuscitation the man began to breathe and regained consciousness, after which the ambulance crew took him to the Emergency Medical Hospital.

However, despite all the doctors’ efforts, the victim died in the intensive care unit of the neurosurgical department of the Municipal Non-profit Communal Enterprise “City Emergency Medical Hospital”.

During the trial the driver explained that at the moment of the accident he was blinded by the sun. He was informed about the pedestrian by the car’s passengers, who began to shout, and he braked sharply, but still did not manage to stop the vehicle in time.

The pedestrian was thrown by the impact and fell. The defendant and the other passengers got out of the car, approached the injured pedestrian and found that the latter was unconscious. It was then that a passerby came to help, and later the medics arrived.

The court examined a number of pieces of evidence which established that the driver had the technical ability to prevent hitting the pedestrian.

According to the victim’s wife at the trial, her husband went to the Kolos market, and after some time she received a call from a neighbor in which he told her about the accident. Calling the Emergency Medical Hospital, she learned where the victim was located, and when she arrived there – found that he had fallen into a coma.

In the hospital the defendant approached her, apologized and said that he would reimburse all treatment expenses.

Seven days after the accident the doctors informed the woman about the need for an urgent operation for the injured man. For its performance it was necessary to purchase “clips”, the cost of which was 52,000 hryvnias. This amount was paid by the UAZ driver. But some time after the operation the victim died.

Before the start of the trial the deceased’s wife filed a claim against the defendant requesting to recover 141,439 hryvnias of material damage in her favor related to funeral expenses and the installation of a monument, as well as 500,000 hryvnias for moral damage.

During the proceedings the defendant transferred 50,000 hryvnias to the deceased’s wife as compensation for moral damage, which the woman herself confirmed. At the same time, the victim’s wife said that since the defendant assessed her moral damage only at that amount, he should be given a sentence involving deprivation of liberty.

The court determined that the circumstances that mitigate the punishment are sincere remorse and voluntary partial compensation of the caused damage.

No circumstances that could aggravate the punishment were established by the court.

It was proven during the case that at the time of the accident the driver was in an employment relationship with JSC «Mykolaivoblenergo» and was driving a company vehicle while performing his official duties. In addition, the vehicle was insured, and liability for possible damage was assigned to the insurance company.

The court noted that in such cases responsibility for damage caused by a source of increased danger lies with the vehicle owner or the employer if the driver acted within the scope of his employment duties.

Since the claim was filed only against the driver and neither the employer nor the insurer was involved, the court concluded that the claims were brought against an improper defendant. In this regard the claim for compensation was denied.

As a result of the proceedings the court found the defendant guilty of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced him to 4 years of imprisonment with disqualification from driving vehicles for 2 years.

At the same time, on the basis of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine it was decided to relieve the driver from serving the main punishment, establishing a probationary period of 2 years.