Środki karne o charakterze kompensacyjnym a odpowiedzialność gwarancyjna zakładu ubezpieczeń

• Autorzy: Paweł Wawszczak

Warianty tytułu

Penal Compensation Measures Vis-À-Vis Insurance Liability of the Insurance Company

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Celem niniejszego opracowania będzie więc przedstawienie funkcjonujących w doktrynie prawa karnego poglądów na temat charakteru prawnego kompensacyjnych środków karnych (obowiązku naprawienia szkody i nawiązki) oraz określenie relacji skutków prawnych zastosowania powyższych instytucji w sytuacji istnienia odpowiedzialności gwarancyjnej zakładu ubezpieczeń z tytułu umowy ubezpieczenia obowiązkowej odpowiedzialności cywilnej posiadaczy pojazdów mechanicznych.(fragment tekstu)

EN

The aim of this document is to present the convictions functioning in the doctrine of the civil code on the legal nature of the penal compensation measures (an obligation to compensate for the damage and more than offset) and to define the relation of the legal implications resulting from benefiting from the services of the above mentioned institutions in the event of the existence of the guaranty liability of the insurance company under the compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance. Civil code's doctrine commonly assumes that the obligation to compensate for the damages and the offset have unequivocal penal and legal nature and is of autonomic being against the civil and legal redress liabilities. Using civil liability insurance for the motor vehicles owners for the damages with respect to movement of these vehicles, by the perpetrator of the criminal offence against the safety in the transport, neither annul the ban of verdict on the obligation to compensate for damage (article 46 §1 civil code), nor a the possibility to verdict on the offset instead, said in the 46 §2 civil code. Supreme Court verdict assumes that the perpetrator of the transport accident with respect to which the offset was adjudged, may not, under the motor vehicle liability insurance, apply for the return of the offset paid to the wronged person from the insurer. This is also the case of the perpetrator of the transport accident, whose responsibility to compensate for the damage is subject to the obligatory civil liability contract, who is not entitled to claim for discharging him/her of the civil and legal obligation to remedy for the damage against the insurance company. Notwithstanding the theses made by the Supreme Court, it is necessary to prove that the verdict on civil and legal obligation to compensate for the damage or offset does not result in the legal consequences in the form of exclusion from the insurer's liability. It is also necessary to tell for the insurance company is not discharged of the responsibility against the wronged person as well as the insured person due penal proceedings commencement against the perpetrator of the damage and submission of the verdict petition on the obligation to remedy for the damage. Hence, the insurance company is obliged to pay out the compensation due to the obligation under the civil liability contract, notwithstanding the civil and legal verdict on remedy for the damage against the perpetrator. If the insurance company satisfies the duty under the verdict of the criminal court, the payment in question shall be evaluated in terms of fulfilling the obligation of the civil and legal nature under the civil liability contract and not in terms of fulfilling the adjudged obligation by the perpetrator by means of the penal remedy. De lege ferenda, it is necessary to consider the legitimacy of coming back to the legislation works aiming at normative restriction of the possibility to verdict on the penal remedy in the form of the obligation to rectify the damage or offset in case of the insurance company's guarantee responsibility. It seems that this kind of institution of legal and civil obligation to rectify the damage would enhance the implementation of the basic goals of the criminal proceedings. The proposed restriction of passing the verdict on the compensation penal remedy would also lead to proper understanding of the purpose of using this kind of measure, i.e. compensation then prevention and rehabilitation. This type of solution seems to be even more rational in face of the fact that the obligation to rectify the damage is a civil-origin institution, restitutive and compensational, not of strict penal dimension. It justifies the view that there is no advisability of applying this type of institutions in the criminal proceedings against the perpetrator of the damage if the insurance company is liable in solidum (article 822 §4 civil code) for the damage and when it declares the damages to be rectified. The approval of the proposed amendments, however, requires axiological amendments of penal measures structures of compensation nature. The utmost case it would require creation of three-line model of criminal proceedings with the following scheme: penalties, hedge measures and obligation to rectify the damage as the institution which implements the civil and legal claims of the wronged person due to the criminal offence.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Przedsiębiorstwo ubezpieczeniowe; Ubezpieczenia; Odpowiedzialność; Odpowiedzialność cywilna

EN

Insurance companies; Insurances; Responsibility; Civil liability

• Czasopismo: Rozprawy Ubezpieczeniowe
• Rocznik: 2008
• Numer: nr 1(4)
• Strony: 109--119

Twórcy

autor

Paweł Wawszczak

• Biuro Rzecznika Ubezpieczonych

Bibliografia

• 1. M. Bączyk, J. Janiszewska, Obowiązkowe ubezpieczenie komunikacyjne a prawnokarny obowiązek naprawienia szkody, Przegląd Sądowy nr 10/2006, s. 48.
• 2. K. Buchała, A. Zoll, Kodeks karny. Komentarz do art. 1-116, Kraków 2006 , s. 643.
• 3. W. Daszkiewicz, Naprawienie szkody w prawie karnym, Warszawa 1972 r., s. 17 i nast.
• 4. W. Daszkiewicz, Przegląd orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego, Państwo i Prawo 1974, nr 6, s. 117-118
• 5. M. Filar, Pokrzywdzony (ofiara przestępstwa) w polskim prawie karnym materialnym, Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych nr 2/2002 s. 35
• 6. Z. Gostyński, Karnoprawny obowiązek naprawienia szkody, Katowice 1984, s. 148-149.
• 7. Z. Gostyński, Obowiązek naprawienia szkody w nowym ustawodawstwie karnym, Zakamycze 1999, s. 130.
• 8. M. Łukasiewicz i A. Ostapa, Nawiązka i karnoprawny obowiązek naprawienia szkody a roszczenie cywilnoprawne, Prokuratura i Prawo, nr 2/2002, s. 75.
• 9. M. Łukasiewicz i A. Ostapa, Obowiązek naprawienia szkody - wybrane zagadnienia, Prokuratora i Prawo nr 9, 2001 r., s. 55.
• 10. K. Pawelec, (w:) Zakład ubezpieczeń w postępowaniu karnym (zagadnienia wybrane), Radca Prawny nr 2/2002, s. 53.
• 11. E. Ziarnik - Kotania, Zabezpieczenia majątkowe w nowych ustawach karnych, Prokuratura i Prawo nr 6/1998 s. 62.