Riding an uninsured electric scooter is grounds for a fine
The Administrative Court number 1 of Vigo has confirmed a fine of 601 euros to a driver of a two-wheeled motor vehicle for not having compulsory insurance. In the ruling, which is pioneering in Galicia when it comes to addressing the rules that vehicles such as electric scooters must comply with, it reduces from 1,000 to 601 euros the fine that the Provincial Traffic Headquarters of Pontevedra had imposed on the driver "due to the absence of damage caused to third parties, due to the lack of accreditation of repetition and intentionality".
"It is clear that this device is a vehicle propelled by an electric motor. From the point of view of excluding definitions, it is neither an electric scooter nor a cycle. Nor does it fit into the modern typology of Personal Mobility Vehicles (PMV)", the judge states in the ruling, in which he highlights that PMVs "do not require administrative authorisation to circulate, so it is not necessary to require the user to have a driving licence or permit, nor compulsory insurance".
According to the judgement, the EU and national regulations state that if the vehicle has a speed of more than 25 km/h, as in this case, it is not considered a VMP. If the speed is higher (up to 45 km/h), it falls into the L1e-B category.
The plaintiff was denounced by the Local Police in June 2019 when he was driving his Gran-Scooter and Citycoco model at the confluence of Marín Street and Castelao Avenue. Regarding the confusion he alleges as to whether or not he should have compulsory insurance, the magistrate assures that, although devices of these characteristics "have begun to proliferate and the news surrounding their use are confusing", he understands that all this is "all the more reason to seek reliable and official answers that dispel any hint of doubt and that favour safe driving and in accordance with the legal system".
Read MoreFake News: Car insurance does protect you in the event of an alarm condition
Euriux Abogados, the first national network of lawyers in Spain and celebrating 25 years, informs its clients that car insurance during the state of alarm in Spain does protect you in its different coverages in case of an accident.
In response to the hoaxes circulating on the internet, Euriux Abogados, which provides legal defence for the Hello Auto company, assures that the Asociación Empresarial del Seguro Unespa assures that "car insurance works as it always has, nothing has changed due to the alarm declaration. The protections are the same, both in terms of civil liability (third party insurance) and complementary guarantees".
Telematic services
Euriux Abogados decided this weekend, out of corporate responsibility and in view of the situation caused by the Coronavirus, to take measures to continue to maintain our customer and business service online.
In Madrid, the main office has reduced its activity and two contact telephone numbers have been set up: 914261331 and 620349041. In addition, they can also be contacted via the website www.euriux.com.
Our network of 300 lawyers in more than 52 offices in Spain and based in Portugal, has also taken appropriate measures in response to the indications of the Ministry of Health to restrict meetings with clients.
Read MoreInsurer of burnt-out vehicle ordered to pay property damage costs
The First Chamber of the Supreme Court has resolved in this Full Court ruling an appeal in cassation on whether, for the purposes of compulsory vehicle insurance cover, the fire in a car parked in a private garage constitutes a traffic event
In the case resolved by the ruling, a vehicle parked in a private garage, where it had not been driven for more than twenty-four hours, suffered a fire that originated in its electrical circuit and caused damage to the property. The insurer of the property, which took responsibility for the damage, then claimed against the company with which the owner of the vehicle had taken out compulsory insurance.
The First Chamber referred a question for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Directive 2009/103, which was decided by the CJEU in its judgment of 20 June 2019 (Case C-100/18). In that judgment, the CJEU considered that the interpretation should be guided by the objective of protecting accident victims, which has been consistently pursued and reinforced by the EU legislature. In this regard, it held that the parking and immobilisation period of a vehicle are natural and necessary stages which form an integral part of its use as a means of transport and that it was not relevant to identify which of the vehicle's parts was the one that caused the fire or to determine the functions performed by this part. It ruled that Directive 2009/103 must be interpreted as meaning that a situation such as the one at issue in this case is covered by the concept of 'movement of vehicles', even if the vehicle had been stationary for more than 24 hours at the time the fire broke out.
The court decided the appeal by applying the case law of the CJEU and, consequently, as the judgment under appeal had ordered the insurer of the vehicle to pay compensation for the damage caused to the house in which it was parked, it dismissed the appeal.
At Euriux Lawyersthe department of Civil Liability of Euriux Abogados defends your interests and acts independently of the insurance companies in each case. Every year there are a multitude of traffic accidents, professional negligence or accidents at work that require a rapid legal intervention because many of the cases that arise end up in court.
Euriux Abogados offers a personalised treatment to the client who has access to his lawyer who will accompany and advise him in every legal act that is carried out during the claim.
Read More