The Claim of a Passenger Injured in a Train Accident
For a passenger injured in a train accident, Georgian law provides two parallel bases, and understanding both is the source of a claim's strength. The first route is a tort, built on damage arising from the operation of a means of transport; the second route is contractual, resting on the contract of carriage. It must be said plainly: a special federal claim regime for railway workers, known in other jurisdictions, has no counterpart in Georgian law. The passenger's claim is built on the ordinary tort and contract norms, and the field of labour safety is governed by separate regulation.
Compensation of Damage Arising from the Operation
The special norm of the tort route is Article 999 of the Civil Code: the owner of a means of transport intended for the carriage of passengers and goods, where the operation of that means of transport is followed by the death, mutilation or impairment of a person's health, or damage to a thing, is obliged to compensate the victim for the damage arising therefrom. In a train accident this means that liability falls on the owner of the means of transport, and the connection of the damage with the operation must be established.
The exceptions are formulated in the same norm. The obligation to compensate damage does not apply where the cargo being transported is damaged, except where the passenger carries it along, and where a thing accepted by the owner of the means of transport for safekeeping is damaged. Likewise, the obligation does not apply where the damage is caused by force majeure, except where the damage arose during the operation of aviation transport. The fourth part concerns the allocation of fault: where a person uses a means of transport without the owner's permission, that person is obliged to compensate the damage in the owner's stead.
The passenger's position is especially strong through the contractual route. Under Article 668 of the Civil Code, by a contract of carriage the carrier is obliged, against payment of the agreed remuneration, to transport goods or convey a passenger to the place of destination. The ticket is precisely evidence of this contract. The strength of the contractual route is defined by Article 669: the carrier is answerable for damage caused to the passenger, as well as for damage to or loss of the passenger's luggage. An exception is defined as well: no liability arises where the damage is caused by force majeure or by the passenger himself, or by the passenger's luggage.
The last part of this norm is a decisive instrument: the carrier's liability cannot be excluded or limited by contract. This means that conditions in tickets or regulations that restrict liability towards the passenger have no force, and the passenger's protection remains complete.
The General Fault Frame and the Coexistence of the Two Routes
The general basis of the tort route is Article 992 of the Civil Code: a person who, by an unlawful, intentional or negligent act, causes damage to another person, is obliged to compensate that damage. For the passenger, the practical significance of the two routes lies in the fact that the contractual claim also covers damage to luggage and does not admit restriction by contract, while the tort claim builds on the broad picture connected with the operation. When preparing a claim, both constructions are analysed together and the one that best fits the concrete facts is chosen.
Compensation and Non-Pecuniary Damage
The content of the claims of a passenger injured in an accident is determined by the Civil Code. In cases of bodily injury or damage to health, the victim may also demand compensation for non-pecuniary damage, while monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage may be demanded only in cases precisely defined by law, in the form of reasonable and fair compensation. This means that beyond physical harm the passenger may also claim compensation for moral damage, but substantiating this claim requires serious preparation.
The Limitation Period
Time discipline is essential. Under Article 1008 of the Civil Code, the limitation period for the right to demand compensation for damage caused by a tort is three years from the moment the victim learned of the damage or of the person obliged to compensate it. In a train accident, knowledge of the damage usually exists on the day of the event itself, so the running of the period must not be underestimated.
Our team fully supports passengers injured in train accidents: we identify the liable person and weigh the tort and contractual routes, build the evidentiary base from the ticket, medical documentation and the description of the luggage, assess pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and keep limitation control. Contact our specialists so that your claim is built with every available legal instrument.
Frequently Asked Questions
These questions arise most frequently on train accident claims.
Who answers for the passenger’s damage?
The owner of the means of transport — including a train — compensates damage arising from its operation; the carrier answers for the passenger and his baggage as well.
Can liability be excluded by contract?
No — the carrier’s liability cannot be excluded or limited by the contract.
What about force majeure?
The duty to compensate does not apply where the damage was caused by force majeure, by the passenger himself or by his baggage.
Within what term may the claim be brought?
The limitation period for claiming compensation of delictual damage is three years from the moment the victim learned of the damage or of the liable person.
How We Help on Legal.ge
In a train accident case the choice of the correct basis of the claim, proof of the damage and observance of the deadlines are decisive. The advocates of Legal.ge will assess your case, prepare the claim and protect your interests in court. Submit a request on the site.