Car damage only after an accident in Spain: claim repair costs

The first court awarded everything, the appeal court awarded nothing, and the Supreme Court awarded exactly half. On the night of 25 December 2010 a taxi and a Summa-112 emergency vehicle collided head-on in Madrid. Neither driver could prove the other was at fault: the police report did not establish how it happened, and the criminal case against the taxi driver ended in acquittal for lack of evidence. The claim was about property: the taxi repair, €6,914.92 on an invoice paid by its insurer MMT, plus the days off the road, valued by the Madrid taxi guild at €122.05 a day. The first-instance court awarded €13,358.96. In 2016 the Madrid Provincial Court reversed that in full: since neither driver had proven the other’s fault, the faults cancelled out, so nobody paid — and the claimants were ordered to pay the first-instance costs. The full Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court then took the case and set the doctrine.

What was not obvious. Where only property is damaged, liability does not rest on the “social solidarity with victims” that governs personal injury, but on fault — with the burden of proof reversed. Of the three possible answers (each driver pays the other’s damage in full; the faults cancel out and nobody pays; each pays half), the plenary chose the third: “cada uno asuma la indemnización de los daños del otro vehículo en un 50%”. Hence the practical lesson no guide states: where two vehicles collided and the causal share of each driver cannot be established, “fault was not established, so there is no payment” does not match the plenary doctrine — in that case each driver covers half of the other’s damage. Outside that situation (one driver’s fault proven, or damage that did not come from a collision between two vehicles) the rule is different and half cannot be promised. The reverse still holds: if fault in the collision cannot be established you recover half rather than all of it, which is what photos taken before the cars are moved and a properly completed parte amistoso are really worth.

Outcome: €13,358.96 awarded at first instance → €0 on appeal → €6,679.48 (half) after the Supreme Court. The penalty interest under art. 20 of the Insurance Contract Act was also replaced with ordinary legal interest. The dispute ran more than eight years: the collision in December 2010, the claim filed in December 2012, the plenary judgment in May 2019.

The doctrine is current: art. 1 of the Motor Vehicle Liability and Insurance Act (RDLeg 8/2004) as interpreted by the Supreme Court plenary in 294/2019. Do not confuse it with the rule for injuries: there, where fault cannot be apportioned, cross-indemnities apply in full (STS 536/2012) — so the same impact is split differently for people and for metal.

Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, sitting in plenary · 27.05.2019