“Fled the scene” – this is one of the phrases from Article 43 of the Compulsory Insurance Act that insurers interpret broadly and courts interpret far more cautiously. Simply driving away from the scene of a collision is not automatically “fleeing” within the meaning of the legislation. Understanding this distinction is the key to an effective defence.
What “Fleeing” Means in Law
Article 43(4) of the Act of 22 May 2003 on Compulsory Insurance gives the insurer the right to recourse where the driver “fled the scene.” The provision does not define the term, but the case law is consistent on this point.
Courts require proof that the driver left deliberately, with the intention of avoiding responsibility – preventing their own identification, concealing their condition (for example their sobriety) or evading the establishment of the circumstances of the incident. Simply driving away from the scene without such an intention does not satisfy the fleeing ground.
The burden of proof lies with the insurer. It is the insurer that must demonstrate the driver acted with intent to escape – the mere fact of having driven away is not sufficient.
Situations That Do Not Constitute Fleeing
Moving the vehicle for safety reasons. Pulling away a few dozen metres to avoid blocking a junction or lane of traffic is an obligation – not an escape. Road safety is a legally protected value.
Driving away with the intention of returning. Where the driver left to collect documents, bring assistance or find witnesses, and then returned to the scene, there is no question of fleeing. Documenting the actual return is critical.
Lack of awareness that damage was caused. Drivers of heavy goods vehicles, vans or vehicles with trailers may not notice light contact with another vehicle. If an expert confirms that the damage was impossible to see from the driver’s position, the fleeing ground falls away.
Leaving contact details. A note with a phone number left under the wiper, a message passed through a witness, or verbal communication of details to a third party – each of these demonstrates the absence of any intent to escape. It is worth photographing any note before leaving it.
An agreement reached at the scene. Where the injured party agreed to an informal resolution at the scene and subsequently changed their mind and reported the claim to the insurer, the driver can demonstrate that they acted in good faith.
Lines of Defence
Demonstrating the absence of intent to escape. This is the primary line of defence. Every circumstance indicating that the driver did not want to avoid responsibility – returning to the scene, reporting the incident, contacting the injured party – strengthens the procedural position.
Challenging awareness of having caused damage. Particularly effective in cases involving minimal scratches, damage invisible from the driver’s cab and low-speed collisions in car parks. An expert’s opinion confirming that the driver objectively could not have noticed the contact is decisive evidence in such cases.
Electronic documentation. Photographs of the scene with metadata, dashcam footage, phone call records, SMS message history with the injured party – all of this can corroborate the driver’s account.
Witness testimony. Passengers in the vehicle, passers-by, employees of nearby premises, other drivers. Witness details should be collected immediately after the incident.
What to Avoid
Do not admit to “fleeing” – even if you feel you should have stayed. Phrases such as “I’m sorry I drove off” or “I knew I should have waited” can be interpreted as an admission of intent.
Do not ignore correspondence from the insurer. Silence does not make the claim disappear – it may, however, be interpreted as an absence of counterarguments.
Do not delete any evidence – photographs, recordings, text messages or call history. These are your defence arguments.
Stick to one consistent account of events. Contradictory explanations undermine credibility and make a defence considerably harder.
A Practical Rule for the Future
After any road incident, document everything, collect witness details and – if you have to leave – write down your contact information clearly and photograph the note before leaving it. This one habit can protect against serious financial consequences.
Contact Us
A recourse claim for alleged fleeing is one that can be effectively challenged with the right defence. The sooner a lawyer reviews the case, the more time there is to gather evidence and prepare a strategy.
It pays to be properly prepared: both in knowing what you can claim and in having a clear strategy.
We handle cases for drivers in Poznań and across the Wielkopolska region, with in-person and online consultations available for clients elsewhere in Poland.
Adwokat Marta Krzyżanowicz and Adwokat Michalina Koligot Law Firm “Adwokat dla Kierowców w Poznaniu”
ul. Adama Mickiewicza 18/3, 60-834 Poznań
tel. +48 795 001 536 · +48 531 335 713
kontakt@adwokatdlakierowcy.pl · www.adwokatdlakierowcy.pl
This text is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case requires individual analysis.
