Summary

The author analyses problems connected with the liability of a possessor of a motor vehicle. The first part of the article examines who bears liability under the Estonian law. The author is critical of the provisions of the Law of Obligations Act, which section 1057 provides only for the liability of the direct possessor. However, the author does not agree with the position voiced in theoretical writing that a possession servant (“Besitzdiener”) is also liable under the same provisions.

The second part of the article is devoted to the concept of operation of a motor vehicle, i.e. the cases covered by liability. This concept is analysed against the background of Estonian case law as well as the law and court practice of other countries.

Finally, the extent of the liability of a possessor of a motor vehicle is compared with the scope of the insurer’s obligation to compensate for traffic damage, and the agreement between the Motor Third Party Liability Insurance Act and the Law of Obligations Act in this issue is assessed. The author’s position is that liability that is independent of the guilt of a possessor of a motor vehicle should be of the same extent as covered by liability insurance.