The Dubai Civil Court of Appeal has affirmed a previous court decision to grant compensation of 141,000 dirhams to a 71-year-old Arab woman for damages incurred in a hit-and-run accident.
The court rejected appeals from both the plaintiff, who sought an increase in compensation to 500,000 dirhams, and the insurance company, which aimed to reduce the specified amount due to shared responsibility for the incident.
The woman's claim was based on her being struck by a bus insured by the defendant company while crossing the road. The accident resulted from the negligence of an Asian driver, as per the police report. The woman sustained severe injuries, including fractures in her right forearm, wrist, hand, leg, and the heel of her left foot. She spent two months in the hospital, incurring medical bills exceeding 66,000 dirhams, with ongoing treatment.
The offending driver faced charges from the public prosecution for recklessly endangering another person's safety by not considering the circumstances, lacking necessary caution, and disregarding traffic rules. The woman also faced charges for not adhering to traffic rules while crossing the road.
An expert report from the General Traffic Department of Dubai Police revealed that both parties were at fault. The driver was negligent, not considering pedestrian road users, while the woman did not follow safe crossing procedures.
The Penal Court found both parties guilty, imposed fines, and the case moved to the civil phase. The woman appealed to the Insurance Disputes Settlement and Resolution Committee, seeking treatment expenses and 400,000 dirhams in compensation for physical and emotional damages. The committee awarded her 80,000 dirhams, prompting her to appeal to the Civil Criminal Court, emphasizing ongoing treatment costs and the unfairness of the committee's decision.
The insurance company argued against the lawsuit, citing a lack of validity and proof. The first-instance court amended the committee's decision, increasing compensation to 141,600 dirhams. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the ruling.