There were no regulations or case-law concerning the compensation of damage caused by wild animals until the Supreme Court of Lithuania passed a judgment as of March 24, 2009 that at least partly filled the legal gap. In this legal case, the question of compensation of pecuniary damages was examined. The damage was caused when a car collided with an elk that ran across the road the car was driving on. This case is probably the most common situation in which the question of compensation of damages caused by wild animals can arise.
Article 6.267 Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code provides that damage caused by wild animals shall be redressed in accordance with the procedure established by law. In the case mentioned, the state was sued for the damages caused by the wild animal as the state is the owner of wild fauna and should be liable for the damage caused by it. The Supreme Court had never examined such a case before.
Naturally state's representative argued that no damages should be compensated in such an instance. The Supreme Court did not agree with that position 's as did not agree with judgements of the court of the first instance and the court of appellate instance 's which dismissed the claim. It was ruled that damage caused by wild animals should be compensated and that it is a person's constitutional right to claim for such damages and damages should be awarded to him. Also, the abovementioned Civil Code provision sets that the constitutional right to claim for damages is exercised in accordance with the procedure established by law. There are no laws in Lithuania that establish procedures in which the damage caused by wild animals shall be redressed.
The Court decided that absence of such law shall not deny person's constitutional right to claim for damages.
Consequently the Supreme Court stated that the non-existence of clear procedures regulating the compensation of damages means that the legislation did not perform its duty set in Article 6.267 Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code to regulate civil relations in the field of compensation for damage caused by wild animals. Thus the Court, exercising its constitutional duty to eliminate legal gaps, applied analogy of statute, which means that civil relationships not regulated by the norms of the Civil law shall be governed by civil laws that regulate similar relationships.
Article 6.267 Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code regulates compensation of damage caused by domestic animals or wild animals that are in somebody's custody and sets that damage caused by such animals compensated by their owner (possessor) unless he proves the occurrence of the circumstances indicated in Paragraph 1 of Article 6.270 of Civil Code, i.e. provides strict civil liability. As the hazardousness of wild animals is not less than that of domestic animals or wild animals that are in somebody's custody, Paragraph 1 of Article 6.270 regulates similar relations and should be applied as analogy of statute.
Although the Supreme Court did not provide the final decision in the case (it returned the case to the court of appellate instance) it gave a clear message that state's liability can arise when damage is caused by the wild animal, especially in the situation in which is most common for such disputes to arise.
Jonas Platelis is an advocate at Jurevicius, Balciunas & Bartkus, a member of Baltic Legal Solutions, a pan-Baltic integrated legal network of law firms including Glikman & Partnerid in Estonia and Kronbergs & Cukste in Latvia, dedicated to providing a quality "one-stop shop" approach to clients' needs in the Baltics.
