Chelyabinsk Road Contractors Must Pay 2 Million Rubles for Fatal Crash
The regional court ruled on a civil claim related to a crash on the Stepnoye – Troitsk highway, in which the driver of a Honda Civic died. The court required the contractor, the company «Ural-Service-Group», to pay compensation for moral damages of 2 million rubles (about $22,000 at current rates) to Sergey Styazhkin, the father of driver Pavel Styazhkin. On 24 July 2021, his car veered off the road and hit a fence, which, according to the family, was faulty and led to the son«s death.
Despite the victory in the regional court, Sergey Styazhkin is dissatisfied with the progress of the case: he says the civil claim was filed more out of desperation, as it had been impossible to bring the road workers to criminal responsibility. Soon after the regional court«s decision, the investigative department of the Investigative Committee for Chelyabinsk Region once again terminated the criminal case due to the absence of a criminal event under Articles 238 and 293 of the Russian Criminal Code (provision of services that fail to meet safety requirements and negligence). Sergey Styazhkin intends to continue fighting, demanding punishment for those he believes are guilty of his son»s death.
Here is a brief summary of the main events. The fence on the 73rd kilometer of the Stepnoye – Troitsk highway was initially damaged by a VAZ-2114 that had veered off the road. This happened on 30 June 2021, almost a month before Styazhkin«s crash. The main point of contention between the parties is whether the barrier was restored by the road contractors after the first crash and whether its faulty condition could have been the direct cause of Pavel Styazhkin»s death.
The contract for servicing that road that year was won by JSC «Oikumena», with LLC «Ural-Service-Group» acting as the subcontractor.
Pavel Styazhkin was found guilty of the crash. The criminal case under Article 264 of the Criminal Code was closed due to his death. According to the case materials, Pavel Styazhkin violated clause 10.1 of the Traffic Rules, which requires choosing a speed appropriate to the driving conditions. The exact cause of the Honda veering off is not established: Sergey Styazhkin suspects his son may have lost control due to an argument with a female passenger. Nevertheless, Sergey is convinced that it was not the act of veering off but the condition of the barrier that caused his son«s death.
In August 2024, he and his lawyer Sergey Vydrya succeeded in getting a criminal case opened under Article 238 of the Criminal Code (provision of unsafe services). They also insisted on opening a case under Article 293 (negligence) against traffic police and road service employees for failing to issue an order to repair the barrier, but the Investigative Committee refused in this instance. The case under Article 238 was terminated in May 2025 due to the absence of a criminal event.
After this, Sergey Styazhkin filed a civil lawsuit with the court of the Central District of Chelyabinsk, demanding compensation for moral damages. The first-instance courts denied him, but in the autumn of last year, the Seventh Cassation Court overturned the previous decisions and sent the case for a new review. As a result, the regional court, re-examining the case, ordered «Ural-Service-Group» to pay Sergey Styazhkin 2 million rubles (he had requested 5 million).
Natalya Usova, head of the «Auto Lawyer» company who handled the civil case for moral damages compensation, said the cassation court took into account an examination conducted as part of the criminal case. It showed that the collision occurred with a destroyed fence.
«And Pavel Styazhkin»s death occurred because when colliding with the already destroyed metal fence, its sharp edge penetrated the cabin, pierced the driver«s body through, from which he died,» Natalya Usova continues. «At the same time, GOST »Public Automobile Roads« directly states that a fence is safe only if, upon a car colliding with it, parts of the fence do not penetrate the cabin.»
We presented the arguments of the parties in a separate article. The road contractors insist that the fence was restored on 1 July 2021, three weeks before the Honda crash. Sergey Styazhkin doubts the authenticity of a number of documents provided by the road workers to the court. He also cites the results of a forensic examination within the criminal case, one conclusion of which indicates that at the moment of the Honda crash, the fence did not comply with GOST standards.
The official cause of the crash is the driver«s violation of clause 10.1 of the Traffic Rules, but the parties disagree in their assessment of subsequent events: lawyers for »Oikumena« and »Ural-Service-Group« insist that it is precisely the driver»s error that is the direct cause of the tragedy. Sergey Styazhkin«s side is convinced that the driver is guilty of losing control of the car, but the severity of the consequences is due to the fence»s faulty condition.
What the Road Contractors and the Lawyer Say
The company «Ural-Service-Group» told us they intend to appeal the appellate decision of the judicial panel of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on this case in a higher court.
«During the consideration of the criminal case, the verdict of the Plast City Court of Chelyabinsk Region dated 02.05.2023, which entered into legal force, established that the crash on 24.07.2021 occurred as a result of criminal negligence committed by driver Styazhkin P. S., who, in violation of the Russian Traffic Rules, did not choose a safe speed, was distracted, and drove onto the shoulder. With the permitted speed limit on this section of the road being 90 km/h (about 56 mph), the speed of the »Honda« driven by Styazhkin P. S. exceeded 160 km/h (about 99 mph). The examination of the FBU CHELSEC established the driver»s guilt. Furthermore, the expert concluded that the technical condition of the road fence has no causal connection with the crash that occurred.«
We note that in the examination ordered during the consideration of the criminal case under Article 238 of the Criminal Code, we found no information about the Honda«s speed: this question was not put to the expert. Styazhkin»s lawyer Sergey Vydrya stated in a telephone conversation with us that the figure of 160 km/h mentioned by «Ural-Service-Group» had not been encountered by him in this or other case materials.
«On the contrary, within the framework of the examination for the criminal case under Article 264 of the Criminal Code, the expert concluded that there was no actual speeding, meaning the car was moving at a speed of 80–90 km/h (about 50–56 mph),» says Sergey Vydrya.
Let us clarify that the mentioned violation of clause 10.1 of the Traffic Rules usually implies that the driver either failed to take braking measures upon detecting a danger or was driving at a speed not appropriate to the road conditions, weather, lighting, vehicle condition, and so on. In other words, this violation does not necessarily mean exceeding speed limits: sometimes yes, sometimes no. In this case, Sergey Styazhkin«s side does not dispute the investigation»s conclusions in the criminal case against the driver (Article 264), but is convinced that the act of veering off itself would not have been fatal with a properly functioning fence.
«Meanwhile, the road organization submitted to the case materials evidence of the restoration of the barrier fence after the earlier crash (30.06.2021),» states the response from «Ural-Service-Group». «Evidence refuting this fact has not been presented by the plaintiff. Evidence of guilt and a causal link in the actions of the road organization is absent.»
«We Will Go to the Prosecutor General»s Office«
Lawyer Sergey Vydrya says the criminal case is not being closed for the first time.
«Investigators, for some reason, do not want to listen to witnesses who speak about the fence being faulty in the days between the first and second crash,» he says. «The argument of the road contractors that the fence did not impede traffic and could not have been the cause of the crash is, in our opinion, untenable, because it»s about something else. The function of a road fence is to reduce the severity of consequences when a car veers off, regardless of the reason. We have quite intelligent requirements for fences: for example, their ends must be buried in the ground precisely so that the car is not pierced like a skewer. Hitting a properly functioning fence, the car might have overturned, but a belted driver would most likely not have been seriously injured.«
In the refusal to open a criminal case, representatives of the investigative department of the Investigative Committee for Yuzhnouralsk rejected such arguments as being of a probabilistic nature.
Sergey Vydrya positively assesses the Regional Court«s decision.
«This once again confirms that the arguments we have been making from the very beginning are valid,» he says. «Now we are waiting to receive the court decision in hand, after which we plan to again file complaints with the Investigative Committee of Russia and prosecutors at all levels. This time, I think we will go to the Prosecutor General»s Office with a complaint specifically about the fact that locally they do not want to examine this case in detail and hear our arguments.«
Sergey Styazhkin adds that he does not regard the regional court«s decision as a victory.
«I don»t need the money; we filed the civil lawsuit only because there were no other ways to punish the road services,« he says. »I plan to continue fighting.«
In response to our inquiry in November 2025, the traffic police of Chelyabinsk Region reported that the crash involving Pavel Styazhkin«s Honda Civic was registered, but they have no reliable information about issuing orders to the contractor organization to repair the damaged barrier, and the condition of the road fence immediately before the crash is also unknown.
A similar story is the mass crashes with concrete blocks at a road construction site on a federal highway. One of the affected drivers is also trying to achieve justice in the courts, but so far without success.
