Abstract

The article concerns the notion of vehicle movement as the premise for liability of the holder of a vehicle which is powered by the forces of nature (Art. 436 in conjunction with Art. 435 of the Civil Code). In the article, the author analyses the notion of movement of a vehicle basing on literature, Polish judicature and CJEU case law. The aim of the article is also to analyse whether the notion of vehicle movement shall also apply in situations when the vehicle was used as a work tool at the time when damage was done. The author criticizes the need of changing the way of understanding the notion of vehicle movement by Polish courts in connection with the CJEU judgement in the case Rodrigues de Andrade in which Court said that the damage which had been done by a vehicle which had been used as a work tool was not covered by the notion of “vehicle movement”.