An accident claim must identify the responsible person and prove each loss. ARG assists with liability, medical and financial evidence, and the choice between settlement and civil proceedings.
Clients often ask ARG whether the person who caused an accident must pay only the hospital bill or also lost earnings, rehabilitation and damage to personal belongings. The answer depends on how the incident happened and what can be proved, especially if recovery is still continuing when a settlement is offered.
ARG can arrange assessment and representation through authorised Bulgarian lawyers where the dispute concerns the following situations.
Contractual and tort liability require different analysis of the breached duty and recoverable consequences.
Each expense, income loss and personal consequence must be connected to the relevant event.
Financial damage and nonpecuniary harm require different evidence and must not be counted twice.
Scene records, medical documents and payment evidence support an assessment before conditions change.
The general duty to compensate culpably caused harm appears in Article 45 of the Bulgarian Obligations and Contracts Act (Закон за задълженията и договорите, ЗЗД). The closest broad comparison in England and Wales is liability in tort, including negligence, although Bulgarian statutory rules must be applied on their own terms. In particular, fault is presumed until the contrary is proved under Article 45, paragraph 2 of ЗЗД. That presumption does not relieve the claimant of establishing the harmful conduct, its unlawfulness, the damage and the causal connection required for the particular claim. A serious injury is evidence of a consequence, not automatic proof that every person associated with the place is legally responsible.
A claim based on a failure to act requires attention to the duty that should have been performed. If a dangerous condition remained after maintenance was reported, the relevant questions include who received the report, who had authority to arrange repairs and what practical measures were available. It is insufficient to argue that someone nearby could have done more in a general moral sense. The legal analysis must connect an identified obligation with an omission and then explain how that omission contributed to the injury. This is why dated complaints, inspection records and correspondence can matter as much as photographs taken after the event.
Personal injury adds a second causal inquiry. A medical record can establish that the claimant suffered a fracture, but the connection between that injury and the incident still requires evidence. The place and circumstances of the fall, the immediate symptoms and the timing of treatment can all be relevant. Where there was an existing medical condition, the issue may concern aggravation rather than creation of an entirely new condition. That distinction should be addressed openly with appropriate medical assistance. The claim becomes stronger when it accurately describes the actual change in health rather than insisting that every symptom began with the accident despite contrary records.
A visitor injured by falling equipment does not need to have bought anything from the premises owner before a claim can arise. Tort responsibility protects against unlawful harm independently of a contractual promise. By contrast, disappointment with the quality of a purchased service does not automatically establish a separate tort. The factual issue is whether the conduct violated an independent duty and caused the claimed injury. Where the same event involves a contractor, property owner and injured visitor, their separate legal relationships explain why the visitor may have a claim despite having signed no agreement with any of them.
Some incidents fall under special regimes, including particular employment, insurance or public authority relationships. The general rules should therefore be checked against the actual legal relationship before a claim is formulated. An injury sustained while working is not automatically analysed in the same way as an injury sustained while shopping. Likewise, a claim against an insurer raises questions distinct from the underlying responsibility of the person who caused the damage. ARG's assessment should identify these routes early, explain which factual findings they share and prevent inconsistent demands or missed requirements. Selecting the correct defendant and legal framework is part of building the claim, not a technical formality to be repaired at the end.
Financial losses should be separated into meaningful categories. Treatment expenses may be supported by prescriptions, invoices and payment records, together with evidence of their connection to the injury. Transport for necessary appointments may require a different explanation from ordinary commuting. When someone else paid an expense, the legal position of the person claiming it must be checked rather than assuming that every family payment belongs in the injured person's demand. The same care is needed where an insurer or another source has already reimbursed a cost. Payments should be recorded accurately so that a supported claim does not become a request for duplicate recovery.
Lost income is often more difficult to establish than the client initially expects. A salaried employee may have records of normal remuneration and the payments actually received during absence. A self-employed person may instead have contracts, completed work, accounts and evidence that a particular assignment could not be performed. The relevant question is the loss caused by the injury, not the largest turnover figure available. Continuing business expenses, replacement labour, postponed work and income received despite the interruption may all affect the assessment. The explanation should show why the claimed difference represents a real loss and how the calculation avoids counting the same consequence twice.
Pain, distress and interference with ordinary life cannot be reduced to a stack of receipts. Their monetary assessment is governed by fairness under Article 52 of ЗЗД. Fairness nevertheless requires concrete evidence about the injury and its consequences. Relevant matters can include the nature and duration of treatment, repeated procedures, restrictions on movement, continuing symptoms and the effect on activities that previously formed part of daily life. A medical diagnosis establishes an important starting point, but two people with superficially similar diagnoses may experience different recoveries. The claim should describe these differences accurately without relying on dramatic language or an assumed fixed payment for a particular injury.
Property damage likewise needs a defensible method. Repair quotations can help establish the work required, but an estimate is not the same as proof that every proposed improvement was made necessary by the incident. Photographs, earlier condition records and an assessment of whether repair is technically and economically justified may be needed. Replacing an already worn item with a substantially better one can raise a different question from restoring its former usefulness. Where a damaged item is also needed for work, its physical damage and any consequential interruption should be analysed separately. Keeping the item available for inspection, where safe and practicable, may resolve disputes that an invoice alone cannot answer.
A reduction for the injured person's contribution is addressed in Article 51, paragraph 2 of ЗЗД. The Supreme Court of Cassation considered its operation in Interpretative Decision No. 1/2021 of 1 August 2022, interpretative case No. 1/2021, General Assembly of the Civil and Commercial Chambers. The decision explains that conduct may be relevant when it contributes to the harmful event or increases the resulting injury. The practical issue is therefore the causal significance of identified actions or omissions. It is not enough to characterise the claimant as inattentive without showing what that inattention changed in the sequence of events or the extent of the damage.
A contribution argument should be tested in concrete terms. If the defendant says that equipment was left in standing water after the source was controlled, the relevant evidence concerns timing, access, safety and the possibility of moving it. If the allegation concerns an injury, a technical or medical assessment may be needed to explain whether a different action would have prevented or reduced the particular harm. A witness who merely believes that the claimant should have been more careful may offer little assistance on these questions. The defence should identify the behaviour relied on and the factual basis for its proposed effect, rather than substitute a standard percentage for analysis.
The court's approach to valuation is particularly important when contribution is established. In the same interpretative decision, the Supreme Court of Cassation held that the fair assessment of non-pecuniary harm is not limited by the amount requested before the contribution adjustment is made. The final award nevertheless cannot exceed the amount claimed. An offer based only on reducing the claimant's opening figure may therefore use the wrong starting point. This does not mean that the client is entitled to a higher amount simply by invoking the decision. The full injury must still be evidenced, and the contribution must be assessed on the proved circumstances.
The person responsible for the accident and the insurer do not owe money on identical grounds. A claim against the wrongdoer depends on civil liability, whereas an insurance route also depends on the relevant policy, insured risk, period and applicable claims procedure. The existence of a policy does not prove responsibility, and a refusal by the insurer does not automatically release the wrongdoer. Conversely, damage can fall outside a particular policy even though a civil claim remains well founded. The claimant should obtain the insurer’s identity and policy information without accepting that an informal referral to the insurer settles the question of who owes compensation.
An injured person also needs to distinguish liability insurance from their own accident, health or property cover. Payment under one arrangement may have a different legal purpose from compensation under another. Sums already received must be disclosed so that the same financial loss is not demanded twice and any recovery rights of the payer can be considered. A release signed with one participant should therefore be examined for its effect on the remaining claims, rather than treated as a routine receipt.
Responsibility may also arise for the work of another person. The person who assigned the work is responsible for damage caused during or in connection with its performance under Article 49 of ЗЗД. In a practical assessment, the relationship between the work and the damaging act needs to be established. A uniform or company vehicle may provide a lead, but the investigation should also consider who instructed the worker and what activity was being undertaken. Naming every associated company without explaining its role can increase expense and leave the core allegation unclear. Conversely, pursuing only an individual worker may overlook a legally relevant and financially meaningful defendant.
Damage originating from an object calls for a different examination. The owner and the person supervising the object are jointly responsible in the circumstances addressed by Article 50 of ЗЗД, which also covers harm caused by animals, including animals that have escaped or become lost. The distinction between harm arising from an object's properties and harm caused by someone's use of it can affect the legal basis. A falling component, an improperly operated machine and an animal escaping through an unsecured gate may require different evidence even where the final injury looks similar. The claim should describe the mechanism precisely enough to support the appropriate legal assessment.
Tell us where you live, how your business works and what you want to change. We will help you identify the questions to resolve and the next steps to consider.
A contractual claim becomes important where the defendant promised the very performance that failed, such as safely storing equipment or repairing a roof. The Bulgarian Obligations and Contracts Act (Закон за задълженията и договорите, ЗЗД) allows performance with compensation for delay or damages for non-performance under Article 79. The broad comparison in England and Wales is contractual damages, although Bulgarian statutory conditions govern the claim. Recoverable contractual losses and lost profit must meet the directness and foreseeability conditions in Article 82, with its qualification for a debtor acting in bad faith. This differs from simply applying the tort rule to every dispute arising after an accident.
Future consequences require particular restraint. A possibility mentioned during an early consultation is not automatically a recoverable future expense or a permanent loss of earning capacity. Medical prognosis, the expected course of treatment and evidence about work limitations help distinguish a supported future need from speculation. Changes in capacity connected with the injury can be relevant to adjustment of an award for lost working capacity under Article 51, paragraph 3 of ЗЗД. Before final settlement, the client should understand which consequences are already being valued, which remain uncertain and whether the proposed release would close claims that have not yet been properly assessed.
A lasting disability percentage and a loss of earnings answer different questions. The medical assessment can explain functional limitations, while employment or business records show the financial effect. Someone able to return to a reduced role may suffer a continuing income difference rather than complete loss of all future salary. Future rehabilitation should be connected to a reasoned medical recommendation, likely duration and realistic price. An unsupported lifetime estimate is vulnerable even when the initial injury is indisputable. Conversely, an expense need not be dismissed merely because it will arise after the first demand if its necessity and amount can be properly established.
The Bulgarian Code of Civil Procedure (Граждански процесуален кодекс, ГПК) provides for specialist evidence under Article 195, paragraph 1. Its evidential function is broadly comparable to the Civil Procedure Rules in England and Wales, without importing English procedural tests. A medical expert can connect symptoms, treatment and prognosis with the incident; an eyewitness usually establishes what was seen before or during it. Neither substitutes for the other. A witness who saw a fall cannot medically establish permanent disability, while a hospital record ordinarily does not identify who left the dangerous obstruction in place.
Witnesses should be identified by what they can actually establish. One person may have seen the fall, another may have noticed the defect earlier and a third may have helped the injured person afterwards. Their evidence has different relevance. Contact details and a brief record of their observations can help avoid losing access to them, but witnesses should not be coached into using legal terminology or agreeing on a common account. A candid difference in perspective can be entirely consistent with a real event. Artificial uniformity can be less persuasive than separate, clear accounts of what each person perceived.
The initial record should identify the place, time and sequence of the incident as precisely as the client can honestly recall. Photographs should retain their original files, and messages should be kept with their surrounding conversation. A cropped image or isolated sentence may be useful for explanation, but the complete material is often needed to assess context. The client should note which details were personally observed and which were reported by someone else. Uncertainty should be recorded as uncertainty. An account that becomes more confident with each retelling can create avoidable credibility problems when compared with contemporary records.
Necessary repairs and safety measures should still be addressed responsibly. A broken entrance cannot always remain untouched until proceedings begin. The question is how to preserve a reliable account before the condition changes. Depending on the circumstances, useful measures may include detailed photographs, measurements, retention of removed components and inspection by an appropriate specialist. The person performing the repair should be asked to record what was found and what work was undertaken. A later invoice stating only that repairs were completed may prove payment while saying little about the cause or extent of the original defect.
Negotiation does not remove the need to monitor limitation. The general period under Article 110 of ЗЗД is five years where no different period is prescribed. For tort claims, the starting rule in Article 114, paragraph 3 concerns discovery of the wrongdoer. The lawyer must still examine the particular claim, relevant special rules and circumstances affecting the running of time. A reminder letter or an unanswered complaint should not be treated as an automatic interruption. Acknowledgment and procedural action may have legal consequences under Article 116 of ЗЗД, but whether a particular statement or step qualifies depends on its actual content and legal conditions.
The release deserves the same attention as the amount. It should identify the event, the parties, the claims covered and whether the payment is partial or final. If future consequences are included, the client should understand that scope in light of the available medical information. Payment dates and any instalment arrangement should be clear. The document should also address the practical sequence between payment and the release of claims. A signed promise is different from cleared funds, and an agreement with a person who lacks authority may not deliver the expected result. These matters are especially important where the proposed payment comes from a different entity from the alleged wrongdoer.
Contribution should be addressed before an offer is evaluated. The Supreme Court of Cassation's Interpretative Decision No. 1/2021 of 1 August 2022, interpretative case No. 1/2021, General Assembly of the Civil and Commercial Chambers explains the relationship between Article 51, paragraph 2 and Article 52 of ЗЗД. The fair amount of non-pecuniary harm is assessed before reduction for established contribution, and the eventual award cannot exceed the amount requested. Accordingly, the claimant should examine both the evidence for the alleged contribution and the valuation from which any reduction is proposed. A percentage alone gives an incomplete picture of the settlement's significance.
Living abroad does not make the injury less compensable, but it changes how its consequences are demonstrated. Treatment after returning home should be linked to the original injury through discharge records, referrals and later findings. Foreign salary documents should identify actual earnings and payments received during absence, rather than merely state an annual headline figure. Documents presented in a foreign language require an accurate Bulgarian translation under Article 185 of ГПК. The translation should preserve diagnoses, dates and amounts, because an error in any of them may change the causal or financial assessment. The need for an examination or personal evidence should be considered before travel is booked.
Medical evidence begins with treatment, not litigation language. The client should describe symptoms and the event accurately to treating professionals and keep the resulting records. If symptoms develop or persist, subsequent assessments may be important both clinically and legally. Earlier conditions should be disclosed to the lawyer and relevant medical expert because they may affect the explanation of the new injury. The aim is to establish what the incident caused or aggravated. Suppressing inconvenient history can make that distinction harder and may undermine evidence that would otherwise support a limited but valid claim.
Territorial jurisdiction for a tort claim can include the place where the harmful act occurred under Article 115, paragraph 1 of ГПК. That rule concerns the choice of Bulgarian court; it does not by itself settle every question of international jurisdiction where defendants or events are connected with another state. The competent level of court also depends on the claim and its value. A separate claim against an insurer may engage different venue rules, so the address of a holiday apartment should not be used automatically for every defendant.
The civil court determines responsibility and compensation on the claims and evidence presented. A police complaint can investigate an offence, but it does not itself order payment of every medical expense. A final conviction has the specific binding effect under Article 300 of ГПК, while the amount of civil loss still needs proof. Choosing the court route therefore requires a supported demand and a clear defendant, not simply the existence of a police file.
The location of assets matters after responsibility is established. A Bulgarian judgment against one company does not permit seizure of an unrelated group company’s bank account simply because the businesses use the same brand. Before expensive litigation, the claimant should distinguish the operator, property owner and any separately liable person, then consider whether available assets or a realistic voluntary payment make recovery feasible. If assets are abroad, recognition and enforcement there require their own legal route.
Foreign records should also show who actually paid each expense. A family member’s payment, an employer’s continued salary or reimbursement from another source may affect the financial schedule and must not disappear from it. Original documents, complete payment records and a clear conversion calculation allow the claim to be checked. ARG can coordinate the evidence with authorised Bulgarian counsel, including any judicial steps needed to preserve evidence, while explaining which expenses relate to proving the claim and which arise only during enforcement.
Compare the related procedures in this category, including their requirements and the stage at which you need them.
.svg)
.svg)
