Crimes A taxi driver collided with a man and a small child on a guardrail last year, the Court of Appeal condemned a serious threat to traffic safety

The Court of Appeal found the act outrageous, even though the taxi driver appealed to the weather and poor visibility.

Cabby collided with a man and a three-year-old child on a shelter in Helsinki in early 2019. The man broke a bone, the child also suffered minor injuries.

The Court of Appeal outlined this week whether the incident should be considered a serious threat to traffic safety. The judgment concluded that yes. Evening and wet weather are not enough reasons to give attention to the slack in the city.

Thus, the conditional imprisonment received by the taxi driver remains unchanged in accordance with the decision of the district court.

Criminal took place in January 2019 in Katajanokka. The taxi driver had just left the customer on board in the evening when he collided with a man and his little daughter crossing the guardrail. In his own words, the driver spotted people too late and only got his car to stop on the shelter.

The man’s humerus broke. The child got a bruise and a bump on the head.

In the District Court the driver acknowledged that there was a risk of injury and a risk to basic road safety. However, the court held that the act could be regarded as a serious threat to road safety. The guardrail must be driven at such a speed that it has time to stop and give way to pedestrians.

A year ago, the district court sentenced the driver to sixty days in probation. Police also imposed a driving ban on him for eight months, during which time he could not drive a taxi.

In the Court of Appeal, the driver relied on the fact that he said he was driving at a quiet speed. It was really dark and rainy at the time of the incident, he said. A pile of snow and a lamppost obscured visibility on the guardrail.

The court examined the pictures taken at the scene and found that there had been normal winter weather at the time of the accident. The motorist should have been able to prepare for the movement of pedestrians on the guardrail.

The Court of Appeal did not change the district court’s judgment at all.


Related Posts

Next Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Premium Content