Jugement Kantonsgericht (VD - Jug/2020/185)

Canton:	VD
Case number:	Jug/2020/185

Instance:	Kantonsgericht
Department:	Cour d'appel pénale

Kantonsgericht Entscheid Jug/2020/185 vom 14.05.2020 (VD)

Date:	14.05.2020
Force of law:	-

Summary:	The court confirms the verdict of the Lausanne Cantonal Court, according to which Y.________ was sentenced to a fine for negligent assault. Y.________ drove her car on the highway and rammed the car of Q.________ and D.________. Q.________ and D.________ suffered minor injuries. Y.________ had not kept enough distance from Q.________ and D._______. Y.________ must bear the court costs. More detailed summary: Y.________ was sentenced by the Cantonal Court of Lausanne on 3 December 2019 to a fine of 30 daily rates à 30 francs for negligent bodily injury. She had rammed another car with her car on the highway, in which Q.________ and D.________ were sitting. Q.________ and D.________ suffered minor injuries. Y.________ appealed the verdict. The Appeals Chamber of the Criminal Division of the Cantonal Court of Vaud has now confirmed the verdict. The court considers that Y.________ had not kept a sufficient distance from Q.________ and D._______. She could have recognized the danger of an accident and avoided it. Y.________ must now bear the court costs in the amount of 1200 francs. More details: The accident occurred on 25 November 2019 on the A1 motorway between Lausanne and Geneva. Y.________ was driving her car towards Geneva when she ran into Q.________ and D.________ who were driving towards Lausanne. Q.________ and D.________ were hospitalized with minor injuries. They suffered bruises and abrasions. Y.________ was stopped by the police and arrested. She stated that she could not remember the accident. Grounds for judgment: The Appellate Chamber considers that Y.________ had not kept a sufficient distance from Q.________ and D._______. She could have recognized the danger of an accident and avoided it. The court is based on the following findings: Y.________ drove at a speed of 120 km /h, although the maximum permissible speed was 100 km /h. Y.________ was distracted as she was fiddling with her cell phone. Y.________ did not notice the accident until it was too late. The court notes that Y.________ by her behavior endangered the health of Q.________ and D.________. She must therefore be liable for the consequences of the accident.
Rule of Law:	Art. 100 LTF;Art. 315 CPP;Art. 398 CPP;Art. 399 CPP;Art. 407 CPP;Art. 428 CPP;
BGE reference::	-
Comment:	-

Please note that there is no claim to topicality/accuracy/format and/or completeness and that therefore any guarantee is excluded. Original decisions may be ordered or made on the basis of the competent court.

Click here to return to the page search engine.