Invalidenstrasse in Berlin, September 2019: A Porsche Macan Turbo races unbraked onto the sidewalk at 102 kilometers per hour, knocks over several bollards and a traffic light pole and hits four people. Two men, a little boy and his grandmother die at the scene of the accident. There are few crimes where it is so clear what exactly happened: The driver was convulsed by an epileptic seizure and pressed the accelerator pedal to the floor. His mother, sitting next to him, tried in vain to pull his leg away.
However, there are few cases in which it is so difficult to judge how guilty the accused is and how he should be punished for his crime. The Berlin regional court on Thursday imposed a two-year sentence, suspended on probation, for negligent homicide and endangering road traffic, thus going beyond the request of the public prosecutor. The presiding judge says in the verdict that this decision was extremely difficult for the chamber.
Because in the trial against the entrepreneur Michael M., not everything was as clear as it seemed at first glance. What is certain is that Michael M. suffered an epileptic seizure in May 2019, four months before the accident, and had to go to the emergency room. He was then treated with an epilepsy drug, and in August a brain tumor that was a possible cause of the seizure was removed. Both epilepsy and brain surgery are reasons why you are not allowed to drive or have to have your fitness to drive checked by a doctor. Despite this, 45-year-old Michael M. kept getting behind the wheel. On that September evening he was on his way to a restaurant with his family.
Contradictory statements from the doctors
On the one hand, M. did this because he “underestimated the risk of another seizure,” says the presiding judge. On the other hand, the trial also revealed that the doctors treating him had not pointed out the risk of his illness clearly enough. A doctor’s letter said that M. had to be seizure-free for three months before he could drive again. Another doctor said to be careful for four weeks after his tumor surgery. Nevertheless, M. is guilty of deliberate negligence, the judge finds. As a road user, he is not only obliged to check his fitness to drive before he gets behind the wheel. Rather, as an intelligent man, he was also able to obtain precise information, and he should have done so in the face of contradictory statements from doctors.
The accused (left) next to his lawyer on the day of the verdict in the Berlin district court.
(Photo: Annette Riedl/dpa)
The judge said the chamber had long considered whether M. should go to prison for his actions. The fact that M. “just about” received a suspended sentence is due to the mitigating circumstances. M. spoke out in detail in court and agreed to release the doctors from their duty of confidentiality, which meant that the events could be clarified almost completely. He also did not commit any traffic offenses and had already paid a large sum to the victims’ relatives.
And one more thing is unusual: both the representatives of the co-plaintiffs and the defense counsel for the accused are satisfied with the verdict. The defense attorney, because a certain failure of the doctors had been recognized, the co-plaintiff, because the court clearly assigned responsibility for the death of four people to the driver. One is also satisfied with the court’s decision to revoke Michael M.’s driver’s license for “characteristic reasons”, says a lawyer for the co-plaintiff. It is important for the relatives to know that something like this cannot happen again. However, Ms defense attorney says that M. will not get into a car for the foreseeable future anyway.