Facts
Parties: Appellant (Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich) and Respondent (Dr. X.).
Facts: On April 12, 2001, the sports shooter A. was investigated by the Zug police due to an incident involving two pistols. The weapons were seized, and a "certificate of non-objection" from a doctor was required for their return. A. contacted X., who issued such a certificate after a one-hour conversation. On March 11, 2004, A. seriously injured her former boyfriend C. with one of the returned pistols. A. was also carrying a second pistol, which was not part of the return.
Lower Court: The Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich acquitted X. of the charge of negligent serious bodily injury, as the return of the pistol was not causally linked to the outcome, since A. could have also used the second pistol.
Appeal: The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich files an appeal in criminal matters, requesting that the judgment of the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich of April 4, 2008 in the case of X. be overturned and the case remanded to the lower court for a new decision.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the issuance of the "certificate of non-objection" by X. constitutes a breach of duty of care and whether this breach was causally linked to the serious bodily injury of C. The court finds that X., as a general practitioner and psychoanalyst, did not have the necessary training and experience to create a prognosis about A.'s future behavior. X. only had a one-hour conversation with A. and did not verify her statements. The lower court had found breaches of duty of care but justified the acquittal by stating that A. could have also used the second pistol.
The Federal Supreme Court holds that the issuance of the "certificate of non-objection" was a cause of the outcome, as without this certificate the pistol would not have been returned. The fact that A. had a second pistol is…