Facts
The case concerns a road accident that occurred in Zurich, in which a pedestrian was seriously injured by a drunk driver. The driver, Spadin, had taken the reins of the vehicle belonging to his colleague, Lutz, after a night of alcohol consumption. Lutz was aware of Spadin's state of intoxication and had participated in the decision to drive to Zurich. The court of first instance convicted Lutz of bodily harm through negligence and complicity in drunk driving. The court of appeal upheld the judgment, but dismissed the charge of serious bodily harm.
The Zurich cantonal prosecutor's office filed a nullity appeal with the Federal Court, requesting the annulment of the judgment and the referral of the case to the court of appeal for a new conviction of Lutz for serious bodily harm.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the question of whether the court of appeal's decision was based on a correct interpretation of articles 125 para. 2 SCC and 2 para. 1 VRV. The Federal Court considered that the court of appeal had made an error in dismissing the charge of serious bodily harm, as Lutz was aware of Spadin's state of intoxication and had participated in the decision to drive to Zurich.
The Federal Court also examined the question of natural and adequate causality between Lutz's behavior and the bodily harm suffered by the pedestrian. The Federal Court considered that natural causality was established, as if Lutz had not allowed Spadin to drive his vehicle, the accident would not have occurred.
Finally,…