Facts
The appellant [A.] was injured during a first parachute jump. The respondent 1, [X.] , was accused of inadequately supervising and guiding the appellant by radio. The District Court acquitted the respondent 1 of the charge of negligent serious bodily harm and referred the appellant's civil claims to the civil court. The Cantonal Court confirmed this decision. The appellant filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Court and requested that the judgment be overturned and the respondent 1 be found guilty of negligent serious bodily harm.
The parties are the appellant [A.] , the respondent 1 [X.] , and the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Lucerne. The proceedings were conducted at the Federal Court under the number 6B_92/2019.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the appellant's legitimation to file a criminal appeal. It found that the appellant's civil claims had already been referred to the civil court with binding effect and that the appellant did not claim that the Cantonal Court had wrongly established the binding effect of the District Court's judgment in the civil matter.
The Federal Court stated that the private prosecutor is only entitled to appeal in criminal matters if the contested decision can affect the assessment of their civil claims. Since the appellant's civil claims had already been referred to the civil court, the required legitimation was lacking.
The Federal Court also pointed out that the appellant did not claim that the Cantonal Court had wrongly established the binding effect of the District Court's judgment in the…