A 32-year-old emergency doctor is on trial for gross violation of traffic rules. The public prosecutor claims that he was driving too fast, improperly using flashing lights and sirens on a trip and nobody was in mortal danger. The court sees it differently.
Autobahn at night.
For neutral, experienced process observers, the case belongs to the category “Do public prosecutors and courts really have nothing better to do?”: On May 6, 2020, early in the morning at 4:07 a.m., an emergency doctor drove through a construction site in a marked company car with flashing lights and a siren on the A1 in Winterthur, where Tempo 80 was signaled. He was flashed at 121 km / h. After deducting the tolerance of 6 km / h, a speed of 115 km / h remained, i.e. 35 km / h too much, which fulfills the criminal offense of grossly violating traffic rules. Now the 32-year-old doctor stands as a suspect before the district court of Winterthur.
The public prosecutor, who does not have to appear at the trial in single judge proceedings, applies for a conditional fine of 10 daily rates of CHF 250 each and a fine of CHF 2500. In his indictment, he argues that there was no urgent emergency trip and no urgent business trip. The doctor’s mandate was not to “save human lives, but merely to examine welfare accommodation in Schaffhausen”.
There is a risk of driving license revocation and job loss
The doctor appeared without a lawyer and explained his point of view to the court in detail, calmly and objectively. He confesses to having driven too fast with flashing lights and siren, but that was justified by the situation. He was on an urgent business trip. The accused works 100 percent as an emergency doctor and has to drive the company car himself. A conviction would result in the withdrawal of the driver’s license and thus also drastic professional consequences.
As the accused states, he makes 10 to 20 business trips a day as an emergency doctor and has already made over 10,000 such trips. He works for the company SOS Doctors Turicum, which has a service mandate from the health department to ensure mobile medical care in the canton of Zurich. In addition, the emergency doctors are regularly called out to work by the Zurich city police, the Winterthur city police and the Schaffhausen canton police, often in cases where medical care has to take place against the will of the patient. For legal reasons, 144 outpatient departments do not undertake emergency treatment for patients who refuse to do so.
The mission in question was carried out on behalf of the Schaffhausen canton police, which at the time drove out to the scene of the incident itself with blue lights. He was even withdrawn from another case because of the urgency of the operation, explains the accused. He was informed that a woman was in a state of emergency. She was in her apartment with a knife and was screaming and rioting. You threw furniture out of the window. In addition, it was known that she had alcohol problems and performed cold withdrawal at home.
Two life-threatening components
The case had two life-threatening components that made it urgent for him to get to the scene as quickly as possible, explains the doctor: A cold withdrawal could lead to a life-threatening, severe alcohol withdrawal delirium. To avoid a fatal seizure that could occur suddenly, it is important that the person is given medication quickly. Second, it was an armed woman in a state of madness who put herself and others at risk. Such situations could tip over very quickly. The people are not looking for help, but often feel cornered and have problems with uniformed people. It is important that, as a doctor in civilian clothes, he can create trust.
The doctor also requests that he should be acquitted of the speeding violation. There was no traffic, the weather and visibility were good and the two-lane road – despite the construction site – was still dry. There was a justifying reason for the traffic rule violation. He assumed that there was a life-threatening situation. The decision that he would be called up was ultimately made by the police. The arguments of the public prosecutor’s office are difficult to understand for him.
The doctor convinced the single judge with his arguments. She acquits him completely. The costs go to the court treasury. The acquitted receives a handling fee of 500 francs for the procedure. The judge justified that it was clearly an urgent business trip. From a medical point of view, the woman was in a potentially life-threatening condition. The doctor could invoke a justification for exceeding the speed limit. He had exercised the necessary care and proportionality.
The trip was only justified under the specific circumstances. The single judge notes that the acquittal is not a general free pass for blue-light organizations. It is always necessary to weigh up all the specific circumstances.
Judgment GG210084 of January 4, 2022, not yet legally binding.