Accident escape

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dashcam recording of an accident escape in Chicago.

Accident escape (also driver escape ) describes the unauthorized removal of a road user from the scene of an accident after a traffic accident .

History of origin

Even in the early days of the automobile, the problem arose that the speed of the vehicles meant that someone involved in an accident could quickly leave without being identified. As a result, some security agencies began issuing ordinances that required those involved in an accident to stop and provide assistance after the accident.

In Germany, a first corresponding law was introduced in 1909. According to § 22 of the Law on Traffic with Motor Vehicles (KFG), "the driver of a motor vehicle who, after an accident, attempts to evade detection of the vehicle and his person by escaping," with a fine or imprisonment for up to two Months. The perpetrator remained unpunished "if he reports to a local police authority on the next day after the accident at the latest and has the vehicle and his person identified."

With the ordinance amending the penal provisions on negligent homicide, bodily harm and escape in traffic accidents of April 2, 1940, Section 22 of the KFG was repealed and introduced as Section 139a in the Criminal Code, extending it to all road users. According to this, the “Führerflucht” was punished with imprisonment up to two years or a fine, in particularly serious cases with imprisonment from six months to five years or imprisonment from one year to fifteen years. According to State Secretary Roland Freisler, the reason for the reform, which led to a tightening of the punishment, was the cowardice that characterizes fleeing from the scene of an accident. Nevertheless, the compatibility of the standard with the Basic Law was confirmed, so that it continued to apply on August 4, 1953 as Section 142 of the Criminal Code.

The norm was controversial from some points of view, in some cases it was considered unconstitutional from different points of view: Concerns were initially expressed about the fact that the norm might oblige the perpetrator to incriminate himself, which would violate the rule of law. In 1963, however, the Federal Constitutional Court confirmed the constitutional conformity of the offense of the accident flight, since the protective purpose of Section 142 of the Criminal Code, the safeguarding of the enforcement of civil law claims, takes precedence over the basic right of the perpetrator. Nevertheless, the reform of the facts was discussed regularly. On April 1, 1970, the prison and penitentiary were replaced by the unified custodial sentence . On January 1, 1975, the legislature made minor linguistic changes to the standard. On June 21, 1975, the particularly serious cases were abolished and the maximum sentence was set at three years' imprisonment. However, the essential content of Section 142 of the Criminal Code was not changed. Even after this change, some considered the constitutional conformity of the offense to be dubious and accused it of violating the requirement of certainty or the principle of guilt .

In the following years the introduction of active repentance was discussed in particular . After several drafts, the proposal was included in the drafting of the sixth criminal law reform act on the initiative of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate Offense through behavior that is in the interests of the victim of the accident, to obtain impunity or at least a reduction in punishment. However, this change in the law was also criticized. Criticized were the prerequisites for the cancellation of the sentence, which went far beyond repentance regulations in other offenses.

Legal position

Germany

The accident escape is a traffic offense that is standardized in German criminal law in Section 142 of the Criminal Code (StGB) under the designation of unauthorized removal from the scene of the accident . Despite its placement in the seventh section of the special part of the Criminal Code, which contains offenses against public order, the norm serves to protect private property interests. It sanctions behavior that prevents information from being obtained about those involved in an accident, although this may be of importance to those who have been harmed by an accident.

Austria

In Austria , hit-and-run is not a criminal offense, but an administrative offense . The § 4 , para 2, paragraph 5 Highway Code states that in a traffic accident with personal injury or damage to persons standing with a traffic accident in the causal relationship to the next police station have to communicate without unnecessary delay. If this is not done, such a person commits a hit-and-run in accordance with § 99 Paragraph 2 lit a or Paragraph 3 lit b in conjunction with § 4 StVO.

Such a notification may only be omitted if these persons or those in whose property the damage occurred have proven their names and addresses to one another.

Switzerland

In Switzerland , Art. 92 SVG applies:

Improper conduct in the event of an accident

(1) Anyone who violates the obligations imposed by this law in an accident will be punished with a fine.

(2) If a vehicle driver who has killed or injured a person in a traffic accident escapes, he will be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or a fine.

England

The following important information is missing from this article or section:
The current situation is missing, only England or UK?
Help Wikipedia by researching and pasting it .

Until 1846, a rule from the Middle Ages applied in England: if the driver of a wagon runs over a pedestrian and kills, the state confiscates the cattle and the wagon. After parliament relaxed this law, wagons and, around 1900, automobiles gained legal dominance in road traffic. In 1911, a reader of The Times complained about the number of unpunished injuries and deaths to pedestrians from more and more cars moving faster in cities.

Two years later, the case of hit and run the pulled Gray Car (gray car) great interest. The 25-year-old chauffeur John William Sallows had borrowed his employer's limousine for a Joy Ride after work and was with two men and three women shortly after half past eight on the evening of December 7, 1912 after “only two glasses of Laager beer” drove in the "very powerful, elongated, deeply cut and painted gray car capable of 40 or 50 miles [60 to 75 km / h] per hour" through the Barnes area of ​​south-west London. Amy Rose Chillingworth, who was “between 50 and 55 years old, was properly crossing Castelnau Road when the car drove around and killed her. The driver drove on unimpressed, immediately switched off the electric front and rear headlights. When one of the girls in the car called: “Stop, John has just run over a woman”, the latter replied: “Don't be upset. Where are we going now? ”Later that evening the driver had the dent in his car repaired. He was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter.

In the trial two months later, the judge at the London Criminal Court pointed out the driver's callous and indifferent behavior . Its defense attorney argued that his client's external spotlight had killed the woman and that the driver could not see it. The debate ended up revolving around the headlights, not the hit-and-run. After a brief consultation, the jury came to the verdict “not guilty”.

literature

  • Wolfgang Schild, Bernhard Kretschmer: § 142 . In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  • Thomas Fischer : Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 67th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2020, ISBN 978-3-406-73879-1 .
  • Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  • Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part I: Crimes against personal rights, the state and society . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0290-9 .

Web links

Wiktionary: Accident escape  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations
Wiktionary: hit-and-run  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Duden , accessed on December 27, 2016
  2. ↑ a b c Wolfgang Schild, Bernhard Kretschmer: § 142 , Rn. 3. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  3. ↑ Wolfgang Schild, Bernhard Kretschmer: § 142 , Rn. 20. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  4. ↑ Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court , Volume 16, p. 191.
  5. ↑ Wolfgang Schild, Bernhard Kretschmer: § 142 , Rn. 4. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  6. ^ Gunther Arzt, Ulrich Weber, Bernd Heinrich, Eric Hilgendorf (eds.): Criminal Law Special Part: Textbook . 2nd Edition. Gieseking, Bielefeld 2009, ISBN 978-3-7694-1045-7 , § 38, Rn. 52-53.
  7. ^ Klaus Geppert: Unauthorized removal from the scene of the accident . In: Jura 1990, pp. 78-79.
  8. ↑ Regina Engelstädter: The term “party involved in the accident” in Section 142 (4) of the Criminal Code . Peter Lang, Frankfurt 1997, ISBN 978-3-631-32161-4 , p. 238 .
  9. ^ Klaus Geppert: Unauthorized removal from the scene of the accident . In: Jura 1990, pp. 78-79
  10. ↑ Wolfgang Schild, Bernhard Kretschmer: § 142 , Rn. 5. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  11. ↑ Wolfgang Schild, Bernhard Kretschmer: § 142 , Rn. 27. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  12. ^ The Times: The 'Gray Car' Case. February 8, 1913, p. 4, ( clipping)