Prosecutor blamed the driver (police officer), hit a boy on a pedestrian walkway in Sofia
A guide, who hit a boy when crossing a pedestrian walkway, is completely blamed. The guilt was entirely on the pedestrian because it passed quickly and too close in front of the coming car and the driver could not prevent the impact. This is the conclusion of prosecutor Yavor Nachev of the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office, which terminates the pre -trial proceedings.
The car hits 15-year-old student Cyril Hajin and rejects him forward. His leg is broken, followed by two operations in Pirogov with metal implants. This is an average bodily harm, for which the Penal Code provides for up to three years of imprisonment or probation. In these cases, pre -trial proceedings are obligatory to collect data and facts which of the participants in the accident to what extent it is guilty. The prosecutor then filed an indictment in court.
« The prosecutor terminated the pre -trial proceedings because it believes that there is enough data to conclude that the boy is entirely guilty and the driver of the car has no guilt, » explained lawyer Ilia Todorov of the Association of Victims in Dnevnik.
A police officer turns and pushes a boy on a pedestrian walkway – who is guilty
The court returned the case for further investigation
Todorov appealed to court the termination of the pre -trial proceedings and demanded a new auto -technical expertise, as well as another – to recover the video of the crash.
| The cameras at the intersection filmed everything, but the record provided was destroyed because the carrier – the CD turned out to be broken, with no one explaining how this happened. |
The Sofia District Court accepted the arguments of lawyer Todorov, added his own and overturned the decree of prosecutor Nachev. It is required to investigate the incident and to clarify a number of questions. « With a video, everything will be clear – at what distance the child comes out in front of the car and what exactly the speed of the car is, and how, and when the driver reacts. But there is no recording, » Lawyer Todorov shoulder.
As he is not, the appointed expert has to determine the speed in a complex manner – the level of grip with the flooring, the type of car, the degree of damage to the struck. The expert who prepared the auto -technical expertise is a former police officer in Todorov’s words. It was controversial that the speed of the policeman’s car was « about 24 km/h at 50 km/h ».
« The expertise claims that there are no traces of a braking distance left, and the protocol, prepared immediately after the accident, described braking traces. They were filmed and applied, » Todorov was bewildered.
Why is it important are there braking traces
Traces are important because when it is estimated that the impact, for example, got 20 km/h, and there are 2 m brake traces, it is understood that the car was moving at 50 km/h, the driver pressed the brakes and hit the pedestrian, but already at 20 km/h.
In this case, the expertise claims that there are no brake marks, and the impact happened at 24 km/h, so the driver did not drive at a higher speed, which can be judged as improper.
There is another detail in the decree that is completely the driver in full – the prosecutor does not note that the student was hit on the spot. It is not a type of zebra, but it has beveled borders and tactile plates characteristic of these places. The Road Traffic Act (ZVvP), paragraph 6, item 54 explicitly states that the pedestrian path may « not be outlined with road marking or signaled with road signs. At the intersections, pedestrian paths are the sequels of the sidewalks on the lane. »
« The prosecutor’s decree does not say that the boy is crossed in a place where he should not intersect. It is said, however, that he entered the so -called » danger zone « in front of the car, not that he should not cross there, » Todorov commented.
Parents of the run -up in the center of Sofia Philip Arsov told why the cases were delayed
What is the « dangerous zone » in front of the car
The « danger zone » is the distance required by the car to stop in the event of a danger. It depends on the flooring and the speed of the car-the higher, the longer the danger zone is. According to the expertise, the student was only 3 to 5 m in front of the car, and his « danger zone » was 13 m according to the expert speed of 24 km/h and therefore, despite the low speed and the « immediate reaction of the driver, » the prosecutor concluded that the collision was inevitable.
Did he pop up so close to her? And at what distance the driver could see that the boy had directed to cross, provided that the place of the incident was well lit in the evening, no bushes or parked cars.
Adv. Todorov also raises these questions before the district court and states that the Road Traffic Act explicitly states that drivers should be especially careful in pedestrians children, adults and people with disabilities.
| The prosecutor has the right to appeal the ruling of the Sofia District Court, which returns everything for further investigation, before the upper court – the Sofia City Court. If this happens, everything about this incident will be viewed by him. |
« My son, when he left the underpass, saw that he was coming the bus and rushed without notice that a car was coming, but how close it was and could he stop? Kircho must be guilty, but it is unfair to try to attribute him? This, « Mother Laura Variyska-Hajin told Dnevnik.
