Verdict explained

How the fine came about after fatal accident

The footballer's Audi was literally smashed to pieces and the engine ended up on the embankment, far away from the vehicle.

(Bild: Kerschbaummayr Werner)

The driver of the Mercedes minibus that fatally collided with the Audi A3 of footballer Marko V. (26) on the night of November 4 last year was sentenced to a fine of 960 euros by the Linz Regional Court on Tuesday. Read here why the fine was imposed.

In the early hours of November 4, 2023, the young footballer Marko V. (26) died in an accident on the Westautobahn. A 41-year-old Tunisian man had collided with the footballer's car at excessive speed and had to answer for this at the Linz Regional Court on Tuesday.

No precedent
"There is no precedent for this incident," commented the judge in charge, who ultimately sentenced the Tunisian, who had confessed, to a fine of 960 euros "only" for involuntary manslaughter. This means that an accident like this has never happened before, at least not in Austria. The unusual thing about the case: the young footballer had not been driving on the highway, but had demonstrably parked his black car across the second and third lanes of the A1 highway and switched off all the lights and the ignition.

Only a breach of due diligence
"The fact that the verdict turned out the way it did despite the death of a person has to do with the fact that the 41-year-old was only guilty of a single breach of due care, namely that he had been driving at 160 km/h instead of the permitted 100 km/h," explains judge and spokesman for the Linz Regional Court, Walter Eichinger. "As a result, the charged grossly negligent homicide with a sentence of up to three years became a fine for involuntary manslaughter. "The 240 daily sentences are around a third of the maximum penalty for this offense," said the lawyer.

Death not foreseeable
Gross negligence manslaughter only applies in the case of a qualified breach of duty of care, i.e. an "unusual and conspicuous breach of the duty of care that makes the death appear likely to be foreseeable", according to Eichinger. The fact that the Tunisian himself had been seriously injured in the accident, as well as his confession and his previous good conduct, also had a mitigating effect on the verdict. On the other hand, the massive speeding violations were considered aggravating. The verdict was also intended to have a general preventative effect: Every sentence also serves to fundamentally deter others from committing the same crime.

Legal dilemma
Another complicating factor in this case was that two basic rules of road traffic, driving on sight and the principle of trust, are to a certain extent in conflict. "Driving by sight means that you have to adapt your speed to your visibility," the court was told. With a low beam range of around 50 meters, this would be around 70 km/h.

However, the principle of trust would also apply: In road traffic, you can basically trust other road users to follow the rules, otherwise it wouldn't work. Only children and mentally impaired people are exempt from this. Even though the Tunisian was certainly not driving at a speed appropriate to his visibility, he should not have expected to find a parked car in his lane.