Blackout in road traffic: abandonment without evidence

In the Autumn 2013, a married couple was seriously injured after being hit on a pavement by a motor vehicle. The driver claimed to have suffered a blackout and the neurologist, whom he elected to consult, attested of what is refereed to as “syncope” of unknown origin. At the end of March 2014, the office of the public prosecutor informed the injured couple that they were intending to close the case. If the driver claims an acute state of unconsciousness, particularly syncope, definite proof of physiologically justifiable medical grounds and mechanisms is required. Possible medical conditions or underlying diseases could involve the following: epilepsy, cardiovascular diseases, irregular circulation and diabetes. The intended abandonment of the proceedings proves untenable: neither the medical history provided by the defendant’s primary care physician, nor the neurologist the driver elected to consult have revealed underlying diseases consistent with those noted earlier, but instead they were categorically ruled out; there is no analytical accident assessment (can complete loss of control up to where the vehicle came to a halt be concluded at all / where did the alleged uncontrolled driving commence and where did it end / how did the motor vehicle come to a standstill?) and most significantly, an independent expert assessment from a medical profession, specializing in traffic accidents, is missing. Noteworthy: the neurologist, who had been appointed by the defendant to give expert testimony on his behalf, declared that within six months the defendant would be fit enough again to drive a motor vehicle. 
No kudos for the public prosecutor. 

By means of its decision on 16 April 2014, the office of the public prosecutor approved a petition filed by Steinegger Rechtsanwälte ordering an analytical accident report as well as a traffic accident related medical assessment. 

On the application of the public prosecution's office from 07.04.2015, a summary penalty order was issued against the accused for negligent serious assault respectively common assault. An appeal has since been filed by the accused.