Accident inadvertently caused by land, water or air traffic is regulated in Art. 177 of the Act of June 6, 1997 Penal Code. The offense in question can be committed by both action and omission. This type of crime is common, i.e. it can be committed by any traffic participant; intentional or unintentional and material, which means that its hallmarks include the effect – causing an accident in which another person suffered bodily injury, serious damage to health or death. This offense is included in the group of the so-called relative to applications, the principle is prosecution ex officio, however – as stated in §3 – if the victim is only the closest person, the prosecution takes place at the request.
The basic principle of criminal law is to be responsible only for your own behavior. However, when it comes to crimes characterized by the occurrence of a specific effect, the concept of objective attribution dominates, allowing the perpetrator to be attributed the effect of the crime in the event that his behavior „created or significantly increased a legally unacceptable danger to the legal interest constituting the object of the attack and this risk was realized in the form of the occurrence of a given crime. criminal effect „(T. Razowski [in:] Penal Code. Particular. Commentary, edited by J. Giezek, Warsaw 2021, art. 177). As regards the breach of the precautionary principles in the context of Art. 177 of the Penal Code both in the doctrine and jurisprudence, since the 2000s, the construction of objective attribution seems to be well-established.
As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the judgment of 8 April 2013, „liability for the effect is justified only by such a contribution that significantly increases the risk of this effect, which is relevant from the point of view of typifying the act” (Judgment of the Supreme Court of 8 April 2013, no. , II KK 206/12, LEX no. 1311397.) this, in turn, means that “criminal liability cannot be assigned for an offense stipulated in Art. 177 of the Penal Code in a situation where the occurrence of the effect described in Art. 177 of the Penal Code it would also happen if the perpetrator whose act is subject to criminal law evaluation complied with the precautionary rules required from him. ” (J. Kanarek, Considerations on objective attribution of effect and the science of risk increase in the context of their application to crimes stipulated in Art. 177 of the Penal Code, PS 2015, No. 9, pp. 49-59.). Similarly, the Supreme Court argued in the judgment of 30 August 2011, stressing “the effecting may only be objectively attributed to the perpetrator, when it realizes a danger which would be prevented by compliance with the breached duty of care. In other words, the effecting of an effect can only be attributed to the offender if his compliance with his duty of care would have prevented the effect from taking place. ” (The judgment of the Supreme Court of 30 August 2011, IV KK 187/11, LEX No. 950442.).
The issue of the objective attribution of the effect in the event of a road accident also requires consideration of the concept of observing precautionary rules. There is no closed catalog of behaviors that could qualify as a violation of these basic principles. The jurisprudence indicates, among others: failure to properly observe the driving field (Judgment of the District Court in Poznań of 12/11/2019, IV Ka 895/19, LEX No. 2780792.), failure to increase attention despite changes in weather conditions (Judgment of the Supreme Court of 21.10. 2020, II DSI 40/20, LEX No. 3093793.), failure to make sure before overtaking whether the driver has adequate visibility and sufficient space to perform the maneuver without obstructing anyone’s movement (Judgment of the Supreme Court of March 26, 2019, V KK 115 / 18, LEX no. 2647164.), and, obviously, non-compliance with the permitted administrative speeds.
