Article 221-6-1 of the Criminal Code provides for involuntary homicide caused by a motor vehicle driver, punishable by 5 years imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros.
Extract
[...] Regarding the material element of involuntary homicide caused by a driver of a motor vehicle, it is necessary to prove a behavior that can be the commission of an act or an omission. It is then necessary that the result is the death of the victim. Finally, it is necessary to demonstrate the certain causal link between the behavior of the person in question and the result. In this case, Dirk's behavior is analyzed as an action. Indeed, he drove at a high speed on a rest area and crossed one of the service roads of the gas station by hitting the plot that restricted access to it. [...]
[...] In this case, Dirk's behavior constitutes a failure to meet a duty of prudence or safety provided for by law or regulations. In fact, by driving recklessly and exceeding the maximum authorized speed, he violated the provisions of the Highway Code. The moral element is therefore characterized. Regarding the penalty, Article 221-6-1 of the Penal Code provides that the author of an involuntary homicide caused by a motorized land vehicle faces a penalty of five years' imprisonment and a fine of ?75,000. [...]
[...] No element indicates that Dirk could have prepared himself for this illness. He was struck brutally while driving on the highway. The constraint suffered by Dirk is therefore well unpredictable. By decision of 15 November 2005, the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation had to judge a case extremely similar. In fact, the motorist had been pursued for endangering others, loss of control of the vehicle and involuntary homicides. He had been taken by a sudden illness on the highway, which had made him lose control of the acceleration of his vehicle. [...]
[...] This illness was accompanied by the cramping of his foot, which resulted in the increasingly rapid acceleration of his vehicle. Dirk, unconscious, did not have his hand on his vehicle. It was his wife who tried to take over. On the one hand, it is necessary to examine the condition of irresistibility. Dirk was placed in an absolute impossibility of respecting the speed limits, controlling his vehicle, and avoiding the cars he collided with due to his state of health at the time of the accident. He could not resist the illness, nor the cramping of his foot. [...]
[...] Dirk can therefore validly rely on the constraint, and as a result, escape the commitment of his criminal responsibility for endangering others, loss of control of the vehicle and the four involuntary homicides. [...]
