A Landmark Fatal Traffic Case on Victims’ Rights

On 30 May 2026, the judgment of Pärnu County Court in criminal case no. 1-25-4423 entered into force. The case concerned a traffic accident in which a young cyclist lost his life and another cyclist suffered serious injuries. The interests of the family of the deceased young cyclist were represented by attorney-at-law Sandra Sepp of Lepmets & Nõges Law Firm.

Although proceedings of this kind are first and foremost about irreversible human loss, the case also raised several fundamental issues of criminal and penal law. The questions in dispute included the legal qualification of the act, the severity of the punishment, the withdrawal of the right to drive, and fair compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In all these matters, the judgment was favourable to the victims and, in several respects, may be considered significant in the context of Estonian case law.

What is particularly noteworthy is not only the outcome, but also the fact that the most important principled issues raised in the proceedings were brought before the court at the initiative of the victims.

It is important to emphasise that the victims’ aim was not merely to achieve a fair outcome for their own family. The family decided to actively participate in the court proceedings also in order to contribute to the development of case law and to help ensure that, in the future, victims in similar situations would find it easier to protect their rights and that their positions would carry greater weight.

Why is this judgment important?

• At the initiative of the victims, the question arose in the court proceedings as to whether the act should be requalified under § 422 of the Penal Code as an offence committed through the deliberate violation of traffic rules.
• The court agreed that the evidence collected provided grounds for amending the charges, and the prosecution amended the charges during the court proceedings.
• The court sentenced the accused to three years’ imprisonment, of which three months are to be served, and placed the accused under probation supervision. The prosecution and the defence had only requested a suspended prison sentence.
• The court also imposed, as an additional punishment, the withdrawal of the right to drive a motor vehicle, although the prosecution had not requested this.
• The court increased the compensation payable to the victims for non-pecuniary damage and awarded the victims’ procedural costs in full.
   

When is there a deliberate violation of traffic rules?

One of the central issues in dispute was the legal qualification of the act.

In the victims’ view, the evidence collected already during the pre-trial proceedings indicated that the accused had deliberately violated traffic rules by using a mobile phone while driving. This position was presented to the prosecution already during the pre-trial proceedings, but the prosecution did not initially consider the application of § 422 of the Penal Code to be justified.

The victims did not agree with that approach.

The same position was later reflected in the victims’ civil claim. Already at the opening hearing, the victims’ representative emphasised that the victims’ participation in the proceedings was not limited to the civil claim. In the victims’ view, the question was also whether the charges accurately reflected the events from a legal perspective.

After the examination of evidence, the victims’ representative submitted an application to the court drawing attention to the possible need to requalify the act and to give the prosecution an opportunity to amend the charges. The court fully agreed with the position of the victims’ representative, and as a result, the prosecution ultimately amended the charges during the court proceedings.

In the end, based on the evidence examined, the court found that the accused had deliberately violated traffic rules by using a mobile phone while driving and engaging in an activity that interfered with driving and the perception of traffic conditions.

Punishment must not be merely symbolic

The second important issue in dispute concerned the punishment.

For years, Estonian case law in criminal matters involving fatal traffic accidents has been dominated mainly by suspended prison sentences. In the victims’ view, such case law has long ceased to correspond to society’s sense of security and expectations. Therefore, one of the central questions in this case was whether such an approach remains justified in cases involving traffic offences with severe consequences.

The prosecution requested a suspended prison sentence for the accused. The defence requested the same.

The victims, however, took the position that an offence resulting in the death of one person and injuries to another required a more effective criminal law response. In their view, the question was not only about achieving a fair outcome in this particular case, but also about the message that the justice system sends to society more broadly.

The court sentenced the accused to three years’ imprisonment, of which three months are to be served. In addition, the accused was placed under probation supervision and required to participate in a social programme.

Although this is not a long period of actual imprisonment, the judgment is important as a matter of principle. The court emphasised in its judgment that, in traffic offences with severe consequences, enforcement of the prison sentence is the rule, and departure from that rule requires exceptional circumstances.

Using a mobile phone while driving is a growing road safety problem

The judgment is also important from the perspective of road safety.

While only a few years ago the greatest traffic risks were primarily considered to be drunk driving and significant speeding, in recent years the use of a mobile phone while driving has become one of the most serious road safety risks.

A mobile phone does not reduce the driver’s attention only momentarily. Reading or writing messages often means that the driver’s eyes are not on the road for several seconds. At highway speeds, a vehicle may cover hundreds of metres during that time without the driver actually perceiving the traffic conditions.

In this case, the court found that it was precisely such conduct that led to the traffic accident in which one young person lost his life and another suffered serious injuries.

The judgment sends a clear message to society: using a mobile phone while driving is not merely a bad habit or a momentary lapse of attention. It can lead to extremely serious consequences and significantly more severe criminal liability.

Compensation for non-pecuniary damage and the development of case law

The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage also became an important issue in dispute.

The insurer had already paid compensation to the victims before the court proceedings. In the victims’ view, the compensation paid during the pre-trial stage did not sufficiently reflect the most recent guidance of the Supreme Court or the actual extent of the damage suffered.

The court agreed with the victims’ position and awarded additional compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favour of all three victims. This is one of the larger awards of compensation for non-pecuniary damage in a criminal case concerning a fatal traffic accident in recent years.

In addition, the court awarded the victims’ procedural costs in full. This is also significant. It follows that justified legal costs incurred by victims should not remain their own burden in a situation where they actively participate in criminal proceedings to protect their rights.

The victims’ aim was not only to obtain fair compensation for their own family. It was equally important to contribute to the development of case law and to ensure that, in the future, families in similar situations would be able to rely on clearer court decisions. The family also achieved that objective.

More than one family’s story

The significance of this judgment extends beyond one specific criminal case.

The victims’ aim was not only to influence the practice of awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Equally important to them was the question of how traffic offences with severe consequences are legally qualified, what punishments are imposed for such acts, and whether the justice system responds sufficiently effectively to situations where a person dies as a result of conduct that deliberately creates a traffic risk.

That is why the family decided to undertake a long, emotionally difficult and often exhausting court process.

In criminal cases involving fatal traffic accidents, continuing court proceedings is never easy for victims. It means repeatedly recalling the most painful events, facing public attention, and often also living with uncertainty as to the final outcome.

Despite this, the family decided to see the proceedings through to the end.

They did so not only in memory of their son and brother, but also with the wish to help ensure that, in the future, victims in similar situations would find it easier to protect their rights and that the treatment of traffic offences with severe consequences in Estonian case law would become consistently fairer and more aligned with society’s expectations.

Lepmets & Nõges Law Firm thanks the family for their trust and recognises their courage and perseverance in going through this difficult process.