Necessity defense rejected for speeding due to lack of medication

ATA/714/1997Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberNov 18, 1997Dismissed

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The driver invoked necessity to excuse a speeding offense, claiming he needed medication to avoid serious health effects. The court rejected the argument, holding that a person aware of the need for regular medication must take precautions to avoid being without it. The emergency was therefore not unavoidable, and the speeding could not be justified under necessity.

Omnilex headnote

CP 34; necessity as a justification for speeding: a driver who knows that regular medication is required to prevent serious health consequences cannot rely on necessity where the peril results from a lack of personal precautions. Necessity presupposes an unavoidable emergency; it is excluded when the person concerned could and should have organized timely access to the medication (consid. not stated).

Full text

Descripteurs

CIRCULATION ROUTIERE; EXCES DE VITESSE; ETAT DE NECESSITE; VITESSE; URGENCE; RETRAIT DE PERMIS; DUREE; LCR

Normes

CP.34

Résumé

Le fait de devoir absorber régulièrement une dose de médicaments, sous peine de troubles graves, ne saurait justifier un excès de vitesse pour état de nécessité. En effet, conscient des dangers auquel il expose son état de santé, l'intéressé doit prendre toutes les précautions nécessaires pour ne pas se trouver sans médicaments.

Keywords

traffic offensespeedingnecessity defensemedicationemergencydriver precautionsjustification

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether excess speed can be justified by necessity because the driver needed medication to avoid severe health consequences.

Extracted holding

No. A person who knows that regular medication is necessary and risks serious health problems if it is missing must take all necessary precautions to avoid running out of medication; necessity does not justify speeding in these circumstances.

Extracted reasoning

The court considered that the danger arose from the person's own failure to organize timely access to medication. The legal state of necessity requires an unavoidable emergency, which was not present here.

Necessity defense rejected for speeding due to lack of medicationAI generated