In court today, the opinion of forensic expert Martin Dobiáš was asked about the possible consequences and harm to a two-year-old child after a car crashed into the pram. He focused on driving the car at speeds of 20, 30 and 40 kmph. During a collision, the child is at risk of brain damage, intracranial bleeding, and other injuries.
The expert noted that if the boy had fallen from a height, the impact would have been the same. “A speed of 20 km/h corresponds to a fall from a height of 1.6 meters, about 3.5 meters at a speed of 30 km/h and about 6 meters at a speed of 40 km/h,” he said.
“Even with a small impact, there is enough intensity to cause significant injuries,” the expert said. He added that it depends on how many individual lessons there are (Car and Stroller – Editor's Note) They overlap because another action of forces occurs.
Front or side impact
When Judge Milos Sarski was asked if it would have made a difference if the front of the car had hit the front of the trolley or its side, the expert said there would not have been much of a difference.
The defendant Kateřina K. did not respond to the comment, admitting that she did not want to hear anything because she did not understand it.
State Rep. Marek Wakai described the questions as broad and he had no proposals.
The collision site is so narrow that the cars cannot go faster than 30 to 40 kmph. The quick and correct reaction of the BMW driver avoided the trolley on the right. It is proved that the act took place, there are no mitigating circumstances, only aggravating ones,” the public prosecutor pointed out.
The guardian of the minor child took note of how the mother handled the stroller. “She was rude and mean to a child, which is not unusual. She endangered the healthy development of a child who depended on her in every way.”
According to the defense lawyer, the mother does not remember the crucial moments. “She was on a narrow road, no footpath, which required extra caution from everyone involved, including pedestrians,” he said.
She was leaning on the pram
He also cautioned the court to be careful in assessing speed. “Some witnesses reported a speed of 20 to 30 km per hour, others 30 to 35. The speed was so low that it is difficult to judge,” he pointed out, adding that he disagreed with the explanation of the entire event. Some of the witnesses' accounts conflicted as they testified that Kateřina K. had the stroller the entire time and was supporting her, but others testified that she had no control over the stroller.
According to the defense attorney, the verbal exchange between the driver and the mother influenced KK's bad behavior. “There should have been something to say to the effect of KK: so kill me and the child. But first she was allegedly indecently assaulted by the driver, who reacted in time and pulled on the steering wheel.
The defense attorney is adamant that he did not intend to harm the child. “The driver himself confirmed that there was no collision and the trolley was not hit. It has not been proved that she acted deliberately and the court should not be competent to do so,” said the defense counsel.
Stay in psychiatry
The defendant's attorney requested to read a statement from the head of the psychiatric hospital in Sternberg, where the defendant was hospitalized in 2022.
Kateřina K. underwent voluntary treatment from October 3 to 13. However, he has told doctors that he is not addicted to alcohol. Although she couldn't explain why, she demanded the drugs. According to experts, she did not criticize addiction, her treatment was only objective.
According to the report read by Žďárský, the woman did not understand the meaning of the treatment or the rules of stay, she did not cooperate, so she was released.
Kateřina K. disagrees with such assessment. “I wanted to get treatment, I complied with what was asked of me and I want to stay for another three months,” he argued in court. I don't need to lie in court.
The employees said that they left voluntarily as they had to attend to some matters at home. KK added that he did not feel the need to lie in court that it was true.
It was also heard in the court that the mother had bitten her minor children on their hands and forehead many years ago, causing injuries.
The girl behaves properly
According to the defense attorney, this was a one-time attack that had no signs of long-term harm. He therefore proposed that the act was misconduct, not an act intended to intentionally harm the health of a child.
So he proposed a conditional sentence and community service. “The act took place three-quarters of a year ago and the girl has behaved properly since then. He doesn't deserve a harsh prison sentence,” the defense lawyer said, adding that the two-year-old boy suffered no physical consequences. He agreed to undergo anti-alcohol treatment.
The boy's guardian claims twenty thousand crowns for the boy's non-pecuniary damages. According to the defense counsel, the amount is too high given the circumstances.
KK, who has a permanent address in the Brno municipality, said that he had nothing to do with being drunk outside, but that he would not harm a child.
The boy now lives with his father and the mother is in contact with both. She was planning a visit soon.
Sentencing
The judge said the speed of the car was admittedly 30km/h. “As to whether the woman pushed the trolley or put it on the road, accounts differ, it's 50/50.”
In the end, however, according to Žďárský, it was not necessary, because the stroller found itself on the road. Similar potential effects occur at lower speeds, so 30 km/h is an indicator, not a definitive number.
“The situation on Říční street with the stroller took place in front of at least three witnesses, she mistreated the child, slapped him, cursed him and the guests of Na Rybníčku restaurant,” the judge described.
According to Žďársky, the woman must have been aware of the consequences, she committed an act that harmed the child's health. “It doesn't matter that KK doesn't remember anything, because the court has evidence: the testimony of the restaurant guest who called the police. And five statements from two car attendants. So six testimonies in total, the witnesses have no reason to testify for or against KK, because they didn't know her until then. .”
The Court therefore finds these statements to be reliable. “A vital organ, the brain, may have been damaged. The child has very little psychological impact and does not understand what is happening. In the case of an older child or an adult, it would definitely be something else. Thanks to KK, the accident did not happen and she had no influence on it. Her actions are self-inflicted. “Reflection is not zero, she is less intelligent, but capable of withstanding criminal consequences,” it said.
The judge also said that if the mother had been in treatment for a longer period of time, say six months, the situation would have been different. “Regarding the compensation plan for the child, the amount of twenty thousand cannot be investigated, there is no documentation and no time, there is nothing to believe in this situation, this is expected to be. settled before the Court.”
Alcohol and pub crawls
The event took place on August 13, 2022 in Prostějov. According to the file, Katrina K. First he left for a visit with his partner and two younger sons, where they had a drink. He continued drinking in various pubs, first with a friend, then alone.
At the snack stand, she scolded and slapped her son. The woman, who doesn't remember anything about drinking, said, “I only remember that I was on the road where there were a lot of people and policemen at that time.
Witnesses to the incident had earlier testified in court that the defendant stood on the side of the road, then entered the road with the trolley and stopped halfway.
“We were driving in a car and suddenly I saw a woman pulling a play stroller with a boy on the road,” recounted the driver's first female passenger, who avoided the impending collision by braking and steering.
A drunken mother left the pram on the road and wanted to leave. Later, he said he kidnapped the child. She even said she kidnapped him from me,” the second witness recounted, adding that the boy was crying and calling the defendant “mommy”. The son was taken in by a social worker and is now living with his father.
