Switzerland Criminal Court Case: The Life of a Mouse and Two Foxes Crossing the Roadway

Summary

In 1987, a woman driving in the Canton of Freiburg noticed animals crossing the roadway. To avoid a collision with wildlife, she applied sudden and forceful braking, thereby preventing harm to the animals. However, her sudden breaking caused an accident with the vehicle behind her, which collided with the woman’s car, because the male driver had failed to maintain the minimum safe distance between vehicles.

Background and Context
During investigation, the man told the police that he only saw a single mouse on the roadway. However, the woman informed the police that she noticed two foxes, even detailing their light brown color, each one meter long, with a tail of approximately 50 centimeters. Fines were issued against both drivers.

The woman received a penalty order for not taking into account the vehicle behind her and for braking abruptly in response to a small animal, a mouse. The authorities determined that the situation did not constitute an emergency that justifies sudden braking, and concluded that the woman had violated Article 37, paragraph 1 of the Swiss Road Traffic Act (Strassenverkehrsgesetz, SVG, SR 741.01) and Article 12, paragraph 2 of the Swiss Traffic Rules Ordinance (Verkehrsregelnverordnung, VRV, SR 741.11), and imposed a fine of 60 franc. The female driver did not accept the penalty order.

Court Proceedings
The woman took the case to court. On 23 January 1989, the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Canton of Freiburg (lower court) dismissed her appeal and upheld the penalty order on the same grounds. The court held that the appearance of animals in front of a vehicle could not be considered an emergency, even in cases involving two foxes rather than a single mouse. It ruled that initiating a sudden braking solely for the sake of the animals was not justified, effectively placing the avoidance of a collision above the protection of animal life.

The woman filed an appeal at the Court of Cassation in Lausanne, the criminal law chamber of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland (higher court). She argued that the lower court had violated Article 37 of the Swiss Road Traffic Act and Article 12 of the Swiss Traffic Rules Ordinance by ruling that the situation did not constitute an emergency. She maintained that the situation required braking and that it was irrelevant whether the animal concerned was a single mouse or two foxes.

Legal Ruling & Jurisprudential Framing
On 2 August 1989, the Court of Cassation in Lausanne found the woman not guilty and annulled the CHF 60 fine, and held that the sudden appearance of animals on the roadway did constitute an emergency situation to save the lives of animals. This landmark decision articulated a fundamental ecocentric position regarding the legal and ethical status of animals. In its judgment, the Court stated (paragraph 5):

“a) Although animals are still treated as objects within the legal system, the human attitude toward animals has evolved over time to an “ethical animal protection” (BBl 1977 I 1084). This shared human responsibility for living beings goes further than the protection of non-living things. It recognizes the animal as a living and sentient being, a fellow creature whose respect and appreciation constitute a moral imperative for humans, given their superior intellectual capabilities (A. F. GOETSCHEL, Legal comment on the Swiss Animal Welfare Act, Bern, Stuttgart, 1986, page 15). Contemporary ethical expectations can only be met through comprehensive protection of non-human animal life. Certain exceptions (food production, pest control) cannot undermine this principle. According to the Swiss Animal Welfare Act (BBl 1977 I 1085), this principle applies at least to vertebrates. To expect a driver to simply run over vertebrate animals when they appear on a road is irreconcilable with the innate human respect for all life belonging to the animal kingdom. The purpose of such respect is to preserve, rather than destroy, non-human animal life.

c) By assuming that, solely for the sake of animals – whether a mouse or two foxes – the driver should not have initiated an emergency stop, the lower court violated Swiss federal law. The decision of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Canton of Freiburg must therefore be annulled.”

Impact Statement

The 1989 ruling of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court does not recognize rights of vertebrate animals, but upholds an ecocentric responsibility between humans and living beings. This judgement subsequently inspired François Loeb, a member of the Swiss National Council representing the Free Democratic Party (FDP), to launch the parliamentary initiative entitled “Animals Are Not Objects” in 1992, which ultimately led to the introduction of Article 641a into the Swiss Civil Code (Zivilgesetzbuch, ZGB, SR 210) in 2002.