– Deserves a round in the Supreme Court

A 15-year-old boy died and two others were seriously injured. The case against Bane Nor is unique and “fit” for Norway’s highest court, the professors believe.

On Friday, A magazine wrote about the tragic fatal accident in a tunnel at Filipstad in Oslo in February 2019.

Even Warsla (15) died and two other young people were seriously injured after getting on a parked train and receiving electricity.

On Wednesday, the court settlement begins at the Oslo District Court. Among other things, Bane Nor is charged with causing death and serious injury through negligence. The fences in the area where the youths entered were too low according to Bane Nor’s own guidelines.

It is not common for businesses to be prosecuted under the negligent homicide section of the Penal Code.

– I am not aware that in case law there are any criminal cases after accidents of this type, says Gert Johan Kjelby.

He is a prosecutor and professor of law at the University of Bergen, and is a former prosecutor himself.

– That is, the criminal provisions on negligent homicide / significant damage have been used in combination with provisions on inadequate control, security, proper functioning and security, he explains.

He is accompanied by fellow professor Asbjørn Strandbakken, from the same university.

– This case seems so interesting and exciting that it deserves a round in the Supreme Court. The case has fundamental aspects that make it suitable for clarification there, says Strandbakken.

It emphasizes that it depends on the outcome of the case and any appeal to higher courts.

He first received a fine of 10 million.

Last winter, Bane Nor was fined NOK 10 million for the accident. They accepted one of three items in the fine: inadequate security of the Filipstad area. They did not admit guilt for causing negligence to personal injury and death.

If the prosecution had waived the last two elements, Bane Nor would have accepted the fine, Vibeke Aarnes, executive vice president for Infrastructure, told A-magasinet.

Instead, the prosecutor issued an indictment. The prosecutor declined to comment on the case before trial.

Bane Nor, for his part, believes that young people should wear a certain degree of negligence in their cloak.

– They have entered an area that is fenced, signposted and clearly marked as a railway area. They have made a decision. They must also take responsibility for their actions, Vibeke Aarnes has declared on behalf of the company.

Get similar examples

Kjelby thinks, like Strandbakken, that the case contains a fundamentally interesting and unproven point.

– The importance of the behavior of young people, that is, of children, for the assessment of due diligence and criminal responsibility of Bane Nor, is well suited to a trial in the Supreme Court, says Kjelby.

Wrongful death is most often associated with the actions of individuals. But there are cases where public and private companies have been convicted under this section. A typical example is workplace accidents, often in combination with violations of HSE regulations. Other examples are the death penalty for falling objects from buildings, due to lack of maintenance.

In 2003, the then Oslo Sporveier was sentenced to a fine of 5 million crowns after a woman was caught and detained under a tram on Holberg plass in central Oslo.

Jernbaneverket agreed to pay a fine of 10 million after the Åsta accident in 2000.

It hardly has any consequences for others

According to Professor Asbjørn Strandbakken, the logic behind corporate sanctions is so-called cumulative errors:

– This means that several actors within the same company have been neglected in such a way that they lay the groundwork for criminal liability.

– If Bane Nor was convicted. Will it have any influence on the safety assessment of other companies’ live facilities, such as metro stops?

– I doubt it. But a verdict could raise awareness about the possible death penalty for breaches of safety rules.