Disagreement about fault in an accident between a lorry and a car – NRK Troms and Finnmark

– It is a terrible tragedy that has happened. You are so powerless.

That’s what the accused man in his 60s said, when he entered the witness box in Midtre Hålogaland district court on Tuesday, to answer questions, clearly influenced by the situation.

On the night of Monday 13 February 2023, 31-year-old Preben-André Bergseng Lind lost his life, when the driver of a lorry with a trailer lost control of the vehicle.

This meant that the trailer crossed into the opposite lane, where the car the 31-year-old was sitting in was hit. The deceased’s car caught fire after the collision, and was completely burnt out.

The three-day trial began on Tuesday, where the defendant did not plead guilty to negligently causing the death of another, but only pleaded guilty to speeding.

– I’ve had a really tough time, answered the defendant, when asked by defender Geir Olav Pedersen about how he has been after the accident.

Disagreement in court

In the indictment from the State Attorneys in Troms and Finnmark, which became known at the beginning of February, it emerged that the defendant’s lorry with a trailer crossed into the oncoming lane and lost control of the vehicle.

«Shortly afterwards, at the entrance to a right-hand curve, he was not sufficiently alert and careful as, due to the prevailing driving conditions, combined with excessive speed and the failure of the electronic braking system (EBS) on the trailer, he lost control of the vehicle so that the trailer came over in the opposite lane», says the indictment.

In court, on the other hand, there was disagreement about the car’s position in the roadway, where the defendant was of the opinion that the car crossed into the oncoming lane.

In court, the relatives’ assistance lawyer, lawyer Bjørn Egil Ramse Berg, pointed out what the defendant said to AMK shortly after the accident occurred:

– Come and get me, punish me, said the defendant to AMK, according to Ramse Berg, and pointed to the accident report.

The defendant reacted when the defense lawyer asked questions about how this corresponds to the fact that he claims the deceased came over in the opposite direction of travel.

– I don’t think anything of you using it against me, answered the defendant.

The defendant wished in court not to answer questions related to the report from the police and the experts.

– Difficult to extinguish

After lunch, one of the police officers who rushed to the scene of the accident entered the witness box.

While the defendant claimed it was not slippery at the scene, the police officer described the road as “quite bad” and slippery.

In contrast to the defendant, who, according to data from the speed recorder, kept a higher speed than allowed, the police officer said that they just managed to keep the speed limit.

– Saw it as inappropriate to drive faster than that, the police officer said in court.

He further stated that the National Road Administration took three friction measurements on the way to the site, which to the officer’s knowledge indicates that it was slippery at the site. The officer pointed out that he is not an expert in assessing friction.

When the police arrived, several people had arrived at the scene of the accident, including health personnel.

– There was a complete misfire in the passenger car involved, said the police officer.

Later, the court was shown a picture of the accident car in full flames, with wreckage scattered around the scene. Another photo the court was able to see showed tracks in the snow, which the police believe are traces of the lorry having crossed in the opposite direction of travel.

The deceased’s electric car contained a large battery pack, which made extinguishing work more difficult, the police officer continued.

The trial continues on Wednesday and Thursday.