Found an error?
Report now
A heated argument broke out in front of the elevator of an apartment building.
IMAGO/Addictive Stock (Symbolbild)
Two neighbors had been at loggerheads for years and the situation finally escalated. The trial at the Pfäffikon district court could have serious consequences for the accused.
Disputes between neighbors are part of daily business for Swiss courts. The "Landbote" newspaper now reports on a particularly sensitive case.
The Pfäffikon district court had to decide whether a confrontation between two women posed a danger to life. Two neighbors who had been arguing for years got into a violent confrontation in front of the lift of an apartment building. "I was almost killed in front of my daughter," said the woman about the incident around two years ago.
She describes how the accused pushed her against the elevator door with the flat of her hand. She went black before her eyes and saw "flashes and stars". When she regained consciousness, there were summit ice packs, bags and newspapers on the floor. Her necklace was also torn and her trousers were soaked.
The public prosecutor also argued that the accused had put her neighbor's life in danger - and demanded a conditional prison sentence of two years. Although the act was "not planned, it was hateful".
The woman herself is demanding damages and compensation of around CHF 12,000 from the accused. She says that the incident caused her so much stress that she moved out of the apartment building. Both neighbors had already been at odds with each other beforehand and explained that the aggression had come from the other.
For the accused, however, the trial is a delicate matter. According to the "Landbote", the lawyer could lose her job and put her career at risk with the dispute.
However, the neighbors describe the intensity of the dispute differently. The lawyer for the accused claimed "clear contradictions" in the testimony of the other side. For example, the objects in the photos taken by the cantonal police were scattered on the floor. However, this could not be the case, as the lawyer made clear in the courtroom by dropping a bag of croissants and free newspapers. Unsurprisingly, these landed next to her shoes. "The photos don't match what happened," she says.
The details of the incident were meticulously examined over two days of the trial. Experts from the Institute of Forensic Medicine were also summoned. They found traces of the attack on the neighbor.
The defendant, on the other hand, described in court that she had initially wanted to mediate, but was instead kicked in the knee and punched twice in the upper arm by her neighbor. She then pushed her against the elevator door with an outstretched arm and a flat hand. "She immediately threatened to bite me". Shortly afterwards, she felt something on her hand and let go.
The other side, however, gave a more dramatic account. The defendant's dog jumped out of the elevator and startled her daughter. After a brief verbal exchange, the neighbor pushed her in the chest and neck area with her knee and forearm. With her other hand, the accused pushed the woman's neck against the elevator door and squeezed her fingers shut. She had shouted "Loslah!" a total of five times and then briefly stepped away.
When asked by the judge why she did not fight back, the woman argued that she was wearing several bags and a long down coat, which restricted her movement. "It happened so quickly," she says, adding: "She pushed and shoved with such force, you can't imagine."
It doesn't take much force to cut off the oxygen supply to the brain, says an expert witness in court: "About two kilos for the vein, five kilos for the carotid artery." The average hand grip strength of a woman is already 30 kilos.
"Anyone who uses force against the neck creates the likelihood of death," says the public prosecutor. The defendant's lawyer, on the other hand, pleaded for an acquittal. After all, anything could have triggered the neighbor's symptoms. There were "no objective signs of danger to life", argued the defense lawyer, so an acquittal was "obvious".
In the end, the court agreed. Although there had certainly been a danger to life, the law stipulates that life must be endangered without scruples. According to the Federal Supreme Court, however, there had to be "unrestrained behavior" with clear intent that showed a "profound disregard for life". However, this was not the case. The defendant's conduct was "certainly inappropriate" and she had probably also accepted a risk to her life. However, a clear intention and therefore a profound disregard for life could not be proven.
