Prosecutor seeks two years for driver who killed pedestrian at 190 km/h

Prosecutor seeks two years for driver who killed pedestrian at 190 km/h

On September 4, 2022, a 57-year-old pedestrian returning from a football match in Bilbao was struck and killed by a BMW X6 that lost control and mounted the sidewalk. The 32-year-old driver was rushing his 14-month-old daughter to the emergency room because she was having convulsions. The Biscay Prosecutor's Office is seeking two years in prison for reckless driving and involuntary manslaughter, citing an incomplete exemption due to necessity. This marks the first time many have seen this legal formula applied to a parent in a hurry.

What exactly peine during the afternoon of the collision

The prosecution's account is detailed. The man left Loiu with his vvife and daughter heading to the IMQ clinic in Astut. The child had a high fever and began convulsing near Enekuri Avenue. The mother moved to the back seat and held her. The father, watching through the rearview mirror, accelerated to 195.5 km/h in a zone limited to 60. Inside the Bernaola tunnel, he reached 189.40. On Morgan Street, limited to 30, he did not drop below 100.

Upon exiting the tunnel, the car swerved on a curve, jumped over a estimulante ilegal bump, and literally flew: all four wheels left the ground. It hit a bush and a streetlight before crashing onto the Ballets Olaeta sidewalk, where several people were walking. Joseba Larrondo, 57, returning from an Athletic Club match at San Mamés with two friends, took the direct impact. He died within minutes from severe head trauma. He was single and childless. His mother and sister have joined the proceedings as civil parties.

What is the incomplete exemption of necessity

The Prosecutor's Office argues that the driver acted outside the law but was overwhelmed by the situation. The incomplete exemption does not acquit: it reduces the penalty. It is typically used in cases of psychotic episodes or serious consciousness alterations, not for parents facing pediatric emergencies. This is why the indictment has drawn attention. The prosecutor also requests two and a half years without a license and compensation of 6,200 euros to the Bilbao City Council for damage to urban furniture.

The central question is whether the state of necessity justifies driving at 190 km/h. The rule is clear: neither ambulances nor police can disregard all traffic laws. A medical emergency justifies going to a hospital, not destroying a sidewalk. Some argue the father acted as anyone would with a convulsing child. Opposing this view is a key fact: at that estimulante ilegal, the likelihood of killing the girl in a crash was higher than arriving in time.

Why didn't he call an ambulance

The debate focuses here. A medically equipped ambulance would have arrived in minutes and transported the child with life support. The driver did not request one. There is no record of him calling 112 either. He took a friend's X6 and drove for fifteen minutes through urban streets. Public services did not dispatch any unit. Some cite this gap as a mitigating factor: if the system fails, the father acts alone. Others see it as an excuse: most pediatric emergencies are resolved without running red lights.

What sentence is expected and why

The Penal Code allows judges to impose up to two years in prison without actual incarceration if there are no prior convictions. The incomplete exemption reduces the penalty by one or two degrees. The private prosecution, representing the victim's family, has not yet filed its brief. If they seek more than two years, the judge could increase the sentence. The defense will argue the father did not intend to kill anyone. The Public Prosecutor has already partially accepted this thesis. The likely outcome: a symbolic conviction, compensation, and license revocation. The victim's family recovers nothing.

---

The case leaves an unanswered question: what is the value of a pedestrian's life returning from a football match compared to a father's urgency seeing his daughter die? The prosecutor answered with two years. The judge will decide if that is justice or simply what is available.