And indeed nothing is impossible; the most incredible, absurd things will help convince you of this. court decisions. Recently they came up with the Stella Award, the award was named in honor of Stella Liebeck, the fact is that through her own fault she managed to scald herself with coffee at a McDonald's diner, but incredibly was able to sue the McDonald's company for $2.9 million. And of course, this prize is awarded to the winners of the most incredible, absurd court decisions. And now consider simply incredible cases when simple people become very rich because of absurd judgments.
Betty Bullock from California won a lawsuit against Philip Morris. The thing is that she smoked Philip Morris cigarettes for 47 years. As a result of this 47-year smoking process, Mrs. Bullock was diagnosed with lung cancer, and by court decision, the Philip Morris Company paid her compensation in the amount of $ 750,000 - for property damage, and also $ 100,000 "for suffering" and as much as $ 28 million. the fine itself.
Kathleen Robertson, from Austin, Texas. The trial took place in the winter of 2000. A court decision was made that made her $780,000 richer, but for what? Kathleen was awarded this pile of money for a broken ankle, an injury she received in furniture store. This happened because a child running next to her crashed into her. And the most perplexing decision was the owner of the salon, because the child who crashed into Mrs. Robertson, and because of which he had to pay such a sum of money, was own child Kathleen Robertson.
In the autumn of the same 1998, an equally ridiculous court decision was made in Pennsylvania. As one thief, when leaving the house he had just robbed, through the garage, slammed the door to the house behind him. And it so happened that, due to a malfunction, he could not open the automatic door in the garage. As a result, the miraculous robber found himself locked in the garage, he survived thanks to dry dog food and Pepsi packaging, accidentally forgotten by someone. After his release, the resourceful thief thought of suing the owner of the house, because of the huge psychological trauma he had received. As a result of such an "industrial" injury ... 500,000 dollars, which he sued from the owner of the house he had robbed.
In Philadelphia, in the winter of 1997, a cash settlement of $113,500 was paid by a restaurant to Amber Carson of Pennsylvania. The thing is that the woman, having slipped on a drink spilled on the floor, fell, breaking her coccyx. The most interesting thing is that this drink ended up on the floor because of Miss Carson herself. 30 seconds before the fall, she threw a glass at her boyfriend.
Back in the winter of 1997, Kara Walton, who lives in Claymont, Delaware, won a lawsuit against the owners of a nightclub. The girl, when trying to escape from the club, through the window in the restroom, so as not to pay $ 3.5 for drunk alcohol, and fell, knocking out her two front teeth when falling. For this, she received about ... $ 50,000.
In the summer of 1998, 19-year-old Carl Trumham, who lives in Los Angeles, managed to win 74,000 by court order. dollars and full compensation for treatment as a result of the collision. Carl's neighbor just drove over his arm in his Honda Accord. At this time, Mr. Truman himself was diligently screwing discs from his neighbor's car, and, apparently, he was very carried away by the process that he did not notice how the neighbor got into the car and started off.
And such incredible, absurd court decisions are not new, for example, in 1474, an accused person appeared before the Swedish court ... a rooster, who managed to be accused of both hooliganism and witchcraft. How it happened, but he laid an egg, which not only surprised and saddened the public, but also scared him to death. And without hesitation, he was sentenced to death and “safely” burned along with the egg.
But there is no limit to human “wisdom”. And in 1540 in Spain, in the court of the town of Guimarane, a case of terrible damage was heard, an outrageously expensive tapestry, indecently impudent ... MOLY. The damage was estimated at 10,000 maravedis. And here is the court decision ... the insect was found guilty and sentenced to beheading and ... what is no less interesting, all the relatives of the moth criminal were to leave the kingdom forever. Apparently, moths in the whole kingdom should have been imbued and aware of the whole tragedy of what happened and instantly get out of the kingdom.
Simply unimaginable lawsuits often end up in the courts, and in the course of the process you have to answer very tricky questions. In Britain, such cases are not unusual, but local newspaper The Times was able to identify 20 of the most surprising cases in the history of the entire judicial system. As we see, people like to defend their rights, even the most incredible ones, not only in England and America.
1. In 2004, a resident of the town of Fond du Lac, in the US state of Wisconsin, sued one of the television companies. Timothée Dumouchel accused her of making his wife fat and his children lazy and only able to change channels due to television. The American said: “I think I drink and smoke every day, and my wife is overweight precisely because we have been watching TV every day for the last four years.” In America at that time there were more than a million lawyers, naturally, there were a couple of them who took up this unusual case. However, the case never reached the Supreme Court.
2. Unusual hearings took place in 2005 in Brazil. There, a 31-year-old resident of the town of Jundiai sued her lover. The reason for the lawsuit was the fact that the man does not provide her with an orgasm. In the statement, the woman indicated that her 38-year-old partner ends his sexual intercourse before she reaches the heights of pleasure. Although the high-profile case started quite promisingly, the woman received unpleasant news in court - the court refused to accept the case for consideration.
3. In 2004, in Germany, lawyer Jurgen Graef got an extremely strange case. He had to defend the interests of an old pensioner from the town of St. Augustine, not far from Bonn. The tax office ordered the woman to pay taxes in the amount of 287 million euros, despite the fact that her annual income was 17 thousand euros. The problem was solved by Gref rather quickly - he wrote only one standard letter to government agencies. But the laws of the country allow the lawyer to achieve the payment of the fee based on the reduction in the amount of the claim. So the enterprising lawyer issued a bill for 440 thousand euros. However, this fee was paid for by the state itself. History is silent whether Gref wrote a letter of thanks to the tax authorities.
4. In 1972, an unusual case was also heard in Yorkshire Wakefield Court. Reginald Sedgwick was accused of stealing... Cleckheaton railway station! The defendant was the head of the company that acted as the contractor for the demolition of the buildings. It was she who, for illegal purposes, destroyed an abandoned and abandoned station building, removing 24 tons of rubble from this place. Sedguik admitted to the crime he had committed, explaining that he acted on the orders of a certain third party, who could not be identified. However, the defendant had an excellent lawyer who easily defeated the prosecution’s arguments and got the court to acquit his subordinate.
5. In 2005, the Massachusetts Court of Appeal held a hearing in which it was necessary to find out whether a certain position during sexual intercourse was dangerous. One morning, a man and woman, long-term sexual partners, made consensual love. In the midst of sexual intercourse, the woman suddenly turned around in such a way, without asking her partner’s permission, that he suffered an injury to his genital organ. As a result, even the intervention of a surgeon was required. The court decided that careless actions during sexual activity can be accepted as grounds for prosecution, but simple negligence cannot serve as such a ground. As a result, the man's claim was rejected.
6. In 2005, NASA received a lawsuit from Russian astrologer Marina Bai. The woman demanded compensation of $200 million because the agency had disrupted the natural balance of power in the Universe. She claimed that NASA had literally committed an act of terrorism with its launch of the Deep Impact space probe. The fact is that the device was supposed to collide with a comet and take samples of the substance after the explosion. One of the Moscow courts decided that the case falls within the jurisdiction of Russia, and even hearings were held on this case. But in the end the claim was rejected.
7. India has not been spared the wave of strange lawsuits. There, in 2007, a local court had to figure out what a vibrating condom is - a "sex toy" or a contraceptive. Such unusual devices are equipped with a battery-powered mechanism and are produced under the brand name "Crezendo". However, not everyone liked the idea, the fact is that there were experts who claim that this is mainly a sex toy, but their sales are prohibited in the country! The manufacturer, however, insisted that the main function of the products is contraception and the improvement of the population.
8. A young resident of the city of Jiaxing near Shanghai got into trouble with the law in 2006. The fact is that the guy, without first consulting with lawyers, put his soul up for auction at one of the online auctions. As a result, the lot was prudently withdrawn from the auction by the site administration itself, while the seller was told that the application for sale would be restored only if the "higher authority" allowed the sale of the soul.
9. In 2004, Frank D "Alessandro, a court official, sued the New York City Administration. The fact is that he was seriously injured after his toilet suddenly exploded, turning instantly into a pile of rubble. The man demanded as much as 5 million dollars in compensation.Frank is forced to perform a whole complex of physiotherapy exercises every morning, about which he simply says: "It's just some kind of hemorrhoids."
10. In 2006, the Nevada Supreme Court had to confirm the legality of one of the regulations once passed in Las Vegas. There, strippers are prohibited from fondling their clients while they perform a private lap dance. The lawsuit said the local law was too vague to be enforceable. The controversy was caused by the following unclear phrase: “no assistant or service provider has the right to caress or stroke any client with the intent to cause sexual arousal in him.” Lawyers, with their characteristic meticulousness, found out whether the rubbing of a dancer’s buttocks on a man’s knees was caress or just stroking. Is the law broken if a girl's breasts touch the client's face? As a result, the court upheld the ruling. The verdict stated that law enforcement officers would be able to determine caressing or stroking based on personal experience. This was reminiscent of the famous case when the judge at the hearing said that he could distinguish pornography from erotica only by seeing it.
11. In 1964, the Court of Appeal of Canada was concerned, among other things, with determining whether an amount for operating expenses could be deducted from the expenses of a call girl agency for income tax purposes. The owner of the establishment and seven of her employees, who were actually the same call girls, were eventually brought to justice and found guilty by the court. As a result, the culprits were even sentenced to prison and ordered to pay taxes. As a result, the girls were allowed to spend money on ordinary business services, such as utility bills, from the total amount. But all other expense items had to be crossed out, since the agency was unable to provide any receipts. These included an amount of $2,000 allegedly spent on alcohol for local government officials or $1,000 paid to “several men who have a large physical force and dexterous enough to help the girl out of a difficult situation." That’s exactly what the expense items said. So, dubious expenses were not taken into account, and taxes had to be paid on them.
12. In November 1884, the rather scandalous case of Captain Thomas Dudley and a certain Edwin Stephens was dealt with. The men were accused of killing cabin boy Richard Parker. Together they sailed on a ship from Southampton to Sydney and, after a shipwreck, ended up in the same boat at a distance of 1600 miles from the nearest piece of land. To survive, after 3 weeks of drifting, Stephens and Dudley were forced to kill Parker, who was sleeping at that time. They ate the unfortunate man's liver and drank blood instead of water. But just 4 days later, the sailors were picked up by a German ship. The Exeter City Court found the men guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced them to death. The cannibals tried to justify their actions with extreme need in order to save their own lives, the authorities eventually considered such arguments to be quite legitimate, and a decision was immediately made for mercy. As a result, the unfortunates escaped with six months in prison.
13. Once on radio Buxton there was a live drawing of a Renault Clio car. The main prize with a portion of indescribable joy went to 26-year-old Katie McGowan. After all, she was the one who answered all the quiz questions correctly. Imagine her desperation when in the studio of the radio station she was handed only a model car 4 inches high. The woman decided to seek justice and sued the radio in 2001. A judge from Derby County ruled that the radio station had entered into a legal contract with the listener, and therefore its owners were obliged to pay the plaintiff 8,000 pounds to purchase her real car. Now the radio station has ceased to exist.
14. In Romania in 2005, a lawsuit was filed against... God. Prisoner Mircea Pavel, sentenced to 20 years in prison for murder, filed a lawsuit against the Almighty, accusing him of violating the terms of the contract. The plaintiff stated that when he was baptized into Christianity, an agreement was concluded between him and God. According to it, the Almighty, in exchange for payments in the form of prayers, had to protect Mircea from various troubles. The offender directly accused God of fraud, breach of trust, corruption and use of administrative resources. Since the defendant himself lives in heaven, he was supposed to be represented by the Orthodox Church. But the court rejected Paul's claims on the grounds that God is not an object of law and is deprived of a place of residence.
15. In May 2004, a hearing was held in Connecticut in what turned out to be an unusual case. A certain Hester Specialski was accused of killing Neil Esosito. The prosecution alleged that the man was thrown out of the car Hester was driving at the moment when vehicle lost control and crashed. In her defense, the defendant argued that she could not be driving, as she was in the passenger seat at the time of the accident, having oral sex with Esposito, who was driving the car. Although the man was found with his pants down, the prosecution considered that he simply could, while in the passenger seat, show his buttocks out the window or even urinate. As a result, the jury found Spesialski not guilty of the alleged negligent murder. If proven guilty, she could go to jail for 25 years.
17. In the 19th century it happened that judges judged themselves. So, in 1874, Francis Evans Cornish, acting justice of the peace in Winnipeg, Canada, considered the case of his own drunken appearance in public place. The honest judge pleaded guilty, fined him $5 and ordered him to pay court costs. True, he immediately ordered the following to be entered into the protocol: “Francis Evans Cornish! Considering that you have behaved decently in the past, the fine is cancelled.”
18. In 1980, an interesting decision was made in the UK Court of Appeal regarding the intimate life of citizens. Lord Justice Dunne, Lord Justice Ormrod and Justice Arnold, in the case of the Basingstoke woman, decided that she was entitled to ration her sexual relations with my spouse. The lady did not agree to make love to her husband more than once a week. After the announcement of such a verdict, curious journalists tried to interview the wives of all the judges who heard this unusual case with comments.
19. One Chinese man asked the court to name his son "@". However, this request was denied because there is a law that children must have names that can be translated into Mandarin.
20. In September 2004, Judge Patabendinge of Sri Lanka sentenced a man to a year in prison for contempt of court. The victim, named Ajit, was a defendant during the hearing, but during the hearing he stretched and yawned, which was immediately noted by the judge. He immediately became furious and passed such a sentence.
Photo from portalpk.ru
On April 1, April Fool's Day was celebrated all over the world. We asked lawyers to recall funny decisions Russian ships, as well as surprising and funny, in their opinion, situations from the boardrooms. As a result, the selection included stories about a lawsuit to recognize Valery Zorkin's "absolute rightness", 6 million sheets of documentation, a "legal doctrine" personally from Dmitry Medvedev, and much more.
Legal work is not that funny, but there is a place for humor in it, he says Pavel Katkov, senior partner of the law firm "", but immediately adds: “Although it is specific, of course.” Let's start with the April Fool's (in every sense) story that we told at the interview Valery Narezhny, advisor « »: " I can’t say for sure that it took place, but if this is a bike, then it’s quite realistic.
Winter 2010-2011 in Ivanteevka (a city in the Moscow region), municipal services removed snow very poorly. The lawyer living there got tired of it, and in December he filed a lawsuit against the local management company with a request to oblige her to clear the sidewalks of snow. The judge scheduled the first meeting for the end of February, then postponed it twice, and in April she decided to dismiss the lawsuit. The motive is that the defendant can no longer fulfill the requirements due to changes in weather conditions.
It is difficult to confirm such stories, but for those who are especially incredulous, we have arbitration disputes. Where everything can be found on the website "Arbitration Case Files". Well, or almost everything. The only exception may be cases like the one that Valery Narezhny also reminded us of (he called it "the most famous and curious technical error of the court at the highest level").
We are talking about the dispute between AstrakhanPassazhirTrans OJSC and the tax authority (No. A06-5208/2008), which in October 2009 was to be considered by the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. When representatives of AstrakhanPassazhirTrans went to the website of the Supreme Arbitration Court a week before the meeting to download the ruling on the consideration of the case, it turned out that instead of it there was already posted ready text resolution in which the applicant of the supervisory complaint denied. The motivation was fully described and all members of the Presidium were listed. Empty place remained only in those places where the names of the representatives of the parties should have been. Cm. " ".
“Apparently, there was an inattentiveness of a specialist from the Supreme Arbitration Court, who, instead of a file with the text of the ruling on assigning the case for consideration, posted on the website a pre-prepared “fish” of the court decision,” suggests Narezhny. Judge-rapporteur Marina Zorina then recused herself. However, the case was still considered, and the decision made was exactly the same as in the “fish” published by chance.
We want incredible things!
YOU have already corrected the “technical error”, but in the vastness of the Ring Road there are many other interesting things that they are not going to correct. For example, the most "brilliant", according to Viktor Gerbutov,Partner, Head of Dispute Resolution Practice, - this is the determination of the Volgograd Region AS dated October 19, 2009 (case No. A12-21010/2009). There attention is drawn to the claims of the plaintiff. Here is how the court itself describes them in the definition:
"OOO" Stanovskoye "applied with statement of claim, in which the Arbitration Court of the Volgograd Region requests do the incredible» . And the “incredible” lies, in particular, in the following:
- “to oblige the defendant, the Russian Federation, to comply with the requirements of its own legislation”;
- “to admit that Russia is not a rule-of-law state...”;
- “to admit that on October 29, 2004, the chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Valery Zorkin, was absolutely right in his public speech”. (The following are explanations of what exactly Zorkin was right about). “If we engage in pure guardianship, deny the obvious, insist on our infallibility-quantity can develop into quality. And we can essentially lose not only the remnants of legal authority, but also legal personality as such. And at the same time, overall sovereignty as a whole...”- the words of the chairman of the Constitutional Court are quoted in the definition.
Holy spring
You can learn a lot from the acts of arbitration courts and about the sources of law.
For example, from the decision of the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region of 2008 (No. A56-6546 / 2008). This is another case from the “archive of curiosities” of Viktor Gerbutov. The dispute concerned the problems of OSAGO, and the court "when choosing the principles of [its] consideration" was guided "legal doctrine" of the President of the Russian Federation(then Dmitry Medvedev). It was formulated by the president, as follows from the decision of the court, at a solemn meeting in honor of the 85th anniversary of the creation of the Supreme Court. There Medvedev mentioned that " legal nihilism is the most powerful brake on the path of the development of our state", "disrespect for the law does not appear by itself", and "legal culture directly depends on the quality of law and the quality of law enforcement government bodies and officials".
And in 2015, in the case of recognition of property rights No. A32-25579/2014, which she told us about Anna Zabrotskaya, Advisor and Head of Dispute Resolution Practice, St. Petersburg Office "", the AC of the Krasnodar Territory referred in its decision to Justinian's Digests. Here's what it says verbatim:
“The priority of the interests of the land owner and the service role of canals was emphasized in Roman law. Thus, in Justinian’s Digests it is stated that “the benefit of the one who drains the water should be taken into account only in the absence of damage to the one who owns the field,” “a canal cannot from open to become underground, since this deprives the owner of the land of the benefit from watering livestock and drawing water" (Digests. Book forty-three. Title XXI. 2, 3 // Property rights to land in selected fragments from Justinian’s Digest. M.: Statute, 2006. P. 615)".
Restaurant, light snacks... tights
However, reality itself often provides judges with non-standard topics for “resolution” (and reflection): everything that needs to be analyzed.
For example, says Gerbutov, back in 2002, the cassation of the North-Western District considered a rental dispute (No. A56-28425/01) about which improvements could be recognized as separable and which could not. The following verdict was returned: “The cassation court believes that of all the above, only sinks with stands and toilets with tanks are separable improvements, since their dismantling cannot affect the condition of the room in which they are installed. This is confirmed by the examination reports...”
In 2007, the capital's arbitration courts examined an “invitation to a VIP restaurant” (No. 09AP-11892/2007-AK) in a tax dispute. The applicant argued that there was no value in it (except for the price of the paper). “It is not the invitation itself as an object of the material world (a piece of paper) that has legal significance, but the rights that [it] provides”, - stated in the act of first instance. The appeal agreed: "…invitation<…>includes the right of a person to consume light snacks, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. The applicant transferred this property right to receive service in a VIP restaurant free of charge to his clients, therefore the tax authority came to a reasonable conclusion about the presence of an object of VAT taxation..
According to lawyers from "", in one dispute with the tax authority they represented a restaurant operator Catering. The tax authorities refused to recognize expenses for the purchase of tights for waitresses. Her position was that tights are not part of the uniform. The case continued until it became clear that tax office employees were also given tights as uniform uniforms.
The main thing is participation
Often the “blanket” is pulled over by the participants in the process, who themselves become the main characters of funny situations. Here is another example from the experience of Pepeliaev Group:
Or the bankruptcy case No. A19-3409/2014, well-known in legal circles. There, Viktor Petrov, a participant in the dispute, attracted attention. From the ruling of the Court of Justice of the Irkutsk Region dated September 29, 2015, the text of his complaint addressed to the chairman of the court Batraz Aldatov about speeding up the proceedings became known. Its content, apparently, so impressed judge Marina Chigrinskaya that Petrov was fined (2,500 rubles) for “undermining the authority of justice.” As its definition says, Petrov " allowed expressions and phrases that contradict not only the norms of the Russian literary language, but also generally accepted norms of etiquette and morality".
It will be difficult to retell the complaint without losing its “artistic form,” so here are some quotes from it [author’s spelling preserved]:
On 06/17/2015, there was already a complaint about red tape addressed to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation V.M. Lebedev, where, in order to speed up the time for consideration of the application, they asked for “gesheft” for the chairman of the court Aldatov Batraz, who is silent on complaints in writing and according to statements is barely almost speeds up, “his hands are full.”
Thus, we understand little or little that from 06/15/2015 to 07/29/2015 Judge Marina Chigrynskaya was spinning the dynamo, and then on 07/30/2015 she was spinning the propeller, and we all flew away not for 10 days, but until 09/09/2015.
Moreover, according to the statement dated 06/25/2015, the chairman also barely accelerated, remained on the handbrake, and we are again stuck on the case until 09/09/2015.
Based on the above 1. I ask the chairman of the court Aldatov Batraz (like in the movie the hero - Kamander V.I. Chapaev in a papakha and a burka back and forth on pineapples and bananas) to clearly depict to Judge Marina Chigrinskaya the deadline for postponing court proceedings on the grounds of paragraph 5 of the article 158 APK RF<...>
<...>I ask the chairman of the court, Aldatov Batraz, taking into account the repeated applications for acceleration in case No. A19-3409/2014, to speed up a little or hurry up on the basis of part 6 of article 6.1. Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation alone or in duo with a judge.
<...>I ask the chairman Aldatov Batraz, in case of another refusal, to personally lead the consideration of case No. A19-3409 / 2014, so that everyone can see this and everyone envy us
Every time we mention this or that criminal case, we say that the court will decide whether a person is guilty or not, the court will impose a punishment, the court will sort it out. But sometimes Themis makes decisions that, according to the law, have the right to exist, but from the point of view of common sense, they are completely incomprehensible. We don't put people in prison for killing a person, but they send them to a colony for stealing a bottle of vodka. We have made a selection of the strangest, absurd and unfair sentences of local courts.
If you're an employee, it's not so scary.
Just the other day, the Supreme Court of Karelia changed the sentence of the son of the head of the ninth colony, Alexander Gavrilenko, who, while working as a policeman, took bribes from casino owners. Initially, Gavrilenko was sentenced to 5 years in prison in a strict regime colony and a fine of 200 million rubles. The court of appeal reviewed this decision and ... not only reduced the amount of the fine to him to 29 million, but also released him from custody “immediately”.
According to investigators, in 2011-2013, the son of the head of the famous “nine” together with his colleagues almost every month received a reward for informing the organizers gambling in Petrozavodsk, the exact dates and times of checks on their activities so that they can hide slot machines prohibited from use. Gratitude for the help reached 140 thousand rubles. According to law enforcement In total, Gavrilenko “earned” millions from his talkativeness.
At the same time, Andrey Bukalev, an associate professor at the medical faculty of Petrozavodsk State University, served his term. For a bribe of 16,000 rubles, he was sentenced to two years in prison in a penal colony. According to the investigation, the teacher received money from students for passing the exam.
Life or a bottle of vodka
In December last year, the former head of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of Karelia for Belomorsk, Alexander Zemenko, was found guilty of the death of 17-year-old Stepan Ruden: while driving a Volkswagen pickup truck, when turning left, the investigator did not provide an advantage in traffic and collided with a moped moving in the opposite direction. direction. Stepan lay in a coma for several months and died, never once regaining consciousness. But what about the investigator? The court sentenced the former law enforcement officer to 3 years of suspended liberty (!), and the Supreme Court of Karelia did not toughen this punishment. This despite the fact that the investigator did not admit his guilt, and did not even apologize to Stepan's parents.
In February 2007, the Petrozavodsk city court passed a sentence on a policeman who, in a state of alcoholic intoxication, knocked down three people in a car. Vitaly Makkoev, the senior detective of the criminal investigation department of the North-Western Department of Internal Affairs on transport, while driving a service Volga in a state of intoxication, was driving with excess speed and hit a woman with two grandchildren at a pedestrian crossing. As a result of an accident, a five-year-old boy suffered serious bodily harm, his grandmother and seven-year-old sister received moderate bodily injuries. The law enforcement officer was sentenced to one year of probation.
In January of this year, former policeman Alexander Serov, who hit two 17-year-old schoolchildren on a motorcycle, received only a suspended sentence of one and a half years. This happened in May 2014. That day, a drunk policeman in a Nissan, trying to make a left turn, missed the motorcycle. The motorcyclist crashed into the left front fender of the crossover. As a result, teenagers with fractures and concussions were sent to the hospital. Due to an accident, they were unable to pass their final exams.
But in February, the same court sentenced a man who stole a bottle of vodka from a store to two years and one month in a maximum security colony. And a month earlier, the Petrozavodsk City Court sent to prison for two years a 29-year-old young man who stole a bottle of beer from a store. Well, in May last year, a man who stole a piece of cheese from the Lentorg store and, while running away, hit a policeman, received 6 years and 1 month in a maximum security colony.
Ketamine is more valuable than life
In February 2012, a sentence was passed that shook the whole country - the honored doctor of Karelia, anesthetist Elvira Gapkovskaya was sentenced to 6 years for stealing 4 rubles 72 kopecks. The punishment, however, was suspended, despite the fact that the prosecutor asked to send Gapkovskaya to a strict regime colony. Let us remember that the culprit of this celebration of Themis was an uncastrated cat. In December 2010, during another operation in the Petrozavodsk maternity hospital, after the anesthesia was administered to the patient, a little ketamine remained in the syringe, which the anesthesiologist Elvira Gapkovskaya decided to leave for the castration of her colleague's cat (at the request of her colleague, of course). She told the nurse not to throw away the syringe, and the woman left it behind, carefully wrapping it in a tissue and signing: "Ketamine for the cat." A month later, drug control showed up at the maternity hospital. Together with Gapkovskaya, a nurse also came under investigation, with whom, according to the investigation, the anesthesiologist had a preliminary conspiracy to steal a psychotropic drug. The examination established that the syringe contained 0.036 grams of ketamine worth 4 rubles 72 kopecks. But neither this ridiculous price, nor the lack of self-interest in the actions of doctors, nor the fact that the medicine was intended for a cat and no harm was caused to anyone, the Petrozavodsk court decided not to take into account. Both women received suspended, but long sentences. Fortunately, a month later, the Supreme Court of Karelia overturned this truly absurd verdict.
Against the backdrop of the initial verdict to Elvira Gapkovskaya, the verdicts against doctors whose actions led to the death of patients seem very strange. So, in 2010, the same Petrozavodsk city court sentenced the operating sister of the gynecological hospital of the maternity hospital named after. Gutkin to Nadezhda Kostyukova. A woman was found guilty of leaving a towel in her patient's stomach. The tragedy occurred in December 2008. During a surgical operation performed on a 33-year-old mother of three minor children, the operating sister did not ensure strict accounting of auxiliary surgical materials and informed the surgeon about the coincidence of the amount of funds used before and after the operation. As a result, a foreign body left in the patient's abdominal cavity - a towel - was not detected in a timely manner. Due to postoperative complications that arose for this reason, the woman died in May 2009. The court sentenced Kostyukova to one year of suspended imprisonment.
One year of restriction (!) of freedom was received in February 2012 by an endoscopist from the Petrozavodsk Emergency Hospital medical care, due to which the patient also died. As established in court, in August 2011, during the fibrogastroduodenoscopy procedure, the accused ordered the nurse assisting him to close the valve on the device through which the unconscious patient was supplied with an oxygen-air mixture for breathing. As a result, gas began to accumulate in the patient's lungs, she received a barotrauma and died.
In March 2006, the Segezha city court sentenced doctor Viktor Shevchenko to 1 year and 10 months of suspended liberty, who was found guilty of the death of a 4-year-old patient. According to investigators, the girl was taken to the hospital with a fracture of the right humerus with fragments displaced. The doctor knew that with such injuries, there is a high risk of developing a syndrome of compression of the arm with a plaster cast, associated with an increase in edema, and therefore it is necessary to dynamically monitor the patient in a hospital setting. However, despite the severity of the injury, the doctor unreasonably early discharged the juvenile patient for outpatient treatment on the same day. The next day, a pediatric surgeon at the local polyclinic recorded a deterioration in the child's condition, and the girl was urgently sent for examination to the district hospital. However, Shevchenko’s doctor again unreasonably refused to admit her to hospitalization. Soon the girl died. The cause of death was traumatic toxicosis, which developed as a result of compression right hand plaster cast.
In October last year, a surgeon from Kem was also suspended for only two years on probation, through whose fault a 15-year-old patient died. The young man was brought to the railway hospital after an accident. Knowing about the patient's abdominal injury, for some reason the doctor did not conduct a complete examination of the state of the abdominal organs. The correct diagnosis (the young man turned out to have a liver injury with a rupture) was made only more than 4 hours after a significant deterioration in the patient's health. The operation did not lead to a positive result, and the young man died in the hospital.
Monument
In July 2014, the trial of Suojärvi Mayor Andrey Lapin ended. The FSB detained him while receiving 55,000 rubles from a local businessman. The mayor claimed that he asked for this money for the construction of an obelisk, which he wanted to erect in memory of the natives of the Suoyarvi region who died during the wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya. This version was confirmed by a number of witness statements and a sketch of the monument provided to the court. It should be noted that Lapin was considered the people's mayor in the city. In the past, a driver of a timber truck and a children's hockey coach, he was remembered by the townspeople for the fact that, having become mayor, he did not move into the apartment provided to him, but gave it to the family of fire victims. An attempt to erect a monument to him was not forgiven. Lapin received 3 years of real imprisonment and a fine of 5 million rubles.
And a previously convicted resident of the Lakhdenpokh district, who raped a 12-year-old girl, will spend just a year more in prison. His sentence was announced in February 2014. In June 2013, another resident of Lakhdenpokhya received the same 4 years for raping and threatening to kill an orphanage inmate.
An excavator is no match for an airplane
In February 2015, the Petrozavodsk City Court sentenced a man who stole an excavator and drowned it in a swamp. As follows from the case materials, the convict worked as an excavator operator in one of the companies and, by verbal agreement, guarded the company’s special equipment, and in April 2014 he got drunk and drove the excavator out of the parking lot. Subsequently, an excavator drowned in a swamp with a drunk driver was discovered by police approximately 500 meters from the base. The man was imprisoned for one year. He will spend this time in a colony settlement.
And in general they did not imprison Major General Kanamat Botashev, who destroyed an airplane worth 100 million rubles and whose actions only miraculously did not lead to a terrible tragedy. According to the investigation, in June 2012, Botashev led tactical flight exercises in Karelia. One day, without having undergone training and without permission to fly a Su-27, the major general for some reason decided to take part in an aerial weather reconnaissance flight. Initially, the one who was supposed to be at the controls of the plane was Colonel Evgeniy Oleinik. However, once in the sky, Kanamat Botashev took control of the Su-27 and began performing aerobatic maneuvers. The general decided to try to perform the figure that caused the plane to crash for the first time that day.
