Hit by a car and left on the road
On 13 March, the court in Marigot handed down its judgment in a case concerning a road traffic accident that occurred in 2023. A young driver had collided with a scooter before fleeing the scene.
On 13 May 2023, T.V., aged 24 at the time, was driving a hire car along the A-road running alongside the airport, heading towards Grand Case. In the passenger seat was A.R., a healthcare professional, who was absent from the hearing. He attempted to overtake and passed a vehicle belonging to two off-duty gendarmes. As he was pulling back into his lane, the front left side of his SUV struck E.B., aged 21, who was travelling in the opposite direction on his scooter. One of the police officers who witnessed the incident described seeing the young man “flying through the air like a rag doll”. The two gendarmes stated, however, that they had not seen the scooter before the impact, as it was travelling without lights, close to the centre line. E.B. was seriously injured: multiple fractures, pneumothorax, and his condition was life-threatening.
He remained in a coma for ten days, underwent skin grafts and was hospitalised for nearly eight months in Guadeloupe. His total incapacity for work was set at 120 days. Tests also revealed that he was under the influence of cannabis at the time of the incident. At the hearing, he still struggles to stand. “I have no memory of the accident,” he says.
A 4.5-kilometre drive-off
Despite the airbags deploying and the visible damage to the vehicle, T.V. only stopped for a few seconds before driving off again. In the dock, he stated: “I didn’t know I’d hit someone. ” He justified his flight by citing the presence of scooters whose riders he claimed seemed threatening. The two police officers who witnessed the incident, and who followed him to note down his number plate, made no mention of such behaviour. T.V. was intercepted several kilometres further on. His tests revealed the presence of alcohol, as well as cannabis and cocaine.
“Anything goes to save his skin”
The defence requests an acquittal, arguing that the charges against T.V. are not sufficiently specific in the summons. “The offence has neither been proven nor established,” argues the lawyer, pointing to a flawed summons. He also emphasises that E.B.’s scooter, which had no lights and was close to the centre line, was not visible, as confirmed by the witnesses themselves, despite E.B.’s denials. Faced with the defence, the prosecutor expressed marked scepticism. She sought a one-year custodial sentence and the confiscation of the vehicle for T.V., and a six-month suspended sentence for his passenger, A.R., for failing to assist a person in danger. “He’ll do anything to save his own skin,” she asserts.
The court sentenced T.V. to a one-year suspended prison sentence for hit-and-run. A.R. was acquitted due to insufficient evidence. E.B., charged with driving under the influence of drugs and driving an unroadworthy vehicle, was fined €100 and €400. The issue of compensation was referred back to the court for a hearing on civil claims.
