[ad_1]
Hamburg – A father goes to the supermarket with his son Jonathan († 4 years old) on June 1, 2016. At checkout, the child suddenly collapses, eyes wide open. The next day he died, which should have been an electric shock. Now, the supermarket operators are in court.
A 44-year-old man and his 48-year-old sister are charged with negligent homicide. They should either have misplaced the power line of an LED transformer or entrusted to a third party to do the work. As a result, electricity had flowed into a metal ramp near the cash register, which affected the boy. Even a layman could have recognized that the work had been carried out dilettantisch, said the prosecutor.
"Our Jonathan has always prevented us from sleeping, he was smart and advanced for his age, he was happy and happy that day," said Father David B. (37, Maurer). He's crying in the Harburg District Court. Sevnic B., Jonathan's mother, is a co-complainant. Again and again, his tears run down his face.
A close friend of BILD: "The life of the family is destroyed."
The father tells the court the day he will never forget. "I pushed the cart up to the cashier." Jonathan stood on the tray for the drinks crates, and then I saw his head sagging on his arm, a hand holding the banister near him. He could not move, I also received an electric shock on the pole, then I pulled him out of the railing, there was no sound from him, his eyes were He was still breathing deeply three times. "
And further: "It probably took 25 or 30 minutes until the arrival of the ambulance.His lips were completely blue.I wanted someone to help me! "The little boy died the next night.
One critic leaves no doubt about the cause of death: "There was a cardiac arrest, a heart attack complete of all the heart muscle, the cause of death was the surge."
The two accused themselves did not want to give details of the case in their supermarket on Tuesday. The advocate of Erol A., the defense attorney, Gerald Goecke, addresses his parents in the courtroom, speaking of "the infinite pain with which we all can understand".
Nevertheless, the defense wants to "fight for an acquittal". And further: "The defendants had no knowledge of the unsecured power point."
[ad_2]
Source link