C.11 - CHICLANA CASE
"Cristina, the driver of the vehicle, dazzled by the blinding sunlight, was unable to see what was in front of her, as a result of which she ran over Constancia, who was cycling through the urbanisation... in the same direction, in the lane intended for cars. Constancia died as a result of hitting the road surface".
(Order of 17 July 1999, AP Cádiz, 5th Section; pte. Rubio Encinas; ARP19993634).
What is the difference between "eyelids close" and "eyelids close"?
I. We are asked to rule on Cristina's possible criminal liability.
II.
1. For which, first of all, it is necessary to determine whether it performs a human action. In this sense, it is clear that driving a vehicle requires an action to be performed. That is, a bodily movement by a human being as such, i.e. by a human being not as an animal (we would then speak of "human acts", not "human acts"), i.e. not as a mere physiological process, but as a process that can be understood by anyone as adopting rules of behaviour, i.e. as something that has its origin in a human being as a free being, at least minimally. In other words, Cristina can drive or stop driving, she can drive here or there, on the left or on the right.... This is what allows us to affirm that the process is susceptible to self-control: it has alternatives in its action. We are therefore dealing with a human action, a behaviour. It is not for nothing that it is said of those who drive a car that they drive.
However, it is not possible for a person to stop closing his or her eyelids in the face of powerful sunlight, because they close in the face of such a stimulus. Closing the eyelids, therefore, is a natural process, something purely animal, an "act of man", a process in which Cristina has no alternative, a process not susceptible to self-control. Even if she then, by an act of will, wishes to open her eyelids, her retina will only perceive the intense sunlight, which prevents her from seeing. Therefore, it can be said that closing one's eyes in front of a source of light such as the sun is a process that does not possess the character of human action.
The etymology of "obligation" may help to understand what law is: it comes from the verb "ob-ligo", which means to bind, to fasten. Applied to a domestic animal, it means to have tied up, to control. But it also applies to people, who are not bound physically, but with immaterial, moral ties: obligation. Whoever is bound by an obligation is "tied", committed to fulfil something.
II.2. However, this is not the only thing described in the case, as Cristina continues to drive. At this point it is worth clarifying: a) Closing the eyelids, or not seeing because of the blinding sunlight, cannot be attributed as a human action. But as this, from the point of view of Criminal Law, is irrelevant, atypical (no offence is committed), there is no need to question it further. b) On the other hand, continuing to drive, even knowing that one cannot see, does constitute a human action which, furthermore, can later be relevant to the offence, can be prohibited by Criminal Law. This can be said to constitute a human action with typical relevance.
III. At final, Cristina does perform a human action in terms of continuing to drive the vehicle, which is what we were asked to rule on. Criminal liability could be established from this, if necessary through the establishment of the other categories of the theory of the offence.
As has been explained, one can distinguish a moment of absence of behaviour (the inevitable closing of the eyelids), but also another, in which the subject does have self-control (continuing to drive).
Now compare with the following case, C.12.