Federal Supreme Court, 09.11.2026, 6B_266/2026
Facts
On May 21, 2021, a serious workplace accident occurred during the unloading of a truck at a loading dock at a branch of company C.________ in U.________.
While preparatory unloading operations had begun and the load securing had been removed, A.________, the branch manager and safety officer, ordered the truck driver to back up further toward the ramp because the dock plate was overlapping the trailer by only a few centimeters.
During this maneuver, the plate tipped, and employee B.________, who had been standing on it, fell into the gap between the ramp and the trailer before being crushed by the reversing truck, sustaining life-threatening serious bodily injuries (notably acute liver failure and acute kidney failure) (Facts A, consid. 1.2.1).
The Schwyz District Court initially acquitted A.________ on November 13, 2024.
Ruling on an appeal by the plaintiff B.________, the Schwyz Cantonal Court amended this judgment on November 25, 2025, and found A.________ guilty of causing serious bodily harm through negligence (Art. 125 para. 2 SCC), sentencing him to a suspended fine of 150 daily penalty units (Fact A).
A.________ (hereinafter: the appellant) filed an appeal in criminal matters with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking primarily his acquittal and, alternatively, the referral of the case for a new judgment (Fact B).
Law
According to the principle of the indictment (Art. 9 and Art. 325 CrimPC, Art. 29 para. 2andand Art. 32 para. 2 Cst.), the indictment defines the scope of the proceedings (delimitation function) and protects the defendant's rights of defense (information function).
In cases of negligence and improper omission, the indictment must describe with sufficient precision the factual circumstances establishing the position of guarantor, the negligent breach of the duty of care, and the foreseeability and avoidability of the harmful result (consid. 1.1).
The offense of causing serious bodily harm through negligence (Art. 125 para. 2 SCC) penalizes anyone who, through culpable lack of foresight, unintentionally causes serious injury to another person (art. 12 para. 3 SCC).
Conduct violates the duty of care when the perpetrator creates or increases an unauthorized risk, despite being able and required to foresee the concrete danger given the circumstances and their personal capabilities, particularly by ignoring applicable safety rules or the general safety principle prohibiting the creation of a hazard without taking protective measures (consid. 2.1.1).
Imputation of the result requires an adequate causal link: the course of events must have been objectively foreseeable according to the ordinary course of things and life experience.
Concurrent fault by the victim or a third party only interrupts the adequate causal link if it constitutes an unforeseeable and completely extraordinary factor that relegates the perpetrator's conduct to the background (consid. 2.1.1).
Finally, the result must be avoidable, which implies that performing the required act would have prevented the harm with a high degree of probability (consid. 2.1.1).
Application to the specific case
The appellant first argues that the Cantonal Court violated the principle of the accusation by finding that he should have foreseen that the victim would remain in the trailer or on the gangway, whereas the indictment described the victim’s spontaneous and immediate climb onto the metal sheet at the moment of the maneuver (consid. 1.3.1).
The Federal Supreme Court rejects this grievance: the indictment precisely described the unloading preparations in which the victim was participating and attributed to the appellant both an action (having given the order to maneuver) and an improper omission (having neither checked nor ordered that no one be in the danger zone); the appellant was fully aware of the charges and was able to effectively exercise his defense (consid. 1.3.2).
On the merits, the appellant contests the violation of the duty of care and argues that the victim’s reckless act interrupted the causal link (consid. 2).
The Federal Supreme Court confirms the reasoning of the cantonal instance: by ordering the driver to reverse while unloading preparations had already begun and without first ensuring the danger zone was clear, the appellant created a direct and unlawful risk (consid. 2.3.1).
In his capacity as branch manager and safety officer—having been warned two months earlier by an internal directive following a similar accident at another branch—the appellant had the obligation and the capacity to prevent this risk (consid. 2.2.3 and 2.3.1).
The tipping of the gangway and the victim’s fall were objectively foreseeable according to general life experience.
Furthermore, the victim’s conduct, while imprudent, was not so aberrant or unforeseeable as to break the chain of adequate causation, given that the unloading process was already underway with the appellant’s assistance (consid. 2.3.1).
If the appellant had complied with his duty of care by ensuring that no one was on the ramp before ordering the maneuver, the result would have been avoided with a high degree of probability (consid. 2.3.1).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal (consid. 2.3.1).
The conviction of A.________ for negligent grievous bodily harm handed down by the Cantonal Court of Schwyz is upheld (consid. 2.3.1).