A driver in Zurich hit an eight year old child in Mai 2002, injuring the child seriously.
The child had jumped directly into his path from behind a hedge.

He was charged with speeding (he was travelling at 53 kmh in a 50 kmh zone) and bodily injury caused by negligence.
He was acquitted of the injury charges and fined CHF 100 for 'minimal' speeding.

The court ruling resulted in indignation and outrage:
'The driver couldn't expect a child to jump directly in front of his vehicle - the child had caused the accident.'

The case was back in court last December and the outcome, confirmed by the appeal courts this week, was even more of a surprise:
The driver was sentenced to two months imprisonment (conditional) for grievous bodily injury caused by negligence and is to bear all costs incurred by the accident.
The reason:
The driver was familiar with the road and had to reckon with a child jumping from behind a hedge. He should, therefore, have matched his speed to the situation - in this case 30 kmh. He was, therefore, driving recklessly in the given situation.
The child was in no way to blame.

To my mind this is quite absurd.
While I do not condone the running down of children, neither do I condone the use of two measures.
The driver, being familiar with the road, was driving recklessly at 50 kmh.
A driver who is unfamiliar with the road is allowed to rely on it being safe to follow the signs.

Have you ever driven behind a vehicle that, for no visible reason, is travelling at 'half' the speed allowed?
I know that I have and - being late for an appointment - I nearly went nuts behind my steering wheel!

What on earth are road signs and speed limits for, if I am not allowed to rely on them?
The person responsible for the accident, was the one that had the signs put there in the first place!