Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Big Guy

Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

Recommended Posts

Did you not see the thread about the Muslim man getting a slap in the wrist for hitting/killing his daughter?

In both that and this case, the sentence seems, to most rational people, to be completely wrong.

Good point, both are examples of complete negligence. Stupidity kills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are unable to control you vehicle and come to a full stop, slow down or take a bus.Just because the speed limit is 90 kmh, it doesn't mean you have to go 90 kmh. Impatience causes more accidents than alcohol.

And get of your f*cking damn cell phone. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is perplexing.

She should have put her hazards on, and if she had she may have gone scot free.

The m/c behind her holds , IMO, the most blame for they were speeding, and not keeping a proper lookout .

She made a dumb move trying to protect the birds, had other options such as calling it in etc.

I would not be surprised if overturned on appeal, and if it stands, no jail time but community service.

I certainly hope she does not go to jail,as that would be a travesty.


Just one piece of advice for some of you. You will be held liable by your insurance company if you hit a stopped object on the road. If a tree fell at night...in a rain storm, a car broken down, something fallen off the back of a truck.

Edited by Guyser2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if someone is going say 100 km in the passing lane they're supposed to be ready for some freakin' idiot to be parked in the lane?

Yes, absolutely. Your State insurance commission agrees .

That freakin idiot could be a tree, a rock , something off the back of a truck...any number of things including a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another person, driving on the same freekin road, couldn't even stop to save their own stupid life!

WWWTT

What a rude, disrespectful, and idiotic comment to make about someone who died. If parking her car in the passing lane wasn't a stupid and dangerous act, then it wouldn't have been negligent. It also wouldn't be illegal to park your car on the highway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a tragedy - but why would someone on a motorcycle with his daughter on the back be going "from 113 km/h to 129 km/h" on a highway?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-guilty-in-2-highway-deaths-after-stopping-for-ducks-1.2682200

Probably because that's the speed traffic was going on the highway. You make it sound like you've never driven on the 401.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know they teach you, when learning to drive, to assume everyone else is a bad driver.

It's not reasonable to assume that a car will be parked in the passing lane on a highway because parking a car in the passing lane on the highway is not a reasonable act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are unable to control you vehicle and come to a full stop, slow down or take a bus.Just because the speed limit is 90 kmh, it doesn't mean you have to go 90 kmh. Impatience causes more accidents than alcohol.

What caused this accident was an idiot parking her car in the passing lane on a highway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you not see the thread about the Muslim man getting a slap in the wrist for hitting/killing his daughter?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23620-man-kills-his-daughter-only-gets-60-days/

Also happened in Quebec.

In both that and this case, the sentence seems, to most rational people, to be completely wrong.

Except a reasonable person wouldn't assume that slapping someone would kill them. A reasonable person should assume that parking their car in the passing lane on a highway could cause bodily harm from an accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, both are examples of complete negligence. Stupidity kills.

The slapping case wasn't negligence because a reasonable person wouldn't assume that slapping someone would cause serious bodily harm or death. He was convicted and sentenced for manslaughter, which has a different standard of proof.

Here's the difference.

In the criminal negligence causing death case the Crown has to prove that she committed an act that a reasonable person would understand would cause serious bodily harm and that act resulted in someone's death.

In the manslaughter slapping case, the Crown has to prove that the person killed someone while doing something that was illegal and dangerous.

The negligence case requires that a reasonable person would understand that the thing being done would cause serious bodily harm or death. In the manslaughter case, "dangerous" just means any harm or injury is a reasonable assumption.

In the case of the father slapping his daughter, it's not reasonable to assume that it would cause serious bodily injury or death. No reasonable person would think that slapping someone, no matter how hard, would kill them. However, it is safe to say that slapping someone is meant to harm them, as the entire purpose is to bring about physical pain. In the case of the woman parking her car, a reasonable person would assume that this, especially on a highway where cars are doing in excess of 100km/h, could cause an accident leading to serious injuries or deaths.

They were both good decisions that fit with the definition of their crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be surprised if overturned on appeal, and if it stands, no jail time but community service.

On what grounds? The facts of the case meet the criteria for criminal negligence causing death perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not reasonable to assume that a car will be parked in the passing lane on a highway because parking a car in the passing lane on the highway is not a reasonable act.

Sure but any driver should be fully prepared to be able to come to a stop should there be a stationary object ahead of them (a tire, roadkill or a foolish woman trying to save ducks). Hazards help, but unless it was on an unlit road on a foggy night, the driver should have been able to detect that the lane was blocked and at very least change lanes, if not be able to come to a complete stop.

She didn't slam on her breaks to get out and help these ducks, and even if she did, a driver should keep an appropriate stopping distance.

Let's say the lady stopped on the shoulder and went into the left lane to help said ducks and was killed by someone on a motorbike? Would that person be found not guilty of any charges because that woman shouldn't have been in the lane to begin with?

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On what grounds? The facts of the case meet the criteria for criminal negligence causing death perfectly.

Lack of precedent , lack of similar cases getting anywhere near the same sentence.Intent and so on.

The MC rider was the architect of his own misfortune moreso than the driver of the car cyber.

There is no way anyone can argue that he did 'keep a proper lookout'

If this case is to stand as such (and it may..in QC which is unto itself)...lets look at a slightly expanding version for arguments sake.

You are car 5 of a line of 12 headed by the motorcycle. The MC fails to stop and so do the rest of them, a 12 car pileup. It happens, we know that...right?

So, who is held responsible for cars 1 thru 12 ? Well....the front of each car is held at fault to the driver in front.

But with this case, it could be argues that the driver who stopped for the ducks could/would be held liable for all.

Edited by Guyser2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say the lady stopped on the shoulder and went into the left lane to help said ducks and was killed by someone on a motorbike? Would that person be found not guilty of any charges because that woman shouldn't have been in the lane to begin with?

Careful with this one.

If she darted out, then yes.

If she were already present, then no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boges at speed it takes someone a second or two for reaction time. Stuff happens. Go park your car like she did and see what happens. It could have been a transport truck that hit her vehicle. What she did was utter and complete stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How experienced are you with motorbikes?

Alright so I checked out some of the pics and something does not quite make sense to me.

I admire her compassion for the animals, but this was a really dumb move on her part.

Not very experienced with bikes so I will take your word. I know enough to know very well that I will steer clear of them on the road and I won't get on one beyond a recreational off road bike putting around.

I also tried checking out the pics, but I only had more questions than answers.

Leaving your car stopped in the middle of the road would only be partial responsibility in my opinion. You still have to be in control of your vehicle. It's not like she pulled out in front of someone. Her vehicle was not moving.

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boges at speed it takes someone a second or two for reaction time. Stuff happens. Go park your car like she did and see what happens. It could have been a transport truck that hit her vehicle. What she did was utter and complete stupidity.

No question what she did was the hight of stupidity. I'm just saying, the dead driver should bare some responsibility. The car was stopped. Even if she slammed on the brakes to do this, the driver would have been at fault because not enough stopping distance was given.

Rear-ended collisions are ALWAYS the fault the the driver doing the rear-end collision. That's why you see people setting up insurance scams by slamming the brakes in front of cars because they know the entrapped driver would be at fault.

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boges at speed it takes someone a second or two for reaction time.

No one questions that GH. We have all been behind the wheel and realized an "oh shit" moment but hoepfully without harm, the end lesson being we did not leave enough room.

Stuff happens. Go park your car like she did and see what happens. It could have been a transport truck that hit her vehicle. What she did was utter and complete stupidity.

To me it really doenst matter all that much.

Mitigating I grant you, but an obstacle at rest is considered an at fault accident should you hit it. I have no idea why that isnt applied here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if someone is going say 100 km in the passing lane they're supposed to be ready for some freakin' idiot to be parked in the lane?

Yes!

When I last checked, vision was a pre requisite for driving.

Why was this guy not able to see the stopped vehicle? Keep in mind that a stopped vehicle looks like a stopped vehicle even without hazard lights on.

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure but any driver should be fully prepared to be able to come to a stop should there be a stationary object ahead of them (a tire, roadkill or a foolish woman trying to save ducks). Hazards help, but unless it was on an unlit road on a foggy night, the driver should have been able to detect that the lane was blocked and at very least change lanes, if not be able to come to a complete stop.

If you ignore the fact that the SUV in front of him changed lanes at the last minute, sure.

Imagine the situation. You're riding a motorcycle on the highway at night and the SUV in front of you changes lanes. You see the car that was in front of the SUV, but it doesn't have any brake lights on and there's no obvious signs of an accident. You're not going to assume it is stopped. That safe stopping distance between you and the moving SUV also includes the SUV's stopping distance. Her car wasn't moving. It was stopped and it wouldn't have appeared to be stopped until the motorcycle gained on the car. Therefore, it's my opinion that this isn't a stopping distance issue. I believe he would have hit that car even if he was driving the speed limit and was 3 seconds behind the SUV that changed lanes.

She didn't slam on her breaks to get out and help these ducks, and even if she did, a driver should keep an appropriate stopping distance.

I don't know how long she was parked there before the accident. Do you? I also don't see how it's relevant.

Let's say the lady stopped on the shoulder and went into the left lane to help said ducks and was killed by someone on a motorbike? Would that person be found not guilty of any charges because that woman shouldn't have been in the lane to begin with?

I don't know. Let's make up a bunch of hypothetical situations that never actually happened and try to figure out what might be the case.

Chances are however that the driver would not have been convicted of killing her. It's not first or second degree murder obviously. It's not manslaughter because he wasn't doing anything illegal at the time. So that leaves criminal negligence. The driver likely wouldn't have been negligent hitting the person running around in the middle of the highway either. In fact, it would be the person that's running around in the highway that is being negligent and putting people at risk.

Feel free to argue otherwise using the appropriate sections of the criminal code to make your case. But even in your hypothetical situation, I don't see the driver being charged unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something the driver does or fails to do in that situation would reasonably result in serious bodily harm or death. It's not reasonable to assume a pedestrian is going to be running around on a highway. If a car swerves out of the way of the pedestrian at the last second and the driver behind them plows into the pedestrian and kills them, I think it's safe to assume that it would go down as a tragic accident with no charges. But feel free to prove some kind of negligence. Your situation is entirely hypothetical so you can move the goalposts all you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was this guy not able to see the stopped vehicle? Keep in mind that a stopped vehicle looks like a stopped vehicle even without hazard lights on.

WWWTT

No it doesnt.

Not that it matters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ignore the fact that the SUV in front of him changed lanes at the last minute, sure.

I imagine the SUV changed lanes because there was some kook in the left lane trying to help ducks. If the MC was following this SUV at an appropriate distance then they would have had ample opportunity to come to a full stop.

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No question what she did was the hight of stupidity. I'm just saying, the dead driver should bare some responsibility. The car was stopped. Even if she slammed on the brakes to do this, the driver would have been at fault because not enough stopping distance was given.

Rear-ended collisions are ALWAYS the fault the the driver doing the rear-end collision. That's why you see people setting up insurance scams by slamming the brakes in front of cars because they know the entrapped driver would be at fault.

And that's because someone slamming on their brakes activates the bright red indicator lights on their car and takes several meters before they come to a complete stop. It would also likely kick up debris and smoke from the road if they really hauled off on the binders.

That's entirely different than travelling behind an SUV that changes lanes at the last second to reveal a stopped car that has no lights on or any indication that they're NOT moving. By the time you realize they're stopped it's too late and that's even if you're doing the speed limit and following at an appropriate distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ignore the fact that the SUV in front of him changed lanes at the last minute, sure.

We may never know, but the fact that the SUV would have swerved should have caused a reaction of the MC driver.

Imagine the situation. You're riding a motorcycle on the highway at night and the SUV in front of you changes lanes. You see the car that was in front of the SUV, but it doesn't have any brake lights on and there's no obvious signs of an accident. You're not going to assume it is stopped. That safe stopping distance between you and the moving SUV also includes the SUV's stopping distance. Her car wasn't moving. It was stopped and it wouldn't have appeared to be stopped until the motorcycle gained on the car. Therefore, it's my opinion that this isn't a stopping distance issue. I believe he would have hit that car even if he was driving the speed limit and was 3 seconds behind the SUV that changed lanes.

Check the math Cybercoma.

At the speeds indicated at trial, under your scenario...he had 352 feet to stop (3 cecs). Over a football field.

A foot ball field.

Had the posted limit been observed , 246 feet 90KPH to scrub off. Pretty easy to be honest.

Edited by Guyser2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...