Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

jacee · July 11, 2014

Yes you are. A road hazard is any stationary object in your path. If you hit one, it's your fault. As I said, she was also at fault, but he was breaking the law in so many ways, it isn't even funny. This verdict is completely wrong.

No you are.

.

jacee · July 11, 2014

1) Do you guys know what negligence is? Yes or no?

2) Was the woman negligent in leaving her vehicle stopped in the left lane when it was not absolutely necessary to do so? Yes or no?

3) Did the presence of the unlit stopped vehicle in the left lane create a hazardous situation for others? Yes or no?

4) Did this hazardous situation result in death? Yes or no?

If you answer yes to the above questions, then she is guilty of "criminal negligence causing death" and deserves the applicable sentence.

If you answered no to question 1 or 2, please read up on the definition of negligence. If you answered no to question 3, I don't want to be anywhere close to where you're driving. For the answer to question 4, read the news article. That's ALL that is relevant in this case.

You can argue about insurance claims all you want but that has nothing to do with the topic of if the woman is guilty of criminal negligence causing death.

Yup ... what he said.

.

jacee · July 11, 2014

I have no problem with a careless driving charge.

If a guy was chasing his duck hunting hat too?

.

jacee · July 11, 2014

If one has the knowledge of how these things play out, then its easy to feel sorry for her sentence that hopefully is not coming barring an appeal.

I have no sympathy for her dumb actions and think she should pay a price, but certainly nothign that is being proposed.

Appeal overturn and a fine is what I hope happens

She could get the minimums, served concurrently.

Not sure what that is.

Minus good behaviour time ... it could look like the plea bargain she already refused.

The jury refused a lesser charge for 5 years, so So I'd guess she'll get at least that.

Her lawyer's counting on the appeal of the poor ducklings ...

She couldn't help them anyway.

She just scared them into traffic.

I don't think that'll fly as an emergency.

Appeal is very expensive, which her lawyer likes.

I think she's better off to take the concurrent minimums if she can still get it.

.

Smallc · July 11, 2014

No you are.

.

Well thought out reply.

Smallc · July 11, 2014

2) Was the woman negligent in leaving her vehicle stopped in the left lane when it was not absolutely necessary to do so? Yes or no?

3) Did the presence of the unlit stopped vehicle in the left lane create a hazardous situation for others? Yes or no?

4) Did this hazardous situation result in death? Yes or no?

2 ) yes

3 ) yes

4 ) only in combination with other negligence - that's the point. Your responsibilities as a driver don't disappear because someone is killed.

cybercoma · July 11, 2014

Careless - not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors."she had been careless and had left the window unlocked"synonyms: inattentive, incautious, negligent, absentminded, remiss;Ok, so you agree she was careless (or negligent), she did cause the deaths of 2 people so...why should they overturn a verdict that reflects exactly that.

criminal negligence is a specific legal definition, not a synonym for carelessness.

cybercoma · July 11, 2014

Smallc, yes or no, does parking your car in the passing lane on a multilane highway without any indicators, road flares, or pylons put people at great risk for serious bodily harm or death?

jbg · July 11, 2014

1) Do you guys know what negligence is? Yes or no?

Yes.

2) Was the woman negligent in leaving her vehicle stopped in the left lane when it was not absolutely necessary to do so? Yes or no?

There was a reason. The ducks would have died.

4) Did this hazardous situation result in death? Yes or no?

There would have been a dead duck otherwise.

If you answer yes to the above questions, then she is guilty of "criminal negligence causing death" and deserves the applicable sentence.

She was kind to animals. Edited July 11, 2014 by jbg

guyser · July 11, 2014

1) Do you guys know what negligence is? Yes or no?

Yes, a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person should exhibit.

2) Was the woman negligent in leaving her vehicle stopped in the left lane when it was not absolutely necessary to do so? Yes or no?

Yes.

3) Did the presence of the unlit stopped vehicle in the left lane create a hazardous situation for others? Yes or no?

Unlit? In broad daylight?

4) Did this hazardous situation result in death? Yes or no?

Before that can be answered, do you know what contributory negligence is?

To answer your question, this hazardouse situation, contributed by her stupid actions and his stupid actions (failure to keep a proper lookout, speeding, taligating)BOTH contributed to the deaths. The court found her guilty, and the court is not assigned to try other contributing evidence nor assign any to others, this is the narrow scope of the charge. If there were to be a civil suit (and there cannot be) I am positive there would be contributory negligence assigned.

You can argue about insurance claims all you want but that has nothing to do with the topic of if the woman is guilty of criminal negligence causing death.

No one has argues about insurance claims.

Some have read incorrectly and posited them.

Big Guy · July 11, 2014

As to sentencing, I believe our system is based on making sure the behaviour is not repeated, rehabilitation and messaging. I doubt very much if she, or anyone following the story will ever repeat that action. The message has already been sent that parking a car in the fast lane of a highway is not a good idea and could cause the death of others. As to rehabilitation, there really is no need in this case.

The only other factor is one of punitive actions on the part of the courts. To incarcerate this person would be strictly punitive, cost the taxpayer money to keep her in jail and solve nothing. A fine would be the appropriate punishment.

A fine and suspended sentence.

Smallc · July 11, 2014

Smallc, yes or no, does parking your car in the passing lane on a multilane highway without any indicators, road flares, or pylons put people at great risk for serious bodily harm or death?

Not if the other people are acting as they should.

cybercoma · July 11, 2014

Then there is no reasoning with you. If you can't see that parking your car in the fast lane--that her actions put herself and others at risk for serious bodily harm or death, then you are by definition not a "reasonable" person. If her actions weren't dangerous, as long as others were doing what they're supposed to be doing, then there would be no need to make it illegal. She would not have been negligent. And there shouldn't even have been charges brought upon her. That is not a reasonable position to hold at all. People don't stop their cars and park in the passing lanes on highways because anyone who's not an incredibly irrational or extremely simple-minded person can see that doing this poses a great risk to cause serious bodily harm or death.

Edited July 11, 2014 by cybercoma

Big Guy · July 11, 2014

There are many examples of someone making a dumb move and causing great pain;

A young man sees a smouldering cigarette in a trash can in the washroom of a school. He pulls the fire alarm. As the school empties, another student falls down the stairs, hits her head and eventually dies. Is the alarm puller guilty of criminal negligence?

Smallc · July 11, 2014

Of course she created a hazard. It's completely his fault that he hit the hazard. It doesn't matter what the result was.

The law btw, exists to avoid the creation of unnecessary hazards. That doesn't abrogate the responsibility of other drivers on the road.

There's no reason to get insulting about it.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Smallc

guyser · July 11, 2014

There are many examples of someone making a dumb move and causing great pain;

That may be true...but this...

A young man sees a smouldering cigarette in a trash can in the washroom of a school. He pulls the fire alarm. As the school empties, another student falls down the stairs, hits her head and eventually dies. Is the alarm puller guilty of criminal negligence?

...isnt one of them.

A reasonable person would not ever entertain (nor shouold they) any injuries to others for pulling an alarm.

There really isnt any connection to these two.

All that aside, tell the young man to get a bucket of water and to forego calling the FD. Its a smouldering ciggie butt for heavens sake.

guyser · July 11, 2014

Of course she created a hazard. It's completely his fault that he hit the hazard.

Not quite smallc.

She did, but while he cetainly has fault attributed to him, I dare so it will not nor should be all allocated to him.

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2014

..... People don't stop their cars and park in the passing lanes on highways because anyone who's not an incredibly irrational or extremely simple-minded person can see that doing this poses a great risk to cause serious bodily harm or death.

...and yet it happens with regularity for a myriad of reasons and other motorists are able to avoid hitting the vehicle. Amazing !

jacee · July 11, 2014

This verdict is completely wrong.

No you are.
Well thought out reply.

Thanks! I thought so too.

Smallc · July 11, 2014

Not quite smallc.

She did, but while he cetainly has fault attributed to him, I dare so it will not nor should be all allocated to him.

I think I phrases it improperly. He wouldn't have hit the hazard without her actions and his complacency. The hazard wouldn't have existed without her. It was still his job to avoid it.

jacee · July 11, 2014

4 ) only in combination with other negligence

Are you sure you have all the facts required to make that judgement?

Do you have info that the jury didn't have?

If so please share, with citations.

Because your opinion and speculation alone are not sufficient to support the claims you are making.

.

Smallc · July 11, 2014

We know he was speeding and we know he was tailgating.

guyser · July 11, 2014

We know he was speeding and we know he was tailgating.

Yup.

cybercoma · July 11, 2014

Of course she created a hazard. It's completely his fault that he hit the hazard. It doesn't matter what the result was.

The law btw, exists to avoid the creation of unnecessary hazards. That doesn't abrogate the responsibility of other drivers on the road.

There's no reason to get insulting about it.

If it's completely his fault that he hit her, then she didn't create a "hazard." She simply parked her car. It's a hazard because it's dangerous. It's dangerous because parking your car in the fast lane can kill someone and in this case it did.

cybercoma · July 11, 2014

We know he was speeding and we know he was tailgating.

The problem with what you're saying, and you've ignored this from page one, is that he wasn't negligent in any way whatsoever. He wasn't driving recklessly. He was driving in the exact same manner as others on the highway around him at the time. If you can't see that, then I have to wonder whether you actually have a license or not.