Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

[Boges]

She wasn't reckless. She was negligent. By definition it was her negligence that caused his death. That's what the hearing of all the facts determined, not a bunch of know-it-alls on the internet.

Alright, but I'm sure, had dude survived, his insurance company wouldn't have absolved him from all liability in the accident.

[Smallc]

She wasn't reckless. She was negligent. By definition it was her negligence that caused his death.

No, her negligence contributed to his death. So did his recklessness.

[cybercoma]

No, her negligence contributed to his death. So did his recklessness.

The charge conviction is negligence causing death.

Edited May 21, 2015 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

Alright, but I'm sure, had dude survived, his insurance company wouldn't have absolved him from all liability in the accident.

Absoultely right. Unless an object is moving towards you in the wrong direction, you are 100% responsible for the road in fronto of you.

[cybercoma]

Alright, but I'm sure, had dude survived, his insurance company wouldn't have absolved him from all liability in the accident.

So what? Insurance companies are not courts. They do whatever they can to absolve themselves of responsibility.

[cybercoma]

Absoultely right. Unless an object is moving towards you in the wrong direction, you are 100% responsible for the road in fronto of you.

No. That's actually no true either. Do you just make stuff up and hope it's true?

[cybercoma]

I'll give you an example where it's not true. The example is when some idiot illegally, unreasonably, and unexpectedly parks their car on a highway and you don't have time to avoid it because of the traffic around you.

[Boges]

So what? Insurance companies are not courts. They do whatever they can to absolve themselves of responsibility.

I'm just saying most traffic accidents involve negligence from both parties.

Like if a guy runs a red-light while another guy is turning left. The law only sees that the guy turning left legally contributed to the crash but both parties contributed to the crash.

She should have been charged, no question. We're getting mired in a pointy headed debate about one's responsibility while driving.

I guess it's my fault for bumping the thread. I feel shame.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Boges

[Smallc]

No. That's actually no true either. Do you just make stuff up and hope it's true?

Actually, that is true and has always been true.

[GostHacked]

NONE of you would stop on the left side of the road on a major highway ......unless it was an emergency. Plain and simple. IF you are the type that WOULD stop on the left side of the divided highway, then you need to have your license revoked.

[Smallc]

And no one has claimed once that her actions did not contribute. The point is, so did his. His dying didn't change that.

[GostHacked]

And no one has claimed once that her actions did not contribute. The point is, so did his. His dying didn't change that.

Total bull. Her fault , full stop.

[cybercoma]

And no one has claimed once that her actions did not contribute. The point is, so did his. His dying didn't change that.

If only he had stayed home. Then none of this would have happen. Just being on the road contributed to his death. It's a ridiculous argument. Nobody in their right mind parks their car in the passing lane. Parked. Full stop. That's not something you expect on the road and given the conditions on those highways, it's very easy to see how he wouldn't have seen the stopped vehicle until it was too late. You keep trying to argue that somehow he contributed to his own death, when that's not true by any practical reason and it's certainly not true according to the definition of the law. Her actions and her actions alone are what caused his death. You don't park your car in the passing lane of a highway at all, let alone without any indicators, as was the case here. Her negligence is what caused his death and it was her negligence alone. You want to sit here and argue that he shouldn't be driving above the speed limit in the passing lane and that's just complete nonsense. People speed up to get around cars that they're passing. That's a normal and expected thing to do on a highway. What's not normal is parking your car in that lane. So stop blaming the victim here, as if he was doing anything negligent. It was the stopped car that was difficult to see under the conditions at the time that caused his death and she's the one, like an idiot, who stopped the car. But I guess if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound with your argument that he contributed to his own death and the courts were wrong.

Edited May 22, 2015 by cybercoma

[AngusThermopyle]

Although I agree with you Cyber I do have to point out something about your post. When you state that speeding up to pass is normal and expected, well, that sounds reasonable. However here in Ontario the law has now been changed regarding speeding up to pass. If an OPP officer observes you doing so he can now stop you and charge you with street racing or stunt driving. As to whether this law has been applied in such a manner I really couldn't say, probably not so far. It does exist though.

[Smallc]

You want to sit here and argue that he shouldn't be driving above the speed limit in the passing lane and that's just complete nonsense.

It's also completely illegal. It puts him at partial fault. He was also well in excess of the limit, not just a little above.

[Smallc]

Although I agree with you Cyber I do have to point out something about your post. When you state that speeding up to pass is normal and expected, well, that sounds reasonable. However here in Ontario the law has now been changed regarding speeding up to pass.

You never could. If you could in Ontario, that was an anomoly among the provinces.

[cybercoma]

It's also completely illegal. It puts him at partial fault. He was also well in excess of the limit, not just a little above.

Right. Completely illegal. Everyone on the TransCanada, just putting along at 100 km/h in the passing lane. It's nice that you think the law should be pedantic, but it's not. It considers circumstances. The consideration here would include the fact that people speed up to pass. It would also include the speed of traffic, which having driven through Montreal, I can tell you is not pegged at 100 km/h and especially not in the passing lane.

Edited May 22, 2015 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

It considers circumstances. The consideration here would include the fact that people speed up to pass.

Now you're just making things up. The rules of the road (the law) would find him at fault. The jury made a clear error in assigning all blame to her.

[cybercoma]

Now you're just making things up. The rules of the road (the law) would find him at fault. The jury made a clear error in assigning all blame to her.

I'm not making anything up. You need to brush up on how our legal system works and stop blaming a dead victim for the actions of a complete idiot.

[Smallc]

I'm not making anything up. You need to brush up on how our legal system works and stop blaming a dead victim for the actions of a complete idiot.

Her actions did contribute. So did his - that's been the point you can't see because of his death. It's probably what swayed the jury.

On a side note, you need to remid yourself of how to have a civil conversation. It's very unbecoming of you.

[cybercoma]

Her actions did contribute

They didn't contribute. The definition of the law that she was convicted under is that they caused his death.

[Boges]

Update on this story. 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/quebec-woman-who-stopped-on-highway-for-ducks-causing-fatal-crash-loses-appeal-1.3450013

[jbg]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

Update on this story. 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/quebec-woman-who-stopped-on-highway-for-ducks-causing-fatal-crash-loses-appeal-1.3450013

Apparently she was a real quack.

[Hal 9000]

What an insensitive bitch. 

[hot enough]

bump to get rid of the DL scam