A Canadian woman parked her car on a Montreal-area highway in 2010 to help a group of ducklings; almost four years to the day later, Emma Czornobaj was on Friday found guilty of causing the deaths of a motorcyclist and his passenger daughter who smashed into her car. The jury was unanimous in convicting the 25-year-old on two counts of criminal negligence causing death, a charge that carries a maximum life sentence, and two counts of dangerous driving causing death, which comes with a maximum of 14 years in jail. The Canadian Press reports Andre Roy, 50, who was traveling with his 16-year-old daughter, Jessie, on his Harley-Davidson, was driving an estimated 70mph to 80mph in a roughly 60mph zone.
His wife was following behind them at a slower speed and avoided injury, and has said she doesn't blame Czornobaj for the deaths; her husband died in her arms, and her daughter, who was pinned beneath the Honda Civic, died later in a hospital. The AP notes Czornobaj wiped away tears when the verdict was delivered to a packed courtroom; she was released until her pre-sentence hearing on Aug. 8. Czornobaj had stopped her car in the left lane of a provincial highway after spotting roughly seven ducklings on the median, reports CTV. The self-professed animal lover told the court that she did not see the ducklings' mother anywhere and was trying to herd them, with the intention of taking them home. The Montreal Gazette notes that the case is an unusual one, in that Czornobaj faces a life sentence though there was no criminal intent tied to her actions.
They are both at fault, but fault might be the wrong word and only really counts for insurance. Its pretty harsh for negligence but it has consequences. "Maximum sentance of life" that has got to be rare or never in a case of accidental anything I bet. What did she actually get? It probly wouldnt be life.
Dont forget too, Quebec is Naploeanic Law (guilty until you prove yourself innocent--so the burden of proof was on the civic driver to proove it wasnt her fault/ that she was innocent).....here in Ontario it would likely have been a 50/50 fault finding (the car driver was negligent stopping on the highway, but the biker evidently wasnt in control of the bike so thats careless driving)....
Dont forget too, Quebec is Naploeanic Law (guilty until you prove yourself innocent--so the burden of proof was on the civic driver to proove it wasnt her fault/ that she was innocent).....here in Ontario it would likely have been a 50/50 fault finding (the car driver was negligent stopping on the highway, but the biker evidently wasnt in control of the bike so thats careless driving)....
Oh I agree, he was traveling way to fast for the speed limit so depending on who passes the sentence, jury or judge will decide just how much time she gets. Should she get life? its not for me to be the judge but if I were it would be quite a few years, but not life. Long enough for her to think about it next time, I say it was 60/40 her fault. She never should have stopped on a highway with a speed limit that high for ducklings, now if it was a kid crossing the road, yes.
Oh, there ya go starting THAT line of thought....its the guns fault since hunters had guns and they evidently shot and ate the mother duck, and if they didnt have guns then the ducks would not have been orphans and if the ducks had not been orphans the car would not have stopped and if the car had not stopped then the father and daughter would be alive....
BAN GUNS !!! BAN MEAT !!!!!---<headline reads> GUNS AND CARNIVORES KILL FATHER AND DAUGHTER ON MOTORCYCLE....(or just use them to shoot lawyers and liberals)
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 06-23-2014).]
I agree with above that it is both parties at fault. She, at the minimum should have had put on her emergency flashers. On the other side, you should never drive faster than conditions permit and your supposed to allow for room to brake in emergency situations. You pile into somebody, it is your fault, no excuses are going to get you off! I found this out the hard way. Old couple in a Mercedez STOPPED while merging on the freeway on ramp. Totally rediculous and moronic since it was a very , very long on ramp. I told the highway patrolman they should be cited for reckless "stopping" but he was not sympathetic at all.
In summary, if a person in front of you slams on their brakes (with all their might) in the middle of absolutely nowhere and you hit them.. it's your fault! And this is what I learned from my accident. Well, that and expect people to drive like total idiots. Kit
[This message has been edited by Kitskaboodle (edited 06-24-2014).]
In summary, if a person in front of you slams on their brakes (with all their might) in the middle of absolutely nowhere and you hit them.. it's your fault!
Old cop rule of thumb: When in doubt, the driver with damage on the front of his/her car gets the ticket.
Yep, I can swear to that. I was driving the speed limit in the left lane of a 4 lane surface street. A woman passed me on the left, in the left turn lane, cut over in front of me only missing me by a foot, and the light turned red and she stopped. I rammed her rear end doing more damage to me than hers (thanks to ABS). Guess who got the ticket with points ? It wasnt her. I vowed I wont try to stop next time...I dont have any show cars now, so mines replaceable. Ill total it and get a new one and screw whoever I hit.
