$1000 fine for killing pedestrian

[nottyboi]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...an-conviction/article33212441/comments/?ord=1

Is this justice? I am unimpressed by the Police here. They did not even examine her cell phone records to see if she was using her phone during the accident. If she was it shoulda been criminal negligence causing death. In either case, should a person that cannot even drive in a straight line be allowed to keep driving?

 

[IM469]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...an-conviction/article33212441/comments/?ord=1

Is this justice? I am unimpressed by the Police here. They did not even examine her cell phone records to see if she was using her phone during the accident. If she was it shoulda been criminal negligence causing death. In either case, should a person that cannot even drive in a straight line be allowed to keep driving?

I think your beef is with the justice system. Cell phone use could be moot if it was hands free. People's reaction to sudden braking or even a squirrel can set them into a radical turn. I would have thought they could check text messages but there was nothing that said if they did or didn't look at text messaging.

 

[nottyboi]

I suppose so, but the fact she did not even have to explain herself is pretty pathetic.

 

[Aardvark154]

I suppose so, but the fact she did not even have to explain herself is pretty pathetic.

Here I thought that a defendant's right not to testify was a pretty fundamental right.

 

[KBear]

I suppose so, but the fact she did not even have to explain herself is pretty pathetic.

Driving mistakes happen all the time. Hope is that someone else is paying attention and can avoid you, or your mistake does not result in someone being injured or killed.

The follow up article seems written for you.

What is a fit penalty when a driver takes a pedestrian’s life?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...7/?reqid=bdbacfe5-196a-47c8-bb65-15b6802a1ee4

 

[nottyboi]

Here I thought that a defendant's right not to testify was a pretty fundamental right.

I understand that, but the court is also sitting in judgment of her ability to safely operate a vehicle, and in the absence of any mitigating explanation of why she drove of a road and killed a pedestrian, it should assume she is NOT capable of driving a vehicle and revoke her driving privilages.

 

[nottyboi]

I understand that, but the court is also sitting in judgment of her ability to safely operate a vehicle, and in the absence of any mitigating explanation of why she drove of a road and killed a pedestrian, it should assume she is NOT capable of driving a vehicle and revoke her driving privilages.

I am not in the "hang em high" crowd on this one. I just feel that the court has a right and responsibility to know what happened. Perhaps a separate hearing for driving status after the criminal trial where the driver must provide an account or risk a long driving ban. To me the most important role of the court is public protection and I don't feel this can be accomplished. There is really no justice avail for such losses but public protection is more attainable.

 

[Aardvark154]

Certainly I can see her privilege to operate a motor vehicle being revoked for a year.

 

[CANTO]

One wonders why the prosecution went with Careless Driving, which is a Highway Traffic Act offence that is only punishable with a fine instead of the more serious Dangerous Driving, which is a Criminal Code offence that caries the possibility of jail time.

 

[fuji]

Certainly I can see her privilege to operate a motor vehicle being revoked for a year.

Or more.

 

[huckfinn]

That's why third party liability insurance is mandatory. Her insurance company will probably pay a million dollars compensation for the victim's family . Without insurance she will probably be in jail failing to pay this huge amount.

I don't think you go to jail if you don't have enough coverage. I would presume they could only fine you for not carrying valid insurance.

Suing for damages is a civil matter.

 

[james t kirk]

The victims are suing "Elizabeth Taylor" for killing their wife and mother in civil court. I can only speculate that it would be for a lot of money.

Humans are funny that we need to know the reason why. When we don't know the reason why, our emotional response to the lack of knowledge escalates exponentially and it affects us.

If we knew why Elizabeth Taylor killed this poor woman, it would help. We know she was not drunk. But how did she manage to mount the sidewalk and kill the poor woman? I'd like to know that and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask.

Cell phone?

Bad driving skills?

Mini stroke?

Playing with herself?

I'd like to know.

 

[GameBoy27]

One wonders why the prosecution went with Careless Driving, which is a Highway Traffic Act offence that is only punishable with a fine instead of the more serious Dangerous Driving, which is a Criminal Code offence that caries the possibility of jail time.

Probably because what she did, didn't meet the criteria for a Dangerous Driving charge.

 

[elwoodinontario]

I don't think you go to jail if you don't have enough coverage. I would presume they could only fine you for not carrying valid insurance.

Suing for damages is a civil matter.

The Insurance Company would pay out, to the coverage limit. The remainder of any award would be the responsibility of the driver, who would then file bankruptcy, and walk away from it. The driver would be wise to divest themselves of any and all assets (house, cars, etc.) and "lose" said proceeds.

 

[Insidious Von]

Was the pedestrian she killed black?

 

[nottyboi]

That's why third party liability insurance is mandatory. Her insurance company will probably pay a million dollars compensation for the victim's family . Without insurance she will probably be in jail failing to pay this huge amount.

She will pay at least 1m from insurance. The dead womans insurance will probably pay another mil and then she will have to liquidate her assets to pay any judgement in excess of the two policies. And you CANNOT declare bankruptcy to avoid this, it is with you FOR LIFE. So after she is wiped out she will have to pay a portion of her lifetime earnings towards the judgement. I suppose there is some justice after all.