Two killed in South Shore after driver stops for ducks

An all around tragedy.



The accident occurred about 7:20 p.m. Sunday on Highway 30 near the 98 kilometre mark in Candiac on the South Shore. A woman stopped her car in the left lane of the highway to allow some ducks to pass in the roadway, Gagné said. The teenager’s mother, riding on one motorcycle behind the car, and her husband and the couple’s daughter on another motorcycle, “didn’t have time to react” and veer away, he added. The father died at the scene and his daughter succumbed to her injureis during the night, Gagné said.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/killed+Montreal+after+driver+stops+ducks/3210738/story.html#ixzz0sB8wuFLg

What a nightmare.

died a year ago in a tragic accident in which he was trying to avoid hitting a raccoon in the road, and veered off suddenly and hit a tree (he did have a seatbelt on). Graduation day was especially sad this year because of it. :(

and paid the price for their poor habits.

Sad- but a lesson for folks- especially those who would blame the driver for hitting the brakes for the ducks.

A good driver knows never to travel too closely behind other vehicles in case they do stop suddenly.

Defensive Driving 101.

How long does it take for someone to use that space to get in front of you guaranteeing you'll be right on the person's bumper yet again.

Blaming the people who died is a shitty thing to do.

is the only appropriate thing to do.

Defensive Driving 101. The three second rule -- watch the lead car pass a stationary object (sign, post, etc.) and count slowly 1001, 1002, 1003. .

If another car squeezes in (unlikely, you should try it) then drop back and use the 3 second rule.

The other vehicle was driven into, it did not wreck. Standard rule of law (common law) is the person who strikes you from behind is the one who caused the wreck (even if you are the middle car and were pushed into the car in front of you).

You are the captain of your vehicle (your fate), you are in control of it and should be able to stop when necessary, not just when convenient.

common sense or the reality of the road. As it is this idiot woman STOPPED in the fast lane and there was no emergency. Stopped means no brake lights as warning, nothing. There's no fucking excuse for that. None. I don't give a shit what defensive driving courses say it's all well and good in theory and it doesn't work so well in practice. That woman caused this. She ought to pay for it.

The driver of the motorcycle that slammed into the read of the auto was in control of his/her fate.

You don't rely on the other driver, you rely on yourself. You drive defensively and as if you cannot trust the other driver to drive wisely or correctly or safely.

That is reality - there is no fucking excuse, the motorcyclists were traveling too closely behind the auto and did not have proper control of their vehicles for the conditions and the road.

That woman didn't cause the accident, the motorocyclist who failed to stop and who was driving too quickly for the conditions, who failed to keep a proper look out, is responsible for the accident he/she had with the auto in front of him/her.

an emergency especially when one is driving in the bloody fast lane.

I have no idea why you insist on making excuses for this idiot woman.

behind the car in front of you because it may have to suddenly stop.

I'm not making excuses, I'm telling you how it is. I am refuting your efforts to excuse the person responsibile.

You are making excuses for the person who caused the collision, the one that caused his vehicle to collide with another, the motorcyclist who killed himself and his daughter because he failed to follow the rules of the road and to drive responsibly.



Maintaining control of your vehicle and driving it defensively, being able to avoid accidents should the cars in front of you lose control (or stop suddenly) are the responsibility of the driver. Failure to do so is the driver's fault, not the other driver's fault.

not an emergency.

Sometimes it seems as if they stop for changes in air currents. or "Ohh, look - kitty!" Doesn't matter how fast traffic is or who you think you're following, you need to have at least 2 - 4 seconds distance for sudden situations. And if you're riding in a group, you need to stagger somewhat, so you don't run up the tail of the rider in front of you if they have to stop.

I'm sorry for the woman and her family. But stopping for the ducks was not the primary cause of this situation.

Haele

i mean, there is a difference from safe distance and a person doing something out of the blue, with no rhyme or reason and adjusting. the person that stopped was stupid and caused deaths. we can blame it on the victims. but the driver that stopped in the road was wrong

Never stop or swerve. Going going or end-up worse.

that is what I would probably do.

I'm a rider and know better. We need more time and space created than cars.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I cannot imagine that kind of loss all at once.

I thought motorcycles could stop quicker.

Because of weight and the physics involved, motorcycles are able to stop sooner than cars. So they had to be following pretty close behind.

And 95 times out of 100, some jerk from the other lane will cut in two or three feet in front of me, causing a need to slam on the breaks to avoid rearending him/her.:grr:

can't count how many times that's happened but around here I just expect some jerk to jump in front of me if there's enough space, so I have to back off even further. One more reason for me to avoid the city altogether and stay on country roads.

county commissioners campaign funds and too many new developments--PUDs, DRIs, and even a category so big that it had to have a new name: NEW TOWN--were approved.

And even though the law says there has to be concurrance (enough roads, schools, water, etc., it never works out that way. Roads that were lightly traveled even five years ago which had speed limits of 65 mph are now heavily (almot bumper to bumper) traveled and the speed limit is 45 mph......

when an SUV was speeding in and out of traffic on a HWY in Florida and rammed into a slow moving truck, causing a hue fireball. I was only a few cars behind the fireball but was able to react in time to avoid being a part of it. That three second rule WORKS!

And that has not happened to me once. Maybe I'm just lucky.

I also drive slow, which seems to piss everybody on the Highway off, so I never have that problem.

I was one of scores of cars hitting the grass alongside an interstate once because of a car going 45 MPH in the fast lane. I can imagine what would happen with a car completely stopped.

In my case, as stated, once realization of just how slow the car was going struck, we still had time to go off-road and fly around the car. After surfing back up onto the roadway, I watched car after car behind me following the same off-road route.

I've always wondered what was going through that person's mind as s/he saw all these "crazy" drivers flying around them on the grass.

that slams on their brakes.

Most motorists instinctively react to brake lights ahead of them.

they were following too closely. It's that simple but unfortunately it was a deadly mistake. When you're on a bike you have to be that much more aware of your surroundings and the time + distance factor.

No idea how far behind the car they were when it stopped. But this does not sound like a case of "following" a car. It sounds like a case of coming upon the car unexpectedly.

While I don't deny the error of the driver who stopped, it's just silly to deny that this driver also committed an error as well - and that error most certainly contributed in great part to the tragedy.

No question about it.

From the story:



I hope they throw the book at that stupid woman.

If you crash into someone from behind, it is YOUR fault. Regardless of the reason why the person stopped.

Really piling on on top of dead people? WTF is wrong with you lot?

The woman could have parked her car in the fast lane, walked away from it, and he could have hit a parked car. The fault would have been his, not hers (though she could have been cited for abandoning a vehicle in a roadway).

One of the most important aspects of driving is recognizing accidents and obstacles in the roadway ahead and avoiding them. He didn't do that.

Or, if you don't agree with that, let's look at it another way: What if the animal had been a moose instead of a duck, and the woman had actually hit it and stopped because her vehicle was incapacitated? The motorcycle still would have hit her car, and the two riders would have still been killed. You end up with the EXACT SAME RESULT, even if you remove the woman in the car from the equation. They still die because, ultimately, her actions didn't cause them to strike her car. The motorcycle rider struck her car because he was riding in such a way that he either didn't leave room to stop, or didn't notice the obstacle in the road until it was far too late. The reason for her car stopping is incidental to the deaths that occurred afterward.

I live in the California Central Valley, and almost every year we have multi-vehicle pileups on our freeways because people are driving too fast for our foggy and dusty conditions and don't react to road hazards until it is too late. Every one of those people in those pileups are technically "victims", but legally each of them is assigned fault and can expect to be sued by other drivers for their portion of the liability. If you are travelling too quickly and strike someone in front of you because you are unable to stop, YOU are at fault.

What the young woman did was stupid, to be sure. She didn't cause the fatal accident though. He did, legally, and morally.

It is not very bright to stop in the middle of the road. So sad.

Sometimes you just have to hit the critter in the road and deal with feeling bad about it later.

Then the motorcycles would have hit the ducks.

I nearly hit a whole "gang" of kittens in the road the other night. I was at speed, all I could do was swerve a bit, and thank god, they frozen in place, and I was able to "straddle some" and miss the others...

I am a cat person, but I can't risk killing myself, over cats in the road...

Thank GOD, I was able to miss them.

No injuries and the ducks made it across...

Sometimes doing the right thing can lead to tragedy that simply shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing.

Instead of killing a couple of ducks, two humans are dead. By making a sudden stop in the fast lane of a freeway, not only do you put yourself in danger but everyone else on the road.

Reminds me of that incident where a girl sticking her head out of a school bus actually got decapitated.

I could almost hear all the nannies and safty nazies in my life gloat a see we told you in unison.


Two humans are dead because they were driving to fast for rodd conditions... if it had been a human child in the road (or a blown tire on the car in front) those motorists would still be dead.

For all you know they could've been going the speed limit.

They should throw the book at her.

As much as people should try to leave a decent amount of space in between them and the vehicle in front of them it is not really all that realistic. The space is an invitation for some other git to jump in front of them.

That's it. The vehicle in front of them could have been stopping for any reason. Both parties may have committed acts that violated traffic laws. But the humans that died died because they weren't operating their vehicles safely. If they had, they'd be alive.

before I clicked your profile.
You should move before you pop a gasket.

"Sometimes doing the right thing (saving animals) can lead to tragedy (killing people) that simply shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing."

:eyes:

It is drilled into you, or should be, that on a motorcycle, while you have the advantage of quicker acceleration and better maneuverability, your weakness is your braking and lack of protection. Thus, you follow even further behind than you would in a car.

A tragedy all around, one that could have been prevented.

Tragedy, yeah but comeone now - on the freakin highway?
Ducks need to be run over.

it's the foodchain goddamnit!

They didn't crash because the car slowed down in front of them, they came upon a parked car in the left lane. I've come upon cars parked on the freeway and it is always a near accident.

There is almost no reason to park in the left lane on the freeway. This is criminal negligence at the very least.

is the driver who stopped. The first paragraph in the article makes it more clear.

That said, the 'following too closely' point isn't totally off base - one thing I was taught was to never overdrive the limits of your vision, and it seems like the riders must have done that. Unfortunately, at highway speeds, it's very difficult to slow to the limits of sight and not create a roadblock yourself. Too many highway curves are exercises of blind faith.

And that said, it is a horrible idea to stop in a traffic lane for anything other than an unavoidable reason. The car driver is clearly most at fault here...

They weren't "following" that car at all. They came upon it unexpectedly.

In general, hitting a stationary object is your fault... expected or not.

Yeah, don't stop for duckies. But there are lots of reasons that vehicles do stop in the traffic lane, and drivers should be prepared to encounter that.

The only exceptions I can think of is if the vehicle you are following suddenly swerves around the (invisible to you) obstacle leaving you too little time to react.

I had stopped for a school bus that was letting off children when someone plowed into me: she claimed she didn't expect anyone to be stopped on the road. No injuries, luckily, but the insurance companies agreed it was completely her fault.

The person in this article stopped for ducks: what if she had stopped instead for a larger animal, or an obstacle in the road, or even a large pothole. Drivers of all vehicles are supposed to be alert to what the people in front of them are doing. As for the following at two miles behind - that's a rather long way.

register, firstly.

I ride a 125cc scooter every day - 7 miles each way on major city streets and highways - early in the morning, and during rush hour in the evening. People suddenly stop in front of me all the time - especially when I'm going around 40mph coming down a hill.

I've also seen a motorcycle go down hard after hitting a fresh squirrel carcass at around 35 MPH; the front tire just skidded out from under him hitting the slick. (I've also had a motorcyclist run into the back of a truck I was driving while I was stopped at a light)

Whether or not the girl stopping for the ducks was in the wrong, the motorcyclists were following too close at that speed. And if she had run over the ducks, they were too close to her to avoid the bodies - or worse, an injured duck trying to fly right in front of them.
Not stopping and hitting the ducks may not have saved the motorcyclists if they were following that closely, anyway - have you ever hit a bird on the highway?
I hit a dove once while driving on the freeway; the poor critter flapped all and bled over my windshield and hood while it was dying - obscuring my vision and distracting me while I was driving. Luckily, I could pull over and clean up some, but it was a horrendous mess and could have easily caused me to crash into a car in front of me if I didn't have a clear road in front of me and easy access to the shoulder. And any car that would be following "too close" would have rear-ended me while I was trying to safely react to the sudden bird strike.

If you read the article, they didn't come up on the stopped car coming out of blind turn, she stopped in front of them. If they're riding too close, they would run into her.

She was in the wrong for stopping. But if they had been at a safe distance for the speed and traffic, and paying attention, they would not have hit her.

Again, I sympathize with the family's loss. And I don't "blame" anyone, but this situation is definitely an object lesson for riders to ride safely and pay attention to traffic around them.

Haele

So they weren't following too closely, they drove into a car that wasn't even moving before they saw it?

Unlike the vast majority of bikers in the USA I use my bike for everyday transportation rather than recreation, I do not own a car although I have access to a big SUV that I basically can't afford to put gas in for the amount of traveling I have to do.

Most motorcycles will stop faster than most cars under most conditions, I think these bikers were not paying sufficient attention or were going too fast for conditions or both.

That being said, stopping in the middle of the interstate without a serious emergency as a reason is just stupid.

And always anticipate when the driver in front of you is about to do something stupid. :spank:

ended up hitting it anyway and wrapping my car around a eucalyptus tree stump. I won't endanger myself or others for a dog, cat, or duck again.

Too Closely'. The ducks are irrelevant as any rider should know to expect everybody to do the dumbest thing at the worst possible time.

I've ridden for almost 30 years and never had an accident that I shouldn't/couldn't have anticipated.

The first rule of biking is 'you never have the right of way', because who gets the ticket doesn't matter, you get the ambulance ride. The second rule is 'There are only two kinds of biker, those that have crashed and those that are going to'.

If the car ahead of you slams on their breaks, you should always be able to avoid hitting them.

Ducks crossing the freeway are rare, sure. But people slamming on their breaks to avoid sudden inexplicable gridlock is a common every day occurrence and should be prepared for.

Very stupid, too.

It's against the law of the jurisdiction in which she was driving to stop on the lane of traffic unless there is an emergency, and this is not an emergency. Her stopping in the lane for the ducks is a violation of the law, and that makes this negligence per se. She violated a safety law, her action violating the law caused the accident, and she'll be found liable.

along with the presumption held by jurors about rear end accidents....

Plaintiff's lose.

Negligence per se will require a finding of fault on the car that stopped illegally.

Canadian law.

you should know that.

I know the negligence per se of the car driver will never be considered less than that of the motorcyclists by any jury anywhere. If you want to pretend it will happen, do so knowing it won't. This is a liability case. The car owner's insurer will likely tender their policy limits rather than even contest liability. That's the reality of this case.

It's commonplace in PI practice.

I'd also point out that in this case, a motorcycle has greater maneuverability and shorter stopping distances than automobiles and so absent the failure to follow at a safe distance, the accident should have been avoided.

I'd like to see your Canadian case from the modern era holding that negligence per se and its implications of liability are overcome by the contributory defense you claim you can use to prevail for the car driver. There may be a theoretical right by the car driver to seek a contrib finding, but the likelihood of such a finding overcoming the negligence found for violating the safety statute is remote.

Find a case where a woman stopped her car on a highway in clear violation of the safety law not to do so, and predictably, foreseeably, someone ate her bumper. Find the case where that plaintiff is zeroed out by a jury in Canada.

You keep talking as if you've tried cases in Canada or the US. Have you?

hitting someone stopped in the road (or breaking hard) just screams contrib.

Now an adjuster might settle the case- as they often do, but that doesn't mean you'll win much or anything at trial.

I have hired Canadian local plaintiffs' counsel, and directed their litigation on behalf of US clients.

I've spent at least six months of the past 20 years in Canada, on tort and contract cases there.


The motorcycle driver does not have to anticipate the crime committed by the car in front of it. If there had been a child walking on the highway and lady in the car stopped, different result. Then, the car driver was not violating the statute, there is no negligence per se, and the motorcycle driver catches the liability.

Motorists always have to anticipate actions like these- they're eminently foreseeable, which is why drivers tests have stopping distances etc. on them. Failure to do so is negligence.

Doesn't sound to me like you've handled many auto accident cases from either side- plaintiff's or defense bar.

This is a pretty run of the mill deal- and the laws in BC don't vary to any significant extent from those in Oregon or California. Nor would a jury's predisposition.

Lawyers who are good at trial work typically graduate from auto accidents fairly early in their career into bigger cases. Most auto cases fall clearly within policy limits of average drivers, and that's a case I haven't worked on since I was a young lawyer. Anyone who is still working on auto cases five years after graduation has failed to advance acceptably.

I've also had to clean up messes by incompetent auto collision trial counsel, typically insurance defense counsel, who fail to settle a case within policy limits, then get the insured hit for many times the coverage. My experience as a trial lawyer is real. That's why my posts on this topic have substance, and don't look as if I'm merely texting someone.



I notice you never found that Canadian case that would agree with you.

-supported by an admission on the would be plaintiff's part.

"No time to react" + rear ender = following too closely.

Policy limits for her husband's death, policy limits for her daughter, and maybe policy limits for herself.

You're betting on a losing hand. This case never gets tried, because smart lawyers who are knowledgeable about Canadian law and practices will make sure the insurer pays, and in doing so, avoid being targeted for a bad faith case for failing to settle this loser of a case for the car driver and her insurer.

Though these are obviously sympathetic facts (family deaths- not injuries and property damage) the law is what it is:

You wanted a Canadian case- so here's a jury instruction that's been upheld:

If you are satisfied by a preponderance of evidence that Dube's conduct amounted to a breach of that duty to take reasonable care for his own safety, then you would be justified in ascribing to him a portion of the blame for his injuries....

Pretty standard stuff.

cf http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1986/1986scr1-649/1986scr1-649.html

Do you really think this case supports you? The plaintiff grabbed the steering and was drunk, and knew the driver was also drunk. That's your case you wish to equate with the duck lady killing two people behind her?

The case we are discussing of the driver who stops on the highway illegally and is hit from behind is not a case of Volenti non fit injuria, which is what the case you cited is about. That doctrine applies only where one is said to have assumed the risk of injury by virtue of their conduct. A drunk guy who is riding with another drunk guy is one such case, and that is the case you cited.

The court majority held that while there was error in the trial court's instuctions, such error was insufficient to overturn the jury verdict, which held against the plaintiff, under the volens defense. He was found to have willingly submitted to the danger by the jury, and the appeals court declined to find that was error on the part of the trial court, reasoning the jury could read their instructions and arrive at that conclusion, even though most juries would not. Ultimately, the case stands for not disturbing a jury verdict based upon volenti non fit injuria.

Here's what the court majority held:

Per Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Le Dain JJ.: The defence of volenti requires not merely plaintiff's knowledge of a risk but his express or necessarily implied acceptance of the risk of harm without recourse to law, along with an inference that defendant took no responsibility for plaintiff's safety. Volenti requires an awareness of circumstance and consequences rarely present at the relevant time in drunken driver‑willing passenger cases.

The charge to the jury here, while consistent with the authorities, should have gone one step further and explained that a finding must first be made on the facts as required to support the application of the volenti principle. If the factual requirements of the volenti principle were present in the view taken by the jury, that would be the end of the matter and the remaining questions relating to contributory negligence need not be answered except as a matter of completeness lest for some reason the finding of volens be set aside in circumstances not requiring a new trial. The jury should have been instructed to direct their minds to the contributory negligence issue only after they had considered and rejected the volens defence.

The manner in which the defences of volens and of contributory negligence were put to the jury was confusing and misleading as to the implications of a finding that the plaintiff absolved the defendant. The charge to the jury as a whole failed to make clear the extraordinary nature of the volenti defence by making explicit the interaction of the questions about defendant's negligence and plaintiff's contributory negligence while failing to mention the more drastic implications of a finding of volenti.

Any confusion resulting from the charge was overcome by the answers given by the jury to the questions put to them. There were no ambiguities in their answers suggesting actual confusion. Although the series of questions was not without ambiguity, it was not unreasonable to conclude that the jurors approached contributory negligence as an alternative solution to volenti. The jurors had before them a clearly worded question on volenti. It would be improper, however confusing the charge might have been, for this Court to assume that the jury misunderstood the meaning of the question in the face of such clear wording.

A jury's verdict in civil proceedings is accorded great deference by the courts. Although the verdict here is not one that every jury would have reached, it does not have the character of unreasonableness that must be apparent on the face of a jury verdict before an appellate court can upset it. The paramount principle operating here is the duty of the court to sustain the jury's disposition without judicial interference so long as it is reasonable to do so.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to personal attacks.

Well done. :thumbsup:

And one would have to be pretty thin skinned to read it in context as a personal insult.

Let's put it another way:

How about if it had been a dog she braked for? How about a BIG dog. How about a deer? A piece of tire? a whole tire?

The motorcyclist would have been just as dead, because they were following to closely. The reason for the braking is incidental to that.

"The reason for the braking is incidental to that"

Wrong. The reason for the braking was predicated upon the illegal action of the driver who slammed on her brakes for a non-emergency in the first place, which initiated the chain of events. All in violation of Canadian law. To state that what followed by those who were obeying the law was "incidental" is simply false.

Please try again.

The admission of the motorcyclist was: "there wasn't time to react." Ipso facto they were following too close.

There's tons of research on the point- and sometimes it's admitted in cases like this.

Bottom line- keep a safe distance under the conditions, be aware of what's ahead of you, and when someone brakes hard or stops for whatever reason- you won't hit them!

Pretty simple stuff, really. Stuff that'll keep you and yours alive.

Better that -even if one were to accept your argument, than dying with your "rights on."

"incomprehension," indeed... :eyes:

Obviously, not a whole lot.

Please try again.

that the driver was at fault, not the persons she killed as a result of her negligent and criminal actions. Otherwise there would not be a presumption of her complete and total guilt as evidenced in the plea that she had "been through enough."

Did you even read the article link? :shrug:

Survey says: negative. Either that, or you're willfully misconstruing the facts as presented. Either, or.

Do yourself (and anyone riding with you) a favor and check out a site that does stopping distance/reaction time tests

Me, I'll take laws of physics- you can rely on the administrator your estate's chances to recover damages in such a case.

"Me, I'll take laws of physics"

So, you have access to the Canadian law enforcement agency's investigation report that establishes that the victims in this case were "following too closely," and thus partially to blame for their own deaths? :shrug:

I'll answer for you: no, you do not.

Please try again. Post more like a lawyer would, this time, counselor...ummmm, you know, by introducing actual facts into the conversation for us to consider.

So far, you're el Zippo in that regard....

TexasObserver and I sometimes agree- sometimes disagree, but it's usually on something of a square level.

Hey, maybe the cf thing got passed over- but OK, that shit happens sometimes in the midst of a discussion.

You on the other hand seem to be an entirely different creature- you've evinced no knowledge of anything at all- and I'll go further- your posts read like a high school kid's -all bluster and rum.

been contested, folks.

Yet, OTOH, this brilliant legal mind who is my opposite number has only been able to engage in conjecture, "what ifs," personal attacks (including a deleted message), and, in the end, resigned hand-waving. TWICE now, for those keeping score.

Note it very well, cuz it remains very telling.

wait for it...wait for it...

"I am once again going to pretend that I don't care what you post because I've been through every stage of the fact-challenged and reality-defeated in an internet discussion so far. But by God, I'm gonna get me the last of the lastest words...."


:rofl:

contested, folks.

Yet, OTOH, this brilliant legal mind who is my opposite number has only been able to engage in conjecture, "what ifs," personal attacks (including a deleted message), and, in the end, resigned hand-waving.

Note it very well, cuz it's very telling.

WAS deleted, and yet you pretend the Mods had nothing to do with deleting your unwarranted personal attack.

Query: did it delete itself? :shrug:





:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The jury instruction is a court approved standard exposition of the law of contributory negligence in Canada.

The cf is the proper and accurate method to cite a case that is off point on the specific facts but in support of the general proposition AND was a hint to you not to go into the specific facts because they aren't germaine to the discussion.

That ought to have been obvious- but apparently not.

Now that it's settled that contrib is used in auto accident cases- and the would be plaintiff's own admission proves that she was following too closely, when the shock wears off if the case proceeds, contrib will be a key issue. Those "I didn't have time to react" statements are as common in auto accident cases as the clacsic "two beer admission" is in DUI's.

Now, there are classes of cases (a friend and colleague who does Med Mal and PI defense calls them "dickoff cases" -I'll leave the imagery to the readers) where damages or peculiar facts are so sympathetic to the plaintiff that experienced counsel will report to the underwriters advising them to settle the case for more that it's worth even where under similar, less sympathetic facts or damages the case would end up much reduced or there's be a good shot at a defense verdict.

Is this one of those cases? No one can say based simply on the article, but I doubt it.

As I also noted in the previous post- if the crown charges her in a criminal matter, based on the underlying infraction- and receives a disposition in its favor- then that presents other problems, e.g. collateral estoppel and evidentiary limitations. Then you might be more assured of policy limits.

btw: I don't find it necessary to post what I do- what my experiences is- or what advanced degrees I have online. I prefer to let the words themselves and the reasoning do the talking.

retain you - and direct them to observe the back and forth in this thread. It's the ethical thing to do, so they can make an informed decision as to your ability to adequately represent them in court.

What was your minor in college? Take my advice, and Plan B might be on the agenda.











*:eyes:

criminally charged with involuntary manslaughter, two counts.

She should be cited for any traffic laws she broke. But they rammed into her because they were following too closely.

Violation of a safety law (don't stop on the highway) resulting in injury is negligence per se, designed to hold the responsible party liable for their criminal act. A criminal act caused this accident, and no amount of blaming the motorcycles for allegedly following too closely will likely overcome it.

This woman IS responsible for the accident, and she'll be lucky if she isn't criminally prosecuted.

People can contribute their own negligence. These people did in fact do so.

If you haven't worked on any in Canada, I'll settle for the ones in the US.

I ask because you seem to reject my arguments without allowing for their correctness under Canadian law. The violation of the law is discussed in the article, if you read it.

if you have direct professional experience in the matter. Yeah, no one ever pays attention to legal matters or has any experience with the law unless they're a lawyer, or hold opinions on the matter otherwise, right?

http://www.capersonalinjurycaselawnotes.com/2010/04/articles/making-a-claim/negligence-per-se-when-the-wrongdoer-violates-a-statute/

Negligence Per Se -- When the Wrongdoer Violates a Statute
April 1, 2010 by Kristine Meredith

To win a lawsuit, the victim must prove that defendant was negligent -- that is, that he did not exercise "due care." That can be difficult. But it can also be easy, such as when the doctrine of negligence per se comes into play.

When the doctrine of negligence per se applies, defendant's conduct will presumed to have been negligent with no need for plaintiff to present any further proof. A defendant's conduct is negligent per se if:

1. The conduct violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation;
2. The violation caused the injury;
3. The statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent the type of injury that occurred; and
4. The person suffering the injury was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.

I didn't claim to understand Canadian law. I don't think she should face criminal charges. I stand by that opinion. There is such a thing as contributory negligence. It does exist. I don't know if it applies in this case, but I believe it should. They were following her too closely. That was a major factor in the wreck. Both parties were wrong. Both factors should weigh in legally. She shouldn't have to legally suffer for a wrong that they committed. Those are my opinions.

Don't you see that? :shrug:

In other words, their actions contributed to the bad things that happened to themselves. That should matter. I mean, why should it not? Don't they have a legal, moral and ethical responsibility to avoid damages? Just because someone else is doing something illegal doesn't absolve anyone else? You still have to allow a safe following distance regardless, right? One still has the responsibility to mitigate their damages. She shouldn't have to bare the legal responsibility because they chose not to. They contributed to the accident with their wrongdoing as well. It wouldn't have happened had they not been riding dangerously.

deaths due to her irresponsible behavior and criminal negligence.

She should be criminally prosecuted for her actions, and I hope the family of the victims successfully sues her to the fullest extent of damages of which they are justly due. Which is a lot.

Do I get to drive recklessly and completely disregard the law because of the softies out there who might violate some techncality? Wow, think of the pay day I could conceivably get if i run into one of those unfortunate souls. If I don't die Oh, wait, no. I live in reality.

and in a criminally negligent manner initiated the chain of events that led to two people's deaths.

Your word, not mine: "Right", in response to my prior assertion.

At that point, the debate is over with your concession to my assertion. Period.

Thank you for the concession. :thumbsup:

You know you can't win this argument with me, so you're playing this little game. :)

"You know you can't win this argument with me, so you're playing this little game"

Projection at its finest, but the "argument" has already been won. That reality just hasn't caught up to you yet, for whatever reason. Keep plugging away at it: you'll get there. :thumbsup:

In other words, their actions contributed to the bad things that happened to themselves. That should matter. I mean, why should it not? Don't they have a legal, moral and ethical responsibility to avoid damages? Just because someone else is doing something illegal doesn't absolve anyone else. You still have to allow a safe following distance regardless, right? One still has the responsibility to mitigate their damages. She shouldn't have to bare the legal responsibility because they chose not to. They contributed to the accident with their wrongdoing as well. It wouldn't have happened had they not been riding dangerously.

deaths was not doing any of those three things the second she decided to stop in the middle of the road for a frivolous reason.

We are talking past each other - your view is a species of special pleading that grasps at so many straws that it is difficult for the thinking person to take seriously.

Had they not been doing so no accident would have happened. I'm not grasping at all.

"I'm not grasping at all"

That much, at least, not only has the benefit of being true, it is also blindingly obvious.

air and the bullet comes down and kills an innocent bystander who happened to be jaywalking, I don't get to use the "but they were committing a misdemeanor act of jaywalking when my negligently-fired into the air bullet hit them!!!!!11" defense in mitigation.

You are really digging yourself in deeper, and deeper. But by all means continue.

That was their fault. If one chooses to engage in reckless behavior, they should bear the legal responsibility. Period. In other words, why should the legal responsbilitiy of others suddenly be increased because of the reckless decisions of others? Why should the her penalty increase because they chose to behave recklessly?

but keep posting like you can't believe your own admissions that the facts are not on your side - that's a puzzling tactic I don't think I've ever observed before.

The fact that her stop violated a law is immaterial. She should face whatever fines she has coming to her, but if they had lived they would likely also be facing citations as well. They are legally in the wrong as well.

putting yourself in a dangerous situation. You are willingly taking the chance that the vehicle in front of you may come to a stop and you won't be able to avoid it in time. And that's exatly what happened and they faced the consequences. Yes, her stop was illegal and she should face the legal consequences of that. She should not also face their consequences that were due to actions they chose to take, ones that they could have easily chosen to avoid.

to the deaths of two victims, you don't get to claim that the victims were responsible for their own deaths.

It's basic common sense, and legal procedure, 101. But I continue to applaud your concession that I am basically right, and you are pretty much wrong. :applause:

If they hadn't been following too closely, accident wouldn't have happened. Sometimes both people can be at fault in an accident, you know.

you didn't know what the law was, merely that you were offering your "opinion". This in her challenge to you educate yourself on the former with a link to a tutorial she kindly provided.

Remember? Or do I need to provide a link to your own reply in this thread? :shrug:

BTW, some reading material for yah:

"
It is illegal in Quebec to slam on the brakes in the middle of the highway — even to avoid hitting an animal"

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/killed+Montreal+after+driver+stops+ducks/3210738/story.html#ixzz0sIz4epqQ

:toast:

as contributory negligence? With links to back you up? I'll be waiting.

claim to the contrary of the plainly stated and linked law of Canada.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim that is contrary to the facts that have been established. That would be you, not I.

As you say, I'll be waiting. But I won't be holding my breath.

I don't know why you're hell bent on arguing with me like I'm making that claim.

:thumbsup:

Keep conceding my points (as you've steadily been doing all along); you'll get all the way there with us reasonable folks soon! :thumbsup: :toast: :applause:

Here, I found a case in Vancouver where both parties were found at fault. So, yes, it is possible http://icbclaw.com/blog/bus-driver-50-responsible-collision-cyclist

article, as to events, the particular facts, any of it. Period.

Please try again. :thumbsdown:

I merely showed you proof otherwise.

That is, if you ever read it in the first place....



( :eyes: )

You said it wasn't. This was my purpose in posting it. That is all.

debate in which you have not fared well. That is all. :beer:

you said that wasn't the case. But whatever.

Please try again.

:shrug:


"It is illegal in Quebec to slam on the brakes in the middle of the highway — even to avoid hitting an animal"

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/killed+Montreal+after+driver+stops+ducks/3210738/story.html#ixzz0sIz4epqQ

Give it a try - one more time! :thumbsup:

But so did they! That's my whole point.

facts.

Please try again - you'll get there!!! :thumbsup:

that they were following too closely, i don't think I'm going to get there. Sorry.

negligent, by her own admission, and only your hunch that because they were victims of her illegal actions, they, too were somehow "following too closely" is offered in evidence on the other side. That's pretty weak stuff.

So, no, I don't think you're going to get there with the rest of us in Factland. I'm sorry that you won't be making it, too. :thumbsdown:

Yes, she may have stopped illegally, but cars sometimes have to stop abruptly for legal reasons. If a car stops suddenly in front and the car behind hits it, they more than likely didn't allow enough distance in front. It's why vehicles who rear end the car in front are very frequently found at fault no matter the reason for the vehicle stopping. People riding motorcycles should especially pay heed to this rule.

of the eyewitnesses.

Again, you either haven't read the linked article or are simply willfully misconstruing the contents therein. Either, or.

Please try again.

ccording to Volikakis, there was no time to react when the car screeched to a halt in the roadway in front of the two motorbikes. It was over in the blink of an eye, she explained, and she is convinced her daughter died on impact.

"No time to react" "Screehed to a hault" Paints a pretty clear picture. It's right there.

Thanks for yet another concession. :thumbsup:

Please try again.

So that's a good reason to give enough space in case that happens. See, it's nothing personal with me. I don't hate them. I feel very badly that they died, so really, no need to think i'm a monster or anything and get all worked up. (blaming the victim? Honestly!) But anyone who's rear ended another vehicle did so because they didn't allow for enough space. They were following too closely. Really, whether the vehicle in front was breaking legally or not is irrelevant.

Period.

Discussion concluded.

BTW, what's up with this:

"I certainly got a bug under your skin with my opinion for some reason. I've been amused, but now? I think maybe I'm just going to step back slowly now, beause (Sic) I realize you're really getting worked up. Have a good night." :shrug:

You seem to be taking it very personal. You come at me wtih all these smilies all passtionate like. It was weird, that's all. You seem to really hate that I feel the way i do about this.

that can be verified, and have, indeed, promised to just walk away for various & asundry reasons, yet still persist in posting to me.

"Weird," indeed.... :eyes:

other way around. Textbook projection.

"You seem to really hate that I feel the way i do about this"

I don't care how you "feel" about this: as long as you are going to post to me "facts" that aren't really facts, and make assertions that are not backed up with a scintilla of evidence in the service of the same, well, you're going to get a factual counter-reply.

""I certainly got a bug under your skin with my opinion for some reason. I've been amused, but now? I think maybe I'm just going to step back slowly now, beause (Sic) I realize you're really getting worked up. Have a good night."

Any time now... :rofl:

Jeeze Louise, but do you "argue" with folks by agreeing with them?

As I've already stated: puzzling stuff. :shrug:

People who aren't puzzled understand these things.

Please try again.

And read the article again: you seem to either not understand the words in the article, or are deliberately misconstruing it. Either, or.

They didn't have enough reaction time. As I directly quoted from the article even! They didn't have enough time to react. It even stated they were riding behind her. If they were riding behind her, and they didn't have enough time to react when she screached to a halt, then there wasn't enough distance between them. Since they were the ones behind her, they were the ones in control of that distance. She could just as easily have stopped for a legitimate reason, so they were responsible for maintaining a safe distance. Not her. Her reason for stopping was but one fact of the entire inident. The fact that they weren't maintaining a safe distance was another! It's one that cannot be ignored! And it contributed. You cannot ignore that.

And there is not the slightest evidence that they were "following too closely" or committing any other illegal act.

Please try again.

Drivers simply do have that responsibility. And a rear end absolutely is evidence this wasn't practiced safely.

by practically everyone who has actually read the article, and digested the contents therein.

I ask you again: why aren't the Canadian authorities who investigated this accident raving about the "following distances" of the victims? :shrug:

Why are people pleading that the person who caused this accident has "been through enough" in the aftermath of it? That's a very telling plea, for those not "puzzled" by the factual content they've read. :shrug:

And, BTW, what, pray tell, happened to this pledge down-thread:

"Have a good night" :shrug:

Just curious.

Do you know if the car in front of you is going to break suddenly and if the reason is going to be legal or not? No, of course not. So leave enough room. If you don't, and follow too closely, and end up up the ass of the car in front of you, whether their reason was legal or not, it's your fault. They may face some consequence for the acident, too. But you shouldn't have been following too closely. That's how it works.

Ask my husband. He got ticketed for ending up up the rear of someone who breaked for no reason. Do you think it mattered to the police or insurance that the idiot breaked for no reason? No. Do you think it mattered when he threated to sue us for a stiff neck? No. Luckily he went away, but it was scary for awhile.

their "following distance" or any of that other blaming the victim jazz you've got going. I ask you again: why are the Canadian authorities who investigated this accident not absolving the criminal driver base on your "following distance" claims? :shrug:

I'll tell you why: because they determined it was irrelevant to the case at hand.

BTW, what ever happened to this:

"I certainly got a bug under your skin with my opinion for some reason. I've been amused, but now? I think maybe I'm just going to step back slowly now, beause (Sic) I realize you're really getting worked up. Have a good night." :shrug:





:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"I certainly got a bug under your skin with my opinion for some reason. I've been amused, but now? I think maybe I'm just going to step back slowly now, beause I realize you're really getting worked up. Have a good night."

LAST WORD! LAST WORD! LAST WORD!


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

truly carried the better side of the debate. Good stuff. :thumbsup:

time" and "following distance" non sequitur of yours, I wonder? :shrug:

Oh, yeah, because it's totally irrelevant to the case they investigated.

Please try again.

Interesting that neither you nor Texaslawyer really offer up a whole lot of proof that Canadian law ignores those contributory factors. That man, one person gets socked 100% and that if the other party contributed even a little bit well, it doesn't matter, you're gonna get hit hard, whammo! That's a pretty scary thought, actually. Doesn't seem very just to me, but, hey, if that's how they do things. My point is it wouldn't even be just. I certainly got a bug under your skin with my opinion for some reason. I've been amused, but now? I think maybe I'm just going to step back slowly now, beause I realize you're really getting worked up. Have a good night.

that there is a stated plea in the article that the guilty driver has "been through enough" is a damning indictment of where the responsibility for this tragedy lies, all the way around.

Sorry facts don't appeal to you. But that's not my problem.

thing about the legal issues involved, despite being offered a tutorial to educate yourself on them.

"certainly got a bug under your skin with my opinion for some reason. I've been amused, but now? I think maybe I'm just going to step back slowly now, beause (Sic) I realize you're really getting worked up"

LOL! More of that pristine projection at its finest! :rofl:

Have a great one. :toast:

internets.

Please try again.

" However, I find that Mr. Torok also failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. He was riding his bicycle on a sidewalk, then into a crosswalk, and was riding on the left, rather than the right side of the road."

The victims in the case under discussion did none of those things in even a remotely similar manner; like I said above, sad the pitiful lengths some will go to "win" an argument on the internets.

That was all.

Please try again. :thumbsdown:

They can and will legally hold both parties responsible in an accident.

Is this some kind of new passive/aggressive way of debating among those without the facts on their side on discussion boards? :shrug:

You keep agreeing with me, and conceding my points, yet somehow you keep claiming we're still in some kind of argument....

Puzzling.

I'm thinking it is possible that the couple on the motorcycle saw the car's brakelights go on but, without a clear reason to go full-bore on the brakes, simply failed to realize there was a car stopping dead on the highway. The motorcyclist may have been looking beyond the car frantically for a thrown tire retread, or a deer in the ditch, or a radar-armed cop... not realizing the cause of the problem is about a foot high and waddling on the tarmac.

People hit their brakes all the time while driving, and it is usually a light tap or gentle decceleration. But we've all been in a situation where the line of cars in front of you slows down, then all of a sudden starts braking very sharply and you're not immediately aware of it.

I've been the guy who all of a sudden is skidding into the breakdown lane, and I've been the guy who has come to a halt and seen people behind me swerving into the breakdown lane with tires screeching.



I've been thinking for a few years we need brakelights that tell the other drivers just how hard you're breaking. A line of LED's moving outward from the high-mount brakelight, for example. With the farthest ones out blue or yellow or something. The more you brake, the longer the line lights up. And when your ABS kicks in, the LEDs flash so that the people behind you know you are at maximum braking force.

That heavily suggests following too closely.

I'm also personally not too impressed with the fact that charges are being considered. i wonder if it's just a case of looking for a reason because there were deaths, and then "Hey, it was ducks she was trying to avoid, and really, ducks? Let's through the book at her!" She may not even have been immediately conscious it was ducks she was avoiding. If it was a high speed highway they were on, and it seems that was the case from the article, then she may not have had time to consciously judge what she was even trying to avoid. She might have just seen objects in the road and reacted. Some are reacting as if she made this cold, calculated decision, like a choice to drive drunk. I think that's rather ridiculous. I've been suddenly spooked and reacted by things I've seen on high speed roadways and didn't realize right away what they were. it's a good reason to leave lots of space. You just never know what the car in front of you is going to do.

Just like the article says. What is it with you and this refusal to acknowledge the plain words presented in the article all of us are reading? :shrug:

"She may not even have been immediately conscious it was ducks she was avoiding"

This is directly contradicted by the content of the article. Please try again.

Although I won't jam on the brakes on the highway unless whatever it is I'm trying to hit is large. Like, a car or a person or a deer. I had to run over a couple of baby pheasants once... :-( I just wasn't going to slam on the brakes and risk losing control at highway speeds for a couple of chicks. I just feel really bad because the row of chicks was just following the hen across the highway. I did apply the brakes out of reflex, but I didn't try to dodge or do an emergency stop.

It sounds like the biker was just following too closely. And heck, if the governor of South Dakota can kill a motorcyclist because he chose to drive when he was medically impaired and only get 100 days in jail, then the car driver should probably walk.

reckless, criminally negligent behavior on a public highway.

Please try again.

Except wait, they are. Almost every single time.

:shrug:

Please try again.

:shrug:

"It is illegal in Quebec to slam on the brakes in the middle of the highway — even to avoid hitting an animal"

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/killed+Montreal+after+driver+stops+ducks/3210738/story.html#ixzz0sIz4epqQ

to finally read the entire article regarding the situation under discussion. :thumbsup:

"t is illegal in Quebec to slam on the brakes in the middle of the highway — even to avoid hitting an animal"

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/killed+Montreal+after+driver+stops+ducks/3210738/story.html#ixzz0sIz4epqQ

If I had ever said she hadn't broken any laws, I guess that would make sense that you were giving me that link, but okay :shrug:

latest reply. :beer: :hug: :thumbsup:

:pat on the head:

themselves.

If it makes you feel better to get the "last word," all the while conceding my points, then, well, hey. :thumbsup:

I am not familiar with how Canadians apply criminal sanctions in such cases.

She was lucky it wasn't a semi behind her or she'd be dead and probably the ducks also!

The ones at fault were the ones who were following too closely and who could not control their vehicle.

That's the difference between ducks and toddlers. One is not sufficient reason to come to a stop on the highway, and the other one is. The rationale is we value human life more, so we only risk human life for a human life. We don't risk it for a duck.

Fault is a concept based upon law, and laws designed for safety that are violated give rise to negligence per se, which would apply to the woman driving the car. She is guilty of negligence per se.

The lady driving the car can assert the defense you wish her to assert, but it won't likely go well. Juries tend to resent defendants who do terrible things and then try to blame their victims.