- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Duck loving Canadian faces LIFE in prison for stopping on Hwy and causing wreck.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:39 am to East Coast Band
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:39 am to East Coast Band
We're you checking your tire in the travel lane, or on the right shoulder?
0
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:40 am to FT
quote:
It's essentially impossible in the US. I know of nowhere where that isn't almost immediately the fault of the following car.
It's possible just difficult. In LA, there is a legal presumption of fault assessed to the rear driver which is difficult to overcome. Furthermore, juries aren't usually made up of twelve incredibly bright people so trying to explain that a "presumption" doesn't mean "automatic" is like pulling teeth.
I once convinced a plaintiff to agree to a 70/30 split of fault in mediation because his client slammed on her breaks for no reason as my client was coming out of a merge lane and hit her. That's about the only success I've ever had dealing with rear ends.
This post was edited on 6/21/14 at 11:42 am
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:41 am to CaptainsWafer
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:41 am to FT
Insurance co investigation =/= police investigation.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:42 am to Charlie Arglist
quote:
I wonder what would have been the difference if she had simply had car trouble and broke down in the left lane.....
No difference. There's no kind of mechanical failure other than a broken axle that prevents one from steering onto a shoulder at least.
There was a sad case in BR many years ago where an entire family was killed because the idiot dad decided to stop in the right lane of I-10 to fix his flat tire. At night.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:42 am to tigerpimpbot
Is that from the accident in question?
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:43 am to CaptainsWafer
quote:
Insurance co investigation =/= police investigation.
True, there is a MUCH higher burden for criminal charges. I can easily see a criminal conviction for criminal negligence (recklessness). I just don't see how criminal negligence warrants life in prison.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:44 am to CaptainsWafer
I keep seeing Dark loving Canadian in the thread title, for some reason.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:45 am to Antonio Moss
Figured you were an attorney or an insurance guy early on in the thread. It says she faces life, but I would hope she gets nowhere near that.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:45 am to Antonio Moss
quote:I agree, which is why I can't imagine any charges sticking. At best, there would be equal blame and that's with both insurers being generous.
True, there is a MUCH higher burden for criminal charges.
A criminal investigation could use those findings and make a conviction almost impossible.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:47 am to foshizzle
quote:
No difference. There's no kind of mechanical failure other than a broken axle that prevents one from steering onto a shoulder at least.
This assumes the road has a shoulder and the malfunction occurred in an area and during traffic conditions that allowed the driver to steer onto the shoulder.
I wonder if she put her emergency lights on. She seems like the type of person who puts them on the rain (illegal) but not when her vehicle is motionless (required.)
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:47 am to FT
Pending Canada's insurance laws, if they're like LA, her insurer will pay limits no matter what as long as she's 1% at fault or greater.
Also assuming she doesn't have 300/500 limits or something big
Also assuming she doesn't have 300/500 limits or something big
This post was edited on 6/21/14 at 11:48 am
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:48 am to CaptainsWafer
quote:
It says she faces life, but I would hope she gets nowhere near that.
I can't believe life is even eligible for criminal negligence in her jurisdiction.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:48 am to Charlie Arglist
I'd put it in her Czornhole
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:51 am to tigerpimpbot
(no message)
This post was edited on 12/27/14 at 12:01 am
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:51 am to CaptainsWafer
quote:
Is that from the accident in question?
Yes
LINK
quote:
Czornobaj, a professed animal lover, told the court that she did not see the ducklings’ mother anywhere and planned to capture them and take them home.
“I shouted to my [three] children: ‘What is she doing there? She’s going to get killed,’” Tessier said, adding that Czornobaj was standing on a portion of the highway not wide enough to be used as a shoulder.
Tessier said she noticed that the parked car did not have its hazards on and the driver’s door was open. As she looked back in her rear-view mirror, Tessier said, she could see the back end of Czornobaj’s car lift up in the air.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:52 am to Charlie Arglist
You are a fricking a-hole if you stop your car in any lane of a highway to aid wondering ducks. Apparently this idiot didn't even put her flashers on, and another motorist swerved just missing her car right before the motorcycle hit her car, which would help to explain how the motorcycle didnt have time to stop. LINK The motorcyclist was estimated to be going 68-80 mph LINK
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:54 am to tigerpimpbot
Thanks.
Also in the article:
Also in the article:
quote:
On June 27, 2010, she stopped her car on Highway 30 in Candiac, Quebec, in an effort to rescue some ducklings. Seconds later, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle struck her Honda Civic. The driver, André Roy, 50, and his daughter Jessie, 16, died as a result of the collision.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:54 am to Charlie Arglist
Well, did the ducks at least make it across the road?
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:55 am to Antonio Moss
quote:You should NEVER be so close as to not have time to react if the person in front of you slams breaks.
There is a reason why its so difficult to prove that the lead vehicle is responsible for a rear end collision.
We were always told:
At 30 mph, allow at least 3 car lengths.
At 40 mph, allow at least 4 car lengths.
At 50 mph, allow at least 5 car lengths.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News