Does This Case Prove There's an Unfair Liability and Legal Bias Against Drivers?

"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit) 06/22/2014 at 09:59 • Filed to: Driving Laws, Anti Driver Bias, Anti Woman Bias

3

18

In Canada, 25-year-old Emma Czornobaj stopped on the road to allow some ducks to pass, resulting in two people on a motorcycle crashing into her and dying - you can read the recap of it !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . I don't know the circumstances of this accident any more than that, so I can't say with certainty if she really is in the right or wrong. I can opine , however, that her conviction is ridiculous, and that this suggests that there is an element of the legal system (both in the U.S. and internationally) that seems to have it out for drivers.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Image credit Global News Canada

In 2004, Candice Anderson was driving with her fiancee when her brand-new Saturn Ion suddenly lost control and hit a tree, killing him. Candice was consequently charged with vehicular manslaughter and served about ten years of prison time. The reasoning behind the conviction was that there was no evidence for anything to the contrary other than the fact that Candice slammed her car into a tree, therefore it's her fault, off to jail she goes for a long, long time. But surprise surprise, it turns out !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! - instead the crash has been linked to !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Very late in 2006, two boys in Berthoud Pass, Colorado (for reference, it looks like this ) !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! when they were trying to change a tire. The driver of the Izuzu Trooper that struck them, Michelle Berra (herself a student of the same high school as the victims) was heavily pursued by local prosecutors who were basically trying to throw the book at her !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . As it turns out, investigation would later reveal that !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! were committed - by the victims.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Going back to the case that inspired me to write this, I can't say for sure that the motorcyclists would've been able to avoid the car - but I can say for sure, as a motorcyclist myself (and for any driver), safe and responsible defensive driving means being aware of traffic in front of you and being prepared for that traffic to suddenly stop, for any reason. What if Ms. Czornobaj had stopped for a deaf child who had wandered out into the street? Seems like a ridiculous and contrived scenario? Not entirely - in Watkins and Bennett, CO (where I do a lot of my riding) there are clearly posted Deaf Child Area signs right on the open highway (for clarification, I mean Watkins Road, an otherwise desolate and completely deserted stretch of High Plains asphalt) for the few ranches whose property lines border unbroken white paint and gravel shoulder. In many accidents, there is just as much liability on the part of the so-called victim as there is for the alleged - yet, when these cases go to trial, circumstances and court opinion seem ridiculously and unfairly lopsided.

How did this happen? Based on the Berthoud Pass case, I'd say a lot if not most of it boils down to runaway, power-hungry prosecutors who see their jobs as a rapid-fabrication assembly line for convictions and every person who walks opposite them in the courtroom as being !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . The "tough on crime" stance that many prosecutors (and the people who appoint them) have taken up mainly for votes and job security has in many cases completely borked the system, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

I'd be willing to argue that there's also simply an anti-car bias working itself into it, too. As older generations suffer from attrition and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! to take their places in the workforce and society-at-large, attitudes shift with them. Yes, I know, much has been written on !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , but the generation coming in often sees cars as destructive missiles that kill the Earth - and have potential for killing humans in the wrong hands. And I have to wonder if some of these people thing that the wrongs hands may be anyone's.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

I'm also going to throw this controversial bit in while I'm at it - you notice something all three of the cases listed above have in common? Are automotive-related convictions biased against young female drivers? Is the legal system, in fact, dangerously ageist and sexist? I'm tempted to say that, yes, such a component seems to have some sort of influence in how these cases are tried.

Driving caries with it much responsibility, but that responsibility isn't one-sided. Accident prevent goes both ways. Unfortunately, there's serious question if the legal system, in practice, actually recognizes that. And that's assuming if it even cares - prosecutors live on "wins" and they'll find them, no matter the cost. There's a real need for change in how auto-related legal cases are brought to trial, but the real question is if there even is any interest in bringing that change beyond social justice fringe groups.

UPDATE: It turns out that the motorcyclist was !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! at the time of the accident.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Roberto G. > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 06/22/2014 at 10:27

3

You DO NOT stop on the left lane of an highway, to let some ducklings pass. Period.

webmonkees > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 06/22/2014 at 10:34

1

There is a bit of bias out there.. People fearing lawsuits and jail more than the potential harm to fellow humans.

The legal equivalent of loud pipes.

Eventually, though, the message gets diluted, then perverted. Liquor flask?

Not endorsing any of these products. Safety first, avoids the rest of the issues.

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 06/22/2014 at 10:34

1

My understanding is that she stopped in a lane (not on the shoulder) of a highway to save the ducks.

That was a severely horrible move. I don't know how suddenly but this case is bad enough that following motorists couldn't be expected to stop in time, especially since there wasn't stopped traffic ahead of her.

I think she's definitely guilty, as all 12 of her peers unanimously agreed. She should get jail time for sure...a lot of it........ life? maybe not

DylanToback > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 06/22/2014 at 10:37

1

I would agree that, as with many facets of society, there are significant shortfalls to be found in the current way of doing things. That being said, change is often difficult, if not impossible to facilitate in areas such as this, where there are countless people with vested interests in the current system.

On another note, I do not have the statistics on hand, and am not sure if such statistics even exist, but I would not rule out the possibility that young female drivers (and young drivers in general), are more likely to be guilty of distracted driving. This correlation, if it exists, would certainly go a long way toward explaining the common theme of younger drivers in such cases.

Finally, before I am accused of being sexist for acknowledging the possibility that young female drivers are perhaps more frequently involved in distracted driving than others, I do not view this as some fundamental characteristic of women, but rather a result of the societal pressure for men to be, at least to some degree, mechanically inclined and interested in cars. Women on the other hand have no such pressure, and as such, it seems that they are often more inclined to view driving simply as a means to an end, rather than an activity to be enjoyed in its own right.

thebigbossyboss > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 06/22/2014 at 10:48

2

Emma deserved her conviction. I have been following this case closely. She was convicted of criminal negiligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death.

She stopped her car in the left lane of QC highway 30 (lane not shoulder) exited said vehicle and helped some ducks. A car following then swerved around her, and within seconds the motorcycles collided with her.

I am going to bet that she will get the minimum sentence. However based on the facts, I think the jury is correct. She did something you should never do (stop unexpectedly on the left lane of a 4 lane divided highway) and her actions caused a speeding motorcyclists and his passengers death.

I agree, had she stopped to help a child or someone of limited mental capacity this case would be different, but she didn't she just stopped to help some ducklings.

It's an extremely sad case, I have no doubt whatsoever that she was not intending to hurt anyone, but in the end the jury was correct.

thebigbossyboss > SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman 06/22/2014 at 10:51

1

Your understanding is correct. I have been following this case closely. Apparently a car following her swerved around her, and then the motorcycles collided with her seconds later.

As the OP noted it would have been different had she stopped to help a child wandering round or someone else of limited mental capacity. As it is, it's hard to conclude she deserves any different. She did after all drive dangerously, and it caused two deaths.

PS9 > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 06/22/2014 at 11:03

1

There is a legal and liability bias against motorists , but it is not unfair; motorized machines are dangerous, mistakes can kill people, and the responsibility will obviously lie with the person making the mistake.

And endangering humans to help ducks is fucking retarded. Not 'life in prision' retarded, but at the very least, that person needed to not be driving anymore.

Lokki > thebigbossyboss 06/22/2014 at 11:10

1

My understanding of the case is that the negligence and consequent liability stem from the facts that she stopped in the left lane -and (allegedly) did not use her emergency flashers-. After two deaths, it is hard to argue that stopping in the left lane for baby ducks, without using emergency flashers, was a necessity, unless you are prepared to argue that the life of a duck has the same value as the life of a human.

I think that the decision is hard, but fair. Her excited good intentions caused two deaths. The correct solution (which we must accept legally) would have been to pull off on the right-side berm, put on her flashers, and -walk- to the left side berm to wave approaching motorists away from the ducklings. I don't think that one can legally accept that the circumstances were of such necessity as to justify her actions.

—-

"She says she pulled over as far as she could in the left lane, putting on her hazard lights and emergency brake.

Previous witnesses have testified that the hazard lights are the car were not flashing."

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/woman-in-dange…

—-

"While cross-examining Beaudet, defence lawyer Marc Labelle keyed in on the part of the province's highway safety code which states that stopping on the highway is forbidden except in the case of a "necessity."

Labelle noted the code doesn't spell out what that necessity is. Beaudet acknowledged his point but attempted to clarify the law.

"There is no definition provided in the Act for the term 'necessity,' but effectively, if there is a necessity, you can stop," Beaudet said. He was the last Crown witness before the accused took the stand."

http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/national/…

erikgrad > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 06/22/2014 at 11:43

0

In the Candice Anderson case, she was given a 5 year suspended sentence, not 10 years in prison, so she didn't serve any time. It is still really, really effed up that the course of her life may have been irrevocably altered by GM engineers

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman 06/22/2014 at 11:50

1

Severely horrid move on her part? Likely so.

However: You are, with few exceptions, required to be able to stop your vehicle for an obstruction. Exceptions tend to be if someone breaks ROW and enters your path. You likely are not held responsible if the other person disobeys ROW or a control device.

This is the Basic Speed Law: You should only be going fast enough as to be able to stop your vehicle in the distance that you are able to see in front of you. c.f. O.C.G.A. §40-6-180

Consider this: her car dies in that left hand lane, and she is unable to push it on to the shoulder, and calls it in, and the motorcyclist still hits the car. Is she still at fault?

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 06/22/2014 at 12:08

0

those are "ifs" you're asking about. "Ifs" completely change the scenario. We are talking about what happened. There are facts missing from this article so I can't really elaborate much more on my thoughts for punishment or blame.

However, the jury got all the facts and given the lady's egregious and willing act to suspend traffic in a dangerous place, she deserves whatever punishment she gets.

If what you're presenting happened, then I'd be happy to address that, but I won't.

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > thebigbossyboss 06/22/2014 at 12:12

1

the key part being that she drove dangerously not prompted by other motorists' actions

Cé hé sin > Roberto G. 06/22/2014 at 12:12

1

When I was learning to drive I was told that you should always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Has this changed?

thebigbossyboss > Lokki 06/22/2014 at 12:20

0

Agreed. She also won't get life. That is the maximum sentence.

Roberto G. > Cé hé sin 06/22/2014 at 12:25

0

No, but it's more and more difficult to do that on a modern highway, with the present density of traffic. And sure the biker was speeding and switching lanes as all bikers do, but it's a fact that if the girl hadn't stopped where she was not allowed to (when I was learning to drive I was told that on a highway you should always stop onto the right safety lane, with your hazards on and a bright red, triangle sign 50 meters behind you. Has this changed?), two people would not have died.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman 06/22/2014 at 13:18

0

I'm not saying that she shouldn't be punished, but what's occurred is that you are letting a non-relevant fact (the ducks) get in the way of what the law says.

Is she a total dipshit? Hell yes she is.

But this is really the difference between 2nd Degree Homicide by Vehicle and Involuntary Manslaughter. The real problem is when prosecutors try to throw the book at everyone, as opposed to the right charge.

What you are showing there is properly called a tragedy. I find it a bit of a stretch to say she is guilty of a crime that has a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > thebigbossyboss 06/22/2014 at 14:09

0

People nowadays care more about animals than they do human life, or at least don't think enough about the outcome of their actions.

Two Drink Minimum > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 06/28/2014 at 17:22

0

What utter tripe. This woman was 100% at fault in this incident and was clearly guilty of criminal negligence. She VOLUNTARILY parked her car in the passing lane of a limited-access highway. This is an illegal act. If she had been in an accident or suffered a breakdown that prevented her getting to the road side, then she would not have been charged. See how that works?

She needs to go to jail. She broke the law and contributed directly to the deaths of two people. Her actions were grossly negligent and incredibly dangerous. The instant she stopped her car, she posed a mortal threat to anyone driving on that highway. I suppose we're lucky, in that only one vehicle was involved in the crash and the death toll created by Ms. Czornobaj's actions was limited to two. This could have been worse.