Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jury convicts Quebec woman who stopped for ducks
Global News ^ | June 20, 2014 | Canadian Press Staff

Posted on 06/20/2014 8:45:35 AM PDT by rickmichaels

MONTREAL – A woman who stopped to help a group of ducklings on the side of the road has been found guilty of causing the deaths of a motorcyclist and his passenger daughter who slammed into her parked car.

Emma Czornobaj was convicted Friday by a jury on two counts of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of dangerous driving causing death.

Czornobaj, 25, was charged in the deaths of Andre Roy, 50, and his daughter Jessie, 16, on a Montreal-area highway.

Czornobaj appeared to turn and wipe away a tear when she heard the verdict delivered.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Eliane Perreault polled the jury, which entered its fourth day of deliberations on Friday, on their verdict and they reported they were unanimous.

Czornobaj will return to court for a pre-sentence hearing on Aug. 8.

Criminal negligence causing death carries a maximum life sentence while the charge of dangerous driving causing death comes with a maximum of 14 years in jail. Czornobaj has no previous criminal record.

Roy’s motorcycle slammed into Czornobaj’s car, which was stopped in the left lane of a provincial highway in Candiac, south of Montreal.

His daughter was riding on the back of the motorcycle when the collision happened on June 27, 2010.

The trial heard that Czornobaj, who had three years’ driving experience at the time, had stopped to rescue ducklings on the side of the road.

The professed animal lover told the court that she did not see the ducklings’ mother anywhere and planned to capture them and take them home.

Emma Czornobaj


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: ZULU
"Maybe the Motorcyclist should have been watching the road.

HE was responsible for the accident, not this lady."

Oh, really?

The lady is not responsible, even though she parked her car in a driving lane on a road without a shoulder?:

Even though this accident was at night and multiple witnesses said she did NOT put her hazard lights on before leaving her vehicle there?

21 posted on 06/20/2014 9:07:39 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

I agree she was an idiot who should have her license pulled.


22 posted on 06/20/2014 9:08:16 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
As long as she is imprisoned for an appropriate time, I don’t care. She should pay heavily for what she has done.

Yes,she should do serious time...at least as much time as it takes to convince her to never,*ever* do anything that stupid again.And maybe even longer than that.But not life,particularly given she had a clean record before this.If she was an habitual criminal then life just might be fitting here.

23 posted on 06/20/2014 9:08:55 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Slump Tester

I agree. :-) good grief.


24 posted on 06/20/2014 9:08:58 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat; raybbr

Cars stall in the middle of the road. Treads of tires come off and lay in the road. An animal could have been in the road.

___________________________________________

You are describing accidents and mistakes. This woman deliberately and on purpose caused the death of two innocent people.

She deserves to go to jail.


25 posted on 06/20/2014 9:11:35 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat

There’s a narrow, winding, hilly local road near my neighborhood with no shoulders. I don’t know how many times I’ve topped a hill on that road, only to find a road crew, school bus or something stopped dead on the road just over the crest of the hill. In those situations I always try to stop on top of the hill, rather than on the downslope where following cars won’t see me. If you have to stop on a road and you have some choice about where to do it, think about the guy behind you.


26 posted on 06/20/2014 9:11:58 AM PDT by jumpingcholla34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rickmichaels

Freaking dumbass Froganadians.


27 posted on 06/20/2014 9:12:01 AM PDT by MIchaelTArchangel (Have a wonderful day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rickmichaels

This post is interesting.

One of the issues in this article is the animal. If this had been puppies or kittens, I think there would have been many in support of her, but nobody loves a duck............

The other is legal. In a conversation with my insurance agent, I was informed that if I cause an accident by turning into a farm (field) drive way, I am in the wrong because it is not a recognized legal access to the road. A driver would only expect turning at a legal access.


28 posted on 06/20/2014 9:12:12 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple (Where is your thinking cap? The one you were issued in elementary school.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Good points, and true.

I ride every day, for years and one thing that will keep you alive is expecting every kind of stupid activity from other drivers.

Never fails.

If you cannot adopt this mindset you should, IMHO stay off motorcycles.

Tragic story though.

Oh, forgot, NOT GUILTY.


29 posted on 06/20/2014 9:13:20 AM PDT by glasseye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat
Cars stall in the middle of the road. Treads of tires come off and lay in the road. An animal could have been in the road.

It could be argued that the cyclist could have taken steps to avoid this.Perhaps he was *100%* "blameless" in this.But if he can reasonably be assigned *any* portion of the blame here that portion was pretty damn close to zero...assuming he wasn't drunk/high,speeding or operating in some other dangerous way.

30 posted on 06/20/2014 9:14:57 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
If this had been puppies or kittens, I think there would have been many in support of her, but nobody loves a duck............

Not from me.I wouldn't care if it was Flipper or Skippy The Wonder Chimp.The safety of people *always* comes before animals.Except,of course,to members of our Rat Party.

31 posted on 06/20/2014 9:18:16 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat

Perhaps he was *100%* “blameless” = Perhaps he wasn’t *100%* “blameless”


32 posted on 06/20/2014 9:19:14 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

Really? You’re an idiot.


33 posted on 06/20/2014 9:19:18 AM PDT by rickmichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
nobody loves a duck............



Rob Petrie does.
34 posted on 06/20/2014 9:19:26 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("If you're litigating against nuns, you've probably done something wrong."-Ted Cruz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

“(2) A driver is responsible for not driving faster than his ability to see the road ahead and stop in time if there’s an obstruction on the road.”

In theory, sure, but in practice I don’t think anyone drives in this manner. In order to see an obstruction with no lights on a road at night in time to stop, we’d all have to be driving 35mph on the highway, and slowing to 15-20 going around curves.


35 posted on 06/20/2014 9:20:36 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rickmichaels
According to a June 12, 2014, Montreal Gazette article, "Crash was not an accident: prosecutor," the motorcycylist, Andre Roy, who was killed along with his daughter who riding with him on the Harley, was travelling above the speed limit before hitting Emma Czornobaj's car, stopped in the left lane of the Highway 30 in Candiac, Quebec.

However, the prosecutor claimed a swerving truck in front of the motorcycle obstructed Roy's view until it was too late. The Gazette article stated:

“No matter what speed he was travelling at, he had a fraction of a second to react,” [Prosecutor] Chassé said while adding Roy couldn’t have anticipated where the Civic was parked. “Would anyone have expected that?”

Apparently not when one is traveling at 70-80 mph (speed limit = 62 mph).

36 posted on 06/20/2014 9:21:45 AM PDT by Carl Vehse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Remember in the civilized world prison sentences are a lot like sports contracts, they sound a lot bigger than they are. Depending on which version of the life sentence they give her she could be eligible for parole anywhere from 7 years to 25. And that’s only if they hit her with the max, which with no previous record they probably won’t.


37 posted on 06/20/2014 9:23:12 AM PDT by discostu (Ladies and gentlemen watch Ruth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Surprised it wasn’t a Yugo.


38 posted on 06/20/2014 9:25:15 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.-JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
You are describing accidents and mistakes. This woman deliberately and on purpose caused the death of two innocent people.

She deliberately and on purpose stopped. It was both her action and the irresponsible driving of the motorcyclist that caused the deaths.

The attention the story is getting is good, but focusing only on the stopped driver is a mistake.

39 posted on 06/20/2014 9:26:50 AM PDT by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: discostu
...she could be eligible for parole anywhere from 7 years to 25. And that’s only if they hit her with the max...

I don't know about you but I know almost nothing about US law...and *absolutely* nothing about Canadian law.I'm not sure that either of us can make a statement like yours with any certainty.

40 posted on 06/20/2014 9:29:36 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson