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
I ride a Harley and have ridden various bikes since I was a teenager. I’m very cautious and always leave as much following distance as conditions permit. I don’t speed. But, I know that situations could arise in which I simply would not be able to avoid a crash: for example, when a guy pulls out of a parking lot into my lane just after my window of stopping distance has closed. The older I get, the more I think about those scenarios, and the less I ride.
The safety of people *always* comes before animals.Except,of course,to members of our Rat Party.
With nobody in front of me, I keep the high beams on, and am able to see stuff in front of me in time to stop or swerve.
At night, I prefer to drive (well) behind somebody else, so that HE hits any obstruction first.
The only irresponsibility that's been firmly established here is hers.
...but focusing only on the stopped driver is a mistake.
_____________________________________
You don’t get it. This case went before a jury. Do you honestly believe the jurors didn’t focus on the cyclist as well before they found her guilty?
Correct, PapaBear.
That’s the power of the interweb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Canada
Three parties involved.
The young girl 100% innocent. God bless her.
The other two completely guilty, of acting “stupidly”.
The guilty parties paid or will pay for their action.
Both paid/will pay, too da-n much.
She did something criminally negligent and deserves punishment for it but her actions seem to have been motivated by incredible stupidity, not malice. She needs to pay for what she did but I wouldn’t cruxify her.
That is easier said than done in some circumstances. I was driving I-80 in Wyoming doing about 65 in the left lane. The speed limit was 75. As I topped a gentle rise there was a car behind a car with a boat trailer stopped in the left lane. From the moment I saw it there was barely enough time to swerve into the right lane and avoid plowing into it. Had there been traffic in the right lane next to me I would have hit that mess before I could have touched the brakes.
In Canada, the most severe “life” terms have parole eligibility after 25 years for first-degree murder, 15 years for second-degree, and lower for other crimes. For fixed-term sentences, parole eligibility begins at 1/3 of the term with most convicts getting parole after 2/3.
It's easier with a manual transmission. I've gotten into the habit of gently lifting my foot off the accelerator as I reach the top of hills. The car slows and I'm already halfway to hitting the brake if I have to.
People behind me get irritated, but I really don't care anymore. Besides, the cops always sit on the other side of a hill or curve. The first time my mother-in-law road with me I looked like I was psychic when after speeding for some time I slowed for a hill and other the other side sat a cop.
That's pretty much the definition of Criminal Negligence in the Criminal Code. Had malice been involved, the charge would have been Manslaughter or Murder.
The story this thread started with has the motorcycle following a truck obscuring the cyclist's view of the road ahead and the truck swerved to miss the girl's car at the last moment. As the prosecutor said, even if the cyclist had been doing the speed limit he would have had no time to react.
I agree. If I strike a vehicle from behind, regardless of what they are doing, I am going to be at fault because it is my responsibility to be aware enough of my surroundings to be able to stop or swerve quickly if they do something unexpected. If he had struck a police car who pulled over a speeder in the left lane, would the officer be charged as well? Or a car that had stalled?
100% the car driver’s fault, imo.
Total negligence on her part.
Not even a doubt in my mind.
OK...get back to us when you lose loved ones to an act of stupidity.
Does Quebec apply the same sentencing measures to illegals, drunks, tired drivers...
Mutual negligence.
“However, the prosecutor claimed a swerving truck in front of the motorcycle obstructed Roy’s view until it was too late.”
Was, perchance, the truck swerving to avoid the bimbo’s car?
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.