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: Carl Vehse

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.


41 posted on 06/20/2014 9:29:53 AM PDT by jumpingcholla34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

The safety of people *always* comes before animals.Except,of course,to members of our Rat Party.


There have been many posts here where conservatives think an animals life is of higher value than human. I grew up on the farm where if an animal injures a human the animal is destroyed no matter what. There are some that do not agree with us on this matter. It is a very emotional issue for some, even here.


42 posted on 06/20/2014 9:30:52 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple (Where is your thinking cap? The one you were issued in elementary school.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
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.

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.

43 posted on 06/20/2014 9:31:00 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat
It was both her action and the irresponsible driving of the motorcyclist that caused the deaths.

The only irresponsibility that's been firmly established here is hers.

44 posted on 06/20/2014 9:31:47 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat

...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?


45 posted on 06/20/2014 9:32:16 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Correct, PapaBear.


46 posted on 06/20/2014 9:32:31 AM PDT by citizen (There is always free government cheese in the mouse trap.....https://twitter.com/kracker0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

That’s the power of the interweb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Canada


47 posted on 06/20/2014 9:33:18 AM PDT by discostu (Ladies and gentlemen watch Ruth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

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.


48 posted on 06/20/2014 9:33:37 AM PDT by GOYAKLA (Waiting for the Golden Screw to be removed from Obama's navel and his a$$ falls off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rickmichaels

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.


49 posted on 06/20/2014 9:38:33 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
He should not have been moving faster than his ability to notice an obstruction and stop safely.

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.

50 posted on 06/20/2014 9:45:15 AM PDT by TigersEye ("No man left behind" means something different to 0bama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative; discostu

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.


51 posted on 06/20/2014 10:02:29 AM PDT by Squawk 8888 (I'd give up chocolate but I'm no quitter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
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.

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.

52 posted on 06/20/2014 10:05:04 AM PDT by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard
her actions seem to have been motivated by incredible stupidity, not malice.

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.

53 posted on 06/20/2014 10:06:52 AM PDT by Squawk 8888 (I'd give up chocolate but I'm no quitter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat
I don't know what difference it would have made in my case. I was driving my '59 pickup with a four speed, no time to shift, not even time to hit the brakes. The rise in the hill was so gradual it wasn't possible to see that it could hide a vehicle from sight. And I really doubt that anyone would slow down to 40 on an Interstate. That would in itself create a hazard.

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.

54 posted on 06/20/2014 10:15:08 AM PDT by TigersEye ("No man left behind" means something different to 0bama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
HE was responsible for the accident, not this lady.

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?

55 posted on 06/20/2014 10:24:10 AM PDT by LambSlave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rickmichaels

http://globalnews.ca/news/1386181/i-know-it-was-a-mistake-driver-in-duck-linked-highway-crash-testifies/

100% the car driver’s fault, imo.
Total negligence on her part.

Not even a doubt in my mind.


56 posted on 06/20/2014 10:38:40 AM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat

OK...get back to us when you lose loved ones to an act of stupidity.


57 posted on 06/20/2014 10:39:51 AM PDT by Dave W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Does Quebec apply the same sentencing measures to illegals, drunks, tired drivers...


58 posted on 06/20/2014 10:44:44 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Mutual negligence.


59 posted on 06/20/2014 10:49:10 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Carl Vehse

“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?


60 posted on 06/20/2014 10:55:31 AM PDT by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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