Women stops for ducks convicted of dangerous driving

[Catherine]

This is a sad story. A caring young woman stopped to help some ducks. Two people on a motorbike slammed into her car and were killed. Now she has been convicted and could be sent to jail for a long time. Certainly there was no criminal intent and she was trying to keep the baby ducks from being killed.
She is certainly no criminal.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Onli...story.html

As animal lovers we owe her our support. She didn't do anything the rest of us wouldn't have done. Why make it worse by sending her to jail.

[LPC]

I had a look at the article, which omits to mention that the motorbike which collided with her car was going way too fast on that road. I got this from the petition page:
"During the trial, a provincial police officer testified that the motorcyclist, whose speed was estimated to be from 113 km/h to 129 km/h when he applied his brakes, collided with Czornobaj's car at between 105 km/h and 121 km/h.

The jury was told the speed was higher than the prescribed 90 km/h limit on the road. They were later instructed NOT TO consider this fact in their deliberation."

There has clearly been a legal error by the judge here. He should not have instructed the jury to ignore that important fact, for this reason: if the motorbike had been going much slower (in order to be within the speed limit), then accident might never have occurred at all. Indeed, my first thoughts on reading this post, before I read the details, were, "Why didn't the motorbike see the parked car? Was it going too fast?"

My initial suspicions were confirmed when I read the details. The driver of the motorbike, had he survived, would have been liable to prosecution for speeding at such velocity as to risk losing his licence (although that would depend on Canadian law - perhaps you know, Catherine?). The real situation becomes clear when you consider the question, "Had the motorbike not been greatly exceeding the speed limit, and had he paid due care and attention to the road ahead, would this accident have happened?" That is a question which the jury SHOULD have been allowed to consider.

I signed the petition, but I do not think it can legally be submitted until the actual sentence had been handed out. I hope that the judge will see common sense on this case and that sentence will be lenient (as it should be).

[Tobi]

Bless that woman for trying to help those ducks.
I agree. The bike rider, as he was exceeding the speed limit (by quite a lot) did not have sufficient control of his vehicle to respond to sudden hazards. Every driver -always -should be prepared to deal with sudden road hazards. And anyone who can't is not in sufficient control of their vehicle.
Asking the jury to ignore that fact is asking them to ignore probably about three-quarters of the evidence!

It's awful that such a thoughtful and kind act should lead to the threat of imprisonment for this woman!
I wonder what the judge's attitude would have been if the woman had stopped for any other reason....such as suddenly feeling unwell, or something being wrong with her car....or because a human was in the road??

[Catherine]

I knew that the motorbike was speeding and therefore could not stop in time. I think that it is the responsibility of a driver to be able to stop on time if the vehicle in front stops. When you rear-end a car you are considered at fault and are expected to pay damages. I will see if I can find out what the law is in this case. One other issue is the fact that the Motor Bikes were new and so the driver was unfamiliar with his machine.

Tobi you are right, she might have stopped for any number of reasons. Her car might have stalled. She should have put on her hazard lights, but if she had just stopped, there would not have been time. The Bike was not prepared to stop given the road conditions. Perhaps he was a bit too close as well.

I did not know that the Judge instructed the Jury to ignore that fact that the motor bike was speeding. He was going quite fast. I would think, no matter what the sentence, she should win an appeal. The Judge appears to want a conviction and has rejected any evidence that might prevent it. I think the fact that a child died is part of the bias, but it shouldn't be. Also the reason for her stopping should not be so big a factor in the outcome of the trial.

If I had been on that Jury, I could not have voted guilty.

I think the petition will help and it certainly tells Czornobaj that she has supporters. That should help her get through this.

[LPC]

(07-23-2014, 02:52 PM)Catherine Wrote: He was going quite fast.

In France where I live, apart from a very heavy fine and any other possible charges, when the actual speed prior to braking exceeds the legal limit by a margin of 40 km/h or more, they take away the licence on the spot!

The motorbike driver seems to have exceeded the limit by a slightly smaller margin than that, but neverthless fast enough not to be able to stop safely. Each speed has its own mathematically calculated safe stopping distance. As one's speed increases, so should the distance between oneself and the vehicle in front.

I did not know that the bike was new and he therefore was unfamiliar with the controls. Surely, that fact should have been considered by the jury, too. Or did the judge rule that it should disregarded, too?

There seem to have been some very bad decisions by the judge in this case. An appeal, as you say Catherine, should put things right if the sentence is too harsh.

[Catherine]

I think this gives some bachground.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...e14165920/

This article makes the point that the mother on the other motor bike was driving slower and was not killed.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/06/23/wom...atal-crash

This article states that her hazard lights were on.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Driver+st...story.html

I can't find the info about the bikes being new, so I might have heard it on the radio. I remember thinking that the highway is not the best place to try out a new bike.

I hope the appeal goes well. The conviction sets a bad precedent for anyone considering helping an animal.

[LPC]

Thanks for the links. I noted this in particular:
" The Canadian Press reports Andre Roy, 50, who was traveling with his 16-year-old daughter, Jessie, on his Harley-Davidson, was driving an estimated 70 mph to 80 mph in a roughly 60 mph zone.

His wife was following behind them at a slower speed and avoided injury, and has said she doesn't blame Czornobaj for the deaths"

[Tobi]

The fact that her hazard lights were on SHOULD make a big difference. It's not that she acted impulsively, with no thought for road safety.

I saw another "woman saves ducks on road" feature recently (sorry I can't find the link now) where a woman stopped on the median on a highway, to rescue ducklings which would have been mowed down by traffic otherwise. Their mother had just been killed by a car. The woman called 911. A state trooper was behind her, and she thought he had come as a result of her call, to help. But instead he fined her $100. (for parking on the median)
The woman said she would do exactly the same thing if she had to, again! Good for her!
Only two ducklings were rescued. And sadly, one of them passed away later.

[Catherine]

It is a sad world where a person gets a ticket for saving a baby duck.

How can they not consider the speed of the bike a factor. How can they not consider lack of criminal intent a factor.
People who choose to commit horrible crimes sometimes end up with lighter sentences. The whole thing is crazy.

Next time I get a jury summons I better go. I think we need clear thinking people on our juries. It sounds like this case did not even have a clear thinking judge.

[Janay]

I read about this story a couple of months ago. This is very sad, poor woman. She was just trying to do what any animal lover would want to do. I actually signed a petition to stop her from being imprisoned.

Here's the link: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/489/351/3.../?TAP=1319


.