|
I had a very unfortunate accident yesterday causing injury to another person. I was pulling out of the parking lot (car perpendicular to sidewalk) making a right turn onto a main street, and I looked to the right, then to the left, saw no cars and hit the accelerator.
Felt I hit something, braked right away, and immediately heard a piercing scream. Jumping out of the car, an old lady was down on the ground with her calf under my front right wheel... screaming in pain. I try to lift the wheel to help her but she couldn't pull her leg out, so I had to get back into my car, and reverse off her leg... while all the screaming was going on.
Bystanders crowded, fire dept./ambulance/police came, and she was treated and taken to the hospital. I spent the next hour or so with other witnesses talking/providing documents to the police.
Now, of course I will be consulting legal help as soon as possible, but if there are any TL members familiar with traffic accident cases like this I'd greatly appreciate your advice:
1. I'm 21, full-class (G) licence in Canada with 1 previous at-fault accident reported to my insurance. I'm paying ~$210/month in insurance currently, how much of an increase am I looking at after this accident?
2. Because the police was notified, is there any way to perhaps settle with the other party privately (i.e., sticking her a large stack of bills) without letting this accident affect my insurance premium? Or would they know anyway since the accident was reported to the police?
3. If I go through insurance, would I be facing additional possibilities of getting sued? The victim was an old lady who was on medication, I can already feel my bank account bleeding dry.
Thankfully, she only suffered bruises (still, her leg was under the wheel for like... ~10 secs... so fuck I don't know) and maybe a broken ankle which are injuries that hopefully will be healed soon. Also, I was not charged under any civil or criminal penalties, nor given a ticket by the police; he said simply took all the witnesses' accounts, asked for my documents/info and let me go home.
I really need as much advice as I can get going crazy currently, couldn't even sleep at all last night regretting my lack of care punching myself Thanks again.
 
|
By your own admission you didn't see the lady. You're own fault.
Be prepared to get sued.
EDIT: For a lot.
|
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo.
|
If you pay her under the table she can pretend that never happened and sue your auto insurance. Now I live in the US but if it's anything similar they are going to raise your premium or drop you completely( more likely considering you had a previous accident recently and you hit an old lady.)
|
On September 07 2011 22:58 TadH wrote:
By your own admission you didn't see the lady. You're own fault.
Be prepared to get sued.
EDIT: For a lot.
only if she is a bitch imo, my friend got run over, didnt sue cus is no snitch ^_^ maybe this old lady come from a life rough, so she wont. (crosses fingers)
|
On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo.
No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon
Drivers should not get the right of way. In heavy traffic areas, pedestrians would be stranded while car after car drove by. It's even worse if it's raining. A person is just sitting in their car staying dry while the walker has to sit out in the rain.
|
Do not take any legal advice or answers from any posters here.
Seek off-forum counsel.
|
On September 07 2011 22:58 TadH wrote:
By your own admission you didn't see the lady. You're own fault.
Be prepared to get sued.
EDIT: For a lot.
You're absolutely right but I already said everything you said in OP. The thing about this that I'm wondering about is whether I'll get sued even after my insurances settles with the victim, I mean that's the whole point of insurance... right?
|
On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon
Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery.
|
As it was your fault, you could be facing large insurance premium hikes because of this. Depending on your coverage and the situation, however, you could be facing a much bigger problem. If she finds out later on that something did go wrong with her after all, you could be stuck covering some of the bills or being sued for it. Your insurance should cover it If that happens, but you should lawyer up if you hear anything about that.
Best of luck getting through this, and take care of yourself. It could have been a lot worse, so be thankful that everyone made it out all right.
|
On September 07 2011 23:03 Ravencruiser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 22:58 TadH wrote:
By your own admission you didn't see the lady. You're own fault.
Be prepared to get sued.
EDIT: For a lot. You're absolutely right but I already said everything you said in OP. The thing about this that I'm wondering about is whether I'll get sued even after my insurances settles with the victim, I mean that's the whole point of insurance... right?
Once your insurance settles its over. Now that doesn't mean you won't get sued If your coverage is less than what youre getting sued for.
|
On September 07 2011 23:03 Ravencruiser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 22:58 TadH wrote:
By your own admission you didn't see the lady. You're own fault.
Be prepared to get sued.
EDIT: For a lot. You're absolutely right but I already said everything you said in OP. The thing about this that I'm wondering about is whether I'll get sued even after my insurances settles with the victim, I mean that's the whole point of insurance... right?
When you get sued, generally your insurance also handles the legal responsibilities. It's part of their coverage.
|
On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery.
Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges
|
On September 07 2011 23:07 lolsixtynine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:03 Ravencruiser wrote:On September 07 2011 22:58 TadH wrote:
By your own admission you didn't see the lady. You're own fault.
Be prepared to get sued.
EDIT: For a lot. You're absolutely right but I already said everything you said in OP. The thing about this that I'm wondering about is whether I'll get sued even after my insurances settles with the victim, I mean that's the whole point of insurance... right? When you get sued, generally your insurance also handles the legal responsibilities. It's part of their coverage.
That all depends on the amount of coverage you have. You can personally be sued to cover costs beyond what your policy pays out.
|
On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges
You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges.
|
She will get a settlement well beyond what you could slip her even if she isnt a bitch. The insurance company will be forking over a huge amount, you will be lucky if you dont get a civil suit after the insurance settlement
|
You're gonna get a healthy bump in your premium for sure, especially since she went to the hospital. I highly doubt you have the means to pay outside of insurance, just the ambulence ride alone could run you over $1000. And even then, suppose you did pay that, she turns around and decides she's still hurting a few weeks down the road, you're getting sued anyway.
insurance handles all suits though
|
On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges.
I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with.
|
Netherlands19130 Posts
On September 07 2011 23:03 Horrde wrote:
Do not take any legal advice or answers from any posters here.
Seek off-forum counsel.
What this guy said, plus if you are properly insured (As you should be because otherwise you never should have gotten into a car in the first place.) you shouldn't have to worry about anything.
edit: Criminal charges, really? Get over yourself people -.-
|
On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with.
No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over.
|
I haven't had much accidents involving insurance but it's their job to deal with stuff for you. So I'd just let the insurance people handle the legal issues. Otherwise, the lady can cause more problems in the future by going to the police or civil courts. The insurance people keep records and understand the law better.
Also if the insurance company is the one paying, they're gonna try to negotiate the price down so they have to pay less. If it's more than what they can cover then you're screwed.
You have two at-fault accidents so it's not looking good. In the US most insurance rates don't go down until you're over 25 years old with good driving record. You're rightfully in the category of young and reckless.
|
Netherlands19130 Posts
On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over.
Intent is not required for most crimes.
|
On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes.
Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of.
assault:
Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault.
Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this
Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that:
an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and
the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching.
Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure.
|
On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes.
There is absolutely no way he'd get charged with a criminal offense unless the accident went down a whole lot differently than he described
at most he'd get a reckless driving ticket, which is just a moving violation,
|
contact a lawyer immediately.
|
On September 07 2011 23:03 Horrde wrote:
Do not take any legal advice or answers from any posters here.
Seek off-forum counsel.
my advice is too read above ^^^^
Thankgod your in canada and not the USA because you would be bent over hard.
though your still going to pay, wont be as substantial
|
On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure.
Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already?
|
On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes.
Er what?
This is..blatantly untrue. At least in the US a great deal of law revolves around someone intentionally/knowingly doing something.
Regardless this isn't an assault case. It's a traffic accident with a pedestrian involved. Nothing more. I'm not sure how suing and shit works in Canada but if you are going to get sued for a hefty amount you may as well just go through your insurance.
As a side note you could get married and cut your premium in half :D
|
Calgary25977 Posts
On September 07 2011 23:13 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna get a healthy bump in your premium for sure, especially since she went to the hospital. I highly doubt you have the means to pay outside of insurance, just the ambulence ride alone could run you over $1000. And even then, suppose you did pay that, she turns around and decides she's still hurting a few weeks down the road, you're getting sued anyway.
insurance handles all suits though
This is Canada. An ambulance ride is $70 and the hospital is free.
|
On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already?
Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it.
|
On September 07 2011 23:23 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:13 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna get a healthy bump in your premium for sure, especially since she went to the hospital. I highly doubt you have the means to pay outside of insurance, just the ambulence ride alone could run you over $1000. And even then, suppose you did pay that, she turns around and decides she's still hurting a few weeks down the road, you're getting sued anyway.
insurance handles all suits though This is Canada. An ambulance ride is $70 and the hospital is free.
it's always the minor little things that I miss...
god, that just makes me really upset at how expensive a goddamn ambulence ride is
|
On September 07 2011 23:24 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:23 Chill wrote:On September 07 2011 23:13 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna get a healthy bump in your premium for sure, especially since she went to the hospital. I highly doubt you have the means to pay outside of insurance, just the ambulence ride alone could run you over $1000. And even then, suppose you did pay that, she turns around and decides she's still hurting a few weeks down the road, you're getting sued anyway.
insurance handles all suits though This is Canada. An ambulance ride is $70 and the hospital is free. it's always the minor little things that I miss... god, that just makes me really upset at how expensive a goddamn ambulence ride is
70 dollars? >.>
It's like 160 in the US :/
|
On September 07 2011 23:23 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:13 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna get a healthy bump in your premium for sure, especially since she went to the hospital. I highly doubt you have the means to pay outside of insurance, just the ambulence ride alone could run you over $1000. And even then, suppose you did pay that, she turns around and decides she's still hurting a few weeks down the road, you're getting sued anyway.
insurance handles all suits though This is Canada. An ambulance ride is $70 and the hospital is free.
really? O_O
|
On September 07 2011 23:23 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:13 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna get a healthy bump in your premium for sure, especially since she went to the hospital. I highly doubt you have the means to pay outside of insurance, just the ambulence ride alone could run you over $1000. And even then, suppose you did pay that, she turns around and decides she's still hurting a few weeks down the road, you're getting sued anyway.
insurance handles all suits though This is Canada. An ambulance ride is $70 and the hospital is free.
When I was injured in an accident the ambulance took me a whole 2 miles. My bill? $2700. They did pump me full of drugs though.
|
On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:[quote] No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it.
I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail.
|
Wow, strange story... My grandmother was just ran over by some guy near Waterloo yesterday. She said some college kid intentionally ran her down and then refused to move the car off her leg for about twenty seconds.
She is currently in the hospital with a broken ankle and some ruptured tendons and the doctors don't expect her to be able to walk again on that leg. She's already drafting up the papers to sue this kid for all he's worth.
|
On September 07 2011 23:27 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:
[quote]
Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it. I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail.
Are you sure about that. It's a moving violation in the US. It could be different in Canada but I doubt it.
|
Ah, seeing people seek advice after having ran over somebody on TL warms my heart 
gl to you
|
On September 07 2011 23:28 Serejai wrote:
Wow, strange story... My grandmother was just ran over by some guy near Waterloo yesterday. She said some college kid intentionally ran her down and then refused to move the car off her leg for about twenty seconds.
She is currently in the hospital with a broken ankle and some ruptured tendons and the doctors don't expect her to be able to walk again on that leg. She's already drafting up the papers to sue this kid for all he's worth.
OMG you've got to be shitting us. If this turns out to be the same case, I really pity the OP. I dunno if I should laugh or cry at the absurdity of this. Clearly if I was the OP I would be mortified, but as a random person on another whole continent, I can look at this with some distance and not be petrified with fear.
I always wondered, why do people from north america(both US and Canada) sue so much? Is it written in your constitution or something that you can and should exert that liberty at every possible turn? Breaking someone elses life and putting them in debt is a really dick move IMO.
|
On September 07 2011 23:46 Latham wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:28 Serejai wrote:
Wow, strange story... My grandmother was just ran over by some guy near Waterloo yesterday. She said some college kid intentionally ran her down and then refused to move the car off her leg for about twenty seconds.
She is currently in the hospital with a broken ankle and some ruptured tendons and the doctors don't expect her to be able to walk again on that leg. She's already drafting up the papers to sue this kid for all he's worth. OMG you've got to be shitting us. If this turns out to be the same case, I really pity the OP. I dunno if I should laugh or cry at the absurdity of this. Clearly if I was the OP I would be mortified, but as a random person on another whole continent, I can look at this with some distance and not be petrified with fear. I always wondered, why do people from north america(both US and Canada) sue so much? Is it written in your constitution or something that you can and should exert that liberty at every possible turn? Breaking someone elses life and putting them in debt is a really dick move IMO.
So is destroying an old ladies leg so she can't use it anymore.
|
In Canada you usually cannot sue for obsene amounts of money. Basically just to cover loss of income, expenses (legal, health, insurance ect...) and of course any compensation as in this case not being able to walk on the leg again (if that part is true). If you have insurance you only pay in your premiums and the insurance should cover the money needed in the claim.
For the OP it sucks, but at least you did not just keep on driving.
|
On September 07 2011 23:47 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:46 Latham wrote:On September 07 2011 23:28 Serejai wrote:
Wow, strange story... My grandmother was just ran over by some guy near Waterloo yesterday. She said some college kid intentionally ran her down and then refused to move the car off her leg for about twenty seconds.
She is currently in the hospital with a broken ankle and some ruptured tendons and the doctors don't expect her to be able to walk again on that leg. She's already drafting up the papers to sue this kid for all he's worth. OMG you've got to be shitting us. If this turns out to be the same case, I really pity the OP. I dunno if I should laugh or cry at the absurdity of this. Clearly if I was the OP I would be mortified, but as a random person on another whole continent, I can look at this with some distance and not be petrified with fear. I always wondered, why do people from north america(both US and Canada) sue so much? Is it written in your constitution or something that you can and should exert that liberty at every possible turn? Breaking someone elses life and putting them in debt is a really dick move IMO. So is destroying an old ladies leg so she can't use it anymore.
I dunno anything about the case aside from what the OP said, but I DO believe that was not intentional. Her suing him privately after already being almost guaranteed a huuuuge sum of money from the insurance company, possibly destroying a 20-something y/o life and future, is another different issue.
|
On September 07 2011 23:29 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:27 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:
[quote]
Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it. I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail. Are you sure about that. It's a moving violation in the US. It could be different in Canada but I doubt it.
If it's not criminal then it would be at least an equivalent to something like DUI... you might be right though about it as a moving violation. I think Canada operates the same way
|
On September 07 2011 23:51 Latham wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:47 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:46 Latham wrote:On September 07 2011 23:28 Serejai wrote:
Wow, strange story... My grandmother was just ran over by some guy near Waterloo yesterday. She said some college kid intentionally ran her down and then refused to move the car off her leg for about twenty seconds.
She is currently in the hospital with a broken ankle and some ruptured tendons and the doctors don't expect her to be able to walk again on that leg. She's already drafting up the papers to sue this kid for all he's worth. OMG you've got to be shitting us. If this turns out to be the same case, I really pity the OP. I dunno if I should laugh or cry at the absurdity of this. Clearly if I was the OP I would be mortified, but as a random person on another whole continent, I can look at this with some distance and not be petrified with fear. I always wondered, why do people from north america(both US and Canada) sue so much? Is it written in your constitution or something that you can and should exert that liberty at every possible turn? Breaking someone elses life and putting them in debt is a really dick move IMO. So is destroying an old ladies leg so she can't use it anymore. I dunno anything about the case aside from what the OP said, but I DO believe that was not intentional. Her suing him privately after already being almost guaranteed a huuuuge sum of money from the insurance company, possibly destroying a 20-something y/o life and future, is another different issue.
I'm going to provide a completely different example but if you mistakenly run over someone and kill them. The family is going to sue the brains out of you and want to see you behind bars for the rest of your life, even if it was an accident. That's just the way the world works.
|
On September 07 2011 23:51 Latham wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:47 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:46 Latham wrote:On September 07 2011 23:28 Serejai wrote:
Wow, strange story... My grandmother was just ran over by some guy near Waterloo yesterday. She said some college kid intentionally ran her down and then refused to move the car off her leg for about twenty seconds.
She is currently in the hospital with a broken ankle and some ruptured tendons and the doctors don't expect her to be able to walk again on that leg. She's already drafting up the papers to sue this kid for all he's worth. OMG you've got to be shitting us. If this turns out to be the same case, I really pity the OP. I dunno if I should laugh or cry at the absurdity of this. Clearly if I was the OP I would be mortified, but as a random person on another whole continent, I can look at this with some distance and not be petrified with fear. I always wondered, why do people from north america(both US and Canada) sue so much? Is it written in your constitution or something that you can and should exert that liberty at every possible turn? Breaking someone elses life and putting them in debt is a really dick move IMO. So is destroying an old ladies leg so she can't use it anymore. I dunno anything about the case aside from what the OP said, but I DO believe that was not intentional. Her suing him privately after already being almost guaranteed a huuuuge sum of money from the insurance company, possibly destroying a 20-something y/o life and future, is another different issue.
Problem being many people do not put enough coverage on their auto policy to pay for all their bills and whatnot. That is why many lawsuits occur after the fact. For instance where I live the minimum medical injury coverage is 25k USD. That can barely afford to pay for one person who is only slightly injured. In this case this woman will likely need insanely expensive physical therapy that will last a long time.
|
On September 07 2011 23:51 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:29 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:27 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:
[quote]
You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it. I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail. Are you sure about that. It's a moving violation in the US. It could be different in Canada but I doubt it. If it's not criminal then it would be at least an equivalent to something like DUI... you might be right though about it as a moving violation. I think Canada operates the same way
No, a DUI IS a criminal offense. A reckless driving is not. It's given to almost anyone who causes a wreck. (in usa)
|
I'm amazed at the thought of anyone wanting to sue over something like this :O
I've been hit by a guy who got his license taken because he violated a full stop sign and was doing an illegal left turn. The only money I saw was compensation from the court for being a witness (which amounted to like 10$)...
Oh well, GL to the OP!
|
On September 07 2011 23:55 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm amazed at the thought of anyone wanting to sue over something like this :O
I've been hit by a guy who got his license taken because he violated a full stop sign and was doing an illegal left turn. The only money I saw was compensation from the court for being a witness (which amounted to like 10$)...
Oh well, GL to the OP!
Exactly. A person I know also got hit by a car completely shattering his arm. The medical verdict was that he'd be lucky if he could lift a glass of water later in his life with that arm.
He got money for the permanent damage and medical expenses, but he never even though of suing privately for this. It was enough the guy went to jail since this wasn't his 1st offence. Guess suing in the NA must be a culture thing.
|
On September 08 2011 00:02 Latham wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:55 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm amazed at the thought of anyone wanting to sue over something like this :O
I've been hit by a guy who got his license taken because he violated a full stop sign and was doing an illegal left turn. The only money I saw was compensation from the court for being a witness (which amounted to like 10$)...
Oh well, GL to the OP!
Exactly. A person I know also got hit by a car completely shattering his arm. The medical verdict was that he'd be lucky if he could lift a glass of water later in his life with that arm. He got money for the permanent damage and medical expenses, but he never even though of suing privately for this. It was enough the guy went to jail since this wasn't his 1st offence. Guess suing in the NA must be a culture thing.
Maybe you should make a topic then, we already took over this guys blog.
|
Yeah I'm done derailing this. Sorry OP, I hope everything works out for you and that you don't get sued despite a high chance of that happening.
|
Korea (South)11575 Posts
On September 07 2011 23:54 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:51 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:29 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:27 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:
[quote]
I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it. I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail. Are you sure about that. It's a moving violation in the US. It could be different in Canada but I doubt it. If it's not criminal then it would be at least an equivalent to something like DUI... you might be right though about it as a moving violation. I think Canada operates the same way No, a DUI IS a criminal offense. A reckless driving is not. It's given to almost anyone who causes a wreck. (in usa)
You are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_driving
Reckless driving in many states is a class 1 misdemeanor. (that is a criminal offense and in my state of Virginia it involves jail time of no more than 1 year).
Reckless Driving is defined as a Class 1 misdemeanor criminal offense, not a traffic infraction or a speeding ticket.
Quoting http://www.ontario-criminal-lawyers.com/criminallawyer_dangerousdriving.html
Dangerous Driving is Section 249 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The offence of Dangerous Driving is made out when;
The accused drives a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and, use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A Dangerous Driving conviction results in a criminal record and an automatic one-year licence suspension. Dangerous driving offences resulting bodily harm can result in the accused being sent to jail, and imprisonment for up to ten (10) years. An accused convicted of Dangerous Driving cause death is liable for imprisonment of up to fourteen (14) years.
It's not Careless Driving as quoting DefenseLaw
Dangerous Driving/Careless Driving
Dangerous Driving
The Criminal Code offence of dangerous driving is made out where viewed objectively, the driving is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A dangerous driving conviction results in a criminal record and (in Ontario) an automatic one-year licence suspension (for a first offence). Drivers with previous convictions for dangerous driving or impaired driving may face a longer licence suspension (for example, see Section 41 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act).
A good lawyer may be able to have a Dangerous Driving charge reduced to a charge of Careless Driving. This is an excellent outcome as a conviction for dangerous driving is far worse than a conviction for careless driving. Although a conviction for careless driving will lead to higher motor vehicle insurance rates, it is not a criminal offence and therefore does not result in a criminal record. Nor does it lead to an automatic licence suspension.
For driving to be deemed dangerous it must depart markedly from the standard of care of a reasonable person. By contrast, careless driving is made out where the defendant's driving departs sufficiently from the standard of a prudent and reasonable driver to make the driving deserving of punishment.
A "few seconds" of negligent driving
In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the acquittal of a B.C. driver whose pick-up truck, for no apparent reason, suddenly crossed the solid centre line into the path of an oncoming vehicle, killing all three occupants.
Witnesses testified the accused’s vehicle was being driven properly before the accident. An expert inspection concluded that the accused’s vehicle had not experienced mechanical failure. Intoxicants were ruled out.
The accused stated that he was not sure how the collision occurred but that he must have lost consciousness or fallen asleep.
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that a few seconds of negligent driving could not, without more, support a finding of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver. The B.C. Court of Appeal had earlier set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the accused’s conduct of crossing the centre line into the path of oncoming traffic could only be viewed as objectively dangerous and a marked departure.
Careless driving
Careless driving is one of the most serious charges under the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines careless driving as driving on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.
Driving on a "highway"
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines "highway" as follows:
"highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; ("voie publique")
Thus, for example, it appears that one cannot be found guilty of careless driving if the driving occurs on a sidewalk, in a shopping mall parking lot, or on a private roadway or driveway.
Albeit, I don't know much about Canadian Law to input my advice on the situation. Usually these situations don't reach the court room in America. I had a friend who was hit by a car and was flown off of her bicycle and no criminal punishment was put on the driver of the car.
From what the OP describes, is that the lady was hit, and may have a hurt leg, although it doesn't sound like she was in a life threatening condition (that's good for the OP).
|
Lawyer...
But perhaps you can find her cat and send her one of its ears in an envelope. That might shut her up about the issue... if she knows what's good for her cat. (kidding)
|
What I can say for sure: if there was legal recourse from the police they would have done it already (i.e. give you a ticket). The victim has the choice to pursue a law suit. They might do this if their medical expenses aren't covered (unlikely given that you're in Canada) OR if they feel like getting some money out of the deal (missed work, gateway to more serious medical problems, pissed off, etc). They may also decide such actions aren't worth it and let it go.
Conclusion: Talk with a lawyer and be prepared to hire them if a law suit comes up.
Personal Experience: In 2006 I was hit by a car in an intersection and they ran over the side of my foot (flipping me over). I was in the crosswalk, was reasonably sure I had a white walk sign, and had checked traffic before running across (the driver made a right turn without looking). The driver was going to take me to the hospital, but a business owner who witnessed the acccident called the police and had us stay. I was ambulanced to the hospital, waited 2 hours, had an xray, was given a pair of crutches and told I was fine (despite bruising). Ironically, the police officer was the first person to see me in the ER. He gave me a ticket for "crossing against the pedestrian don't walk sign" (apparently "reasonably sure" wasn't good enough -_-). He advised me to fight the ticket considering I was run over. I did. I had to admit guilt to the charge, but thanks to my medical bills the court cancelled my fine. I had $4000 in bills (ER bill and ambulance bill) and I wasn't covered by insurance. Thanks to "no-fault insurance" from the state of Michigan the driver wouldn't pay a cent, even if he was at fault. I could have tried a law suit, but admitting guilt to the civil infraction would almost guarentee a loss. Also, since the incident was documented as a traffic accident it went on my driving record!
The point of the story: The driver got off without more than a warning despite his failure to make a safe turn. I'm not saying this will happen to you, but definitely check with legal counsel to ensure what, exactly, both parties are faulted with.
|
On September 08 2011 00:29 CaucasianAsian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:54 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:51 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:29 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:27 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:
[quote]
No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over.
Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it. I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail. Are you sure about that. It's a moving violation in the US. It could be different in Canada but I doubt it. If it's not criminal then it would be at least an equivalent to something like DUI... you might be right though about it as a moving violation. I think Canada operates the same way No, a DUI IS a criminal offense. A reckless driving is not. It's given to almost anyone who causes a wreck. (in usa) You are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_drivingReckless driving in many states is a class 1 misdemeanor. (that is a criminal offense and in my state of Virginia it involves jail time of no more than 1 year). Show nested quote + Reckless Driving is defined as a Class 1 misdemeanor criminal offense, not a traffic infraction or a speeding ticket. Quoting http://www.ontario-criminal-lawyers.com/criminallawyer_dangerousdriving.htmlShow nested quote +
Dangerous Driving is Section 249 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The offence of Dangerous Driving is made out when;
The accused drives a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and, use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A Dangerous Driving conviction results in a criminal record and an automatic one-year licence suspension. Dangerous driving offences resulting bodily harm can result in the accused being sent to jail, and imprisonment for up to ten (10) years. An accused convicted of Dangerous Driving cause death is liable for imprisonment of up to fourteen (14) years.
It's not Careless Driving as quoting DefenseLaw Show nested quote +Dangerous Driving/Careless Driving
Dangerous Driving
The Criminal Code offence of dangerous driving is made out where viewed objectively, the driving is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A dangerous driving conviction results in a criminal record and (in Ontario) an automatic one-year licence suspension (for a first offence). Drivers with previous convictions for dangerous driving or impaired driving may face a longer licence suspension (for example, see Section 41 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act).
A good lawyer may be able to have a Dangerous Driving charge reduced to a charge of Careless Driving. This is an excellent outcome as a conviction for dangerous driving is far worse than a conviction for careless driving. Although a conviction for careless driving will lead to higher motor vehicle insurance rates, it is not a criminal offence and therefore does not result in a criminal record. Nor does it lead to an automatic licence suspension.
For driving to be deemed dangerous it must depart markedly from the standard of care of a reasonable person. By contrast, careless driving is made out where the defendant's driving departs sufficiently from the standard of a prudent and reasonable driver to make the driving deserving of punishment.
A "few seconds" of negligent driving
In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the acquittal of a B.C. driver whose pick-up truck, for no apparent reason, suddenly crossed the solid centre line into the path of an oncoming vehicle, killing all three occupants.
Witnesses testified the accused’s vehicle was being driven properly before the accident. An expert inspection concluded that the accused’s vehicle had not experienced mechanical failure. Intoxicants were ruled out.
The accused stated that he was not sure how the collision occurred but that he must have lost consciousness or fallen asleep.
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that a few seconds of negligent driving could not, without more, support a finding of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver. The B.C. Court of Appeal had earlier set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the accused’s conduct of crossing the centre line into the path of oncoming traffic could only be viewed as objectively dangerous and a marked departure.
Careless driving
Careless driving is one of the most serious charges under the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines careless driving as driving on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.
Driving on a "highway"
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines "highway" as follows:
"highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; ("voie publique")
Thus, for example, it appears that one cannot be found guilty of careless driving if the driving occurs on a sidewalk, in a shopping mall parking lot, or on a private roadway or driveway. Albeit, I don't know much about Canadian Law to input my advice on the situation. Usually these situations don't reach the court room in America. I had a friend who was hit by a car and was flown off of her bicycle and no criminal punishment was put on the driver of the car. From what the OP describes, is that the lady was hit, and may have a hurt leg, although it doesn't sound like she was in a life threatening condition (that's good for the OP).
Actually no it isn't a criminal offense in "many" states. I can only find evidence of it being a criminal offense in the state which you mentioned(not going to go through the dmv of every state, which you obv. also did not do.) Reckless driving is NOT criminal offense in my state It is NOT a criminal offense in many states either. Now it's possible reckless driving does not equal reckless driving in all places, I'm sure it's called many things, as seen in the article about "dangerous driving" which I've never heard of such an offense here.
|
Kudos for not driving off, you've saved yourself a criminal record.
However you still ran over an old lady, so be prepared for months of wrangling with insurance companies and lawyers. And you might as well sell your car right now, because your premiums after this are not going to be worth it.
PS: This might all be bullshit because it's the internet and why the hell are you reading our advice? Talk to your lawyer/insurance company.
|
Ok let me clear up a few things for posters. The OP resides in CANADA. This means FREE health care and in most jurisdictions, free ambulance rides. Do not go off of your own countries laws/costs.
|
On September 07 2011 23:28 Serejai wrote:
Wow, strange story... My grandmother was just ran over by some guy near Waterloo yesterday. She said some college kid intentionally ran her down and then refused to move the car off her leg for about twenty seconds.
She is currently in the hospital with a broken ankle and some ruptured tendons and the doctors don't expect her to be able to walk again on that leg. She's already drafting up the papers to sue this kid for all he's worth.
Just spoke to my grandmother again. Her lawyer has finished drafting paperwork and it's been submitted to the courts. She is looking for $9,400 for her hospital bill, $5,200 for other medical expenses (like ambulance ride and the wheelchair she will need for the rest of her life), and an additional $200,000 in emotional damages caused by the assailant.
Her lawyer says she has an all but guaranteed chance of winning in court.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 08 2011 01:09 Serejai wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:28 Serejai wrote:
Wow, strange story... My grandmother was just ran over by some guy near Waterloo yesterday. She said some college kid intentionally ran her down and then refused to move the car off her leg for about twenty seconds.
She is currently in the hospital with a broken ankle and some ruptured tendons and the doctors don't expect her to be able to walk again on that leg. She's already drafting up the papers to sue this kid for all he's worth. Just spoke to my grandmother again. Her lawyer has finished drafting paperwork and it's been submitted to the courts. She is looking for $9,400 for her hospital bill, $5,200 for other medical expenses (like ambulance ride and the wheelchair she will need for the rest of her life), and an additional $200,000 in emotional damages caused by the assailant. Her lawyer says she has an all but guaranteed chance of winning in court.
It wasn't amusing the first time and it's overkill by now. Stop trolling.
|
Well, as a lawyer, I advise you to be more precise. You didn't run over her, you drove over her. Even more specifically, you didn't drive over because None Of This Ever Happened.
|
On September 08 2011 01:18 ilovezil wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 01:09 Serejai wrote:On September 07 2011 23:28 Serejai wrote:
Wow, strange story... My grandmother was just ran over by some guy near Waterloo yesterday. She said some college kid intentionally ran her down and then refused to move the car off her leg for about twenty seconds.
She is currently in the hospital with a broken ankle and some ruptured tendons and the doctors don't expect her to be able to walk again on that leg. She's already drafting up the papers to sue this kid for all he's worth. Just spoke to my grandmother again. Her lawyer has finished drafting paperwork and it's been submitted to the courts. She is looking for $9,400 for her hospital bill, $5,200 for other medical expenses (like ambulance ride and the wheelchair she will need for the rest of her life), and an additional $200,000 in emotional damages caused by the assailant. Her lawyer says she has an all but guaranteed chance of winning in court. It wasn't amusing the first time and it's overkill by now. Stop trolling.
Even though I assumed it wasn't real, I thought the first post added something to the discussion - an imaginative portrayal of the victim's perspective. It would have been more useful had it been more vivid.
|
You better hope your insurance policy is large enough to cover it. Causing injury to old people is so bad, they get so weak in the hospital bed that even if they had the strength to be self-sufficent beforehand, they in all likelihood will need help for the rest of their life.
The law suit will be a substantial amount for pain and suffering, as well as whatever her ongoing caretaking costs are estimated to be for the rest of her life.
You probably got lucky because generally the biggest amount that you can sue for is loss of income. If she is really old, you won't have to worry about that.
Really hope you took out a big insurance policy (like you ALL should)
|
Trying to minimise responsibility for negligently running someone over... Hmm...
All I can say is, I hope you're penalised enough to sufficiently compensate the lady, and the millions of other drivers who pick up a higher insurance premium because of people like you.
I'd say that running over a person, moving at a walking speed, directly in front of your car, should be grounds for immediate license revocation.
|
Man... good luck, I'm paying about 240 for my insurance (clean driving record) but I'm afraid yours might take a major upward leap.
|
I try to lift the wheel to help her but she couldn't pull her leg out, so I had to get back into my car, and reverse off her leg... while all the screaming was going on.
I literally pinched my face and went "oooooooooooooh"
|
On September 07 2011 23:25 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:24 Hawk wrote:On September 07 2011 23:23 Chill wrote:On September 07 2011 23:13 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna get a healthy bump in your premium for sure, especially since she went to the hospital. I highly doubt you have the means to pay outside of insurance, just the ambulence ride alone could run you over $1000. And even then, suppose you did pay that, she turns around and decides she's still hurting a few weeks down the road, you're getting sued anyway.
insurance handles all suits though This is Canada. An ambulance ride is $70 and the hospital is free. it's always the minor little things that I miss... god, that just makes me really upset at how expensive a goddamn ambulence ride is 70 dollars? >.> It's like 160 in the US :/
500 in aus -_-
|
70$ for Canada, it's really sweet. The emergency room is terrible though, not fast at all in my experience.
|
Was there a bush large enough to hide in near the parking lot?
Maybe one day I'm just gonna throw myself in front of a limousine. :D
+ Show Spoiler +This sounds so fake. When a car runs over a human leg, it rolls over it. Think of two circles, one on top of another. Yes I have had my leg run over.
|
Hi there, I used to be a claims adjuster for Canadian Direct Insurance. I have a couple of answers for you, but I won't be giving "legal advice" and I strongly recommend you don't take any "legal advice" from us internet denizens, but here goes.
1. I'm 21, full-class (G) licence in Canada with 1 previous at-fault accident reported to my insurance. I'm paying ~$210/month in insurance currently, how much of an increase am I looking at after this accident?
At this point, it's not possible to give you specific rate increase information. The claim needs to be processed first. I understand that the rate increase is typically based on the amount spent on the claim.
2. Because the police was notified, is there any way to perhaps settle with the other party privately (i.e., sticking her a large stack of bills) without letting this accident affect my insurance premium? Or would they know anyway since the accident was reported to the police?
Although it may seem ideal to go this route, the reality is that there is likely significant damage to the pedestrian, and there is no way of knowing if these injuries will be longterm or not. Bodily Injury claims can be quite expensive - The amount of money you would be paying in a private settlement would likely be overwhelming. If she chooses to sue you, then your insurance wouldn't be able to get involved and you could be screwed bigtime.
3. If I go through insurance, would I be facing additional possibilities of getting sued? The victim was an old lady who was on medication, I can already feel my bank account bleeding dry.
This depends on the amount of Third-Party Liability coverage you have on your insurance plan.
In British Columbia, to insure a vehicle, you require a minumum of $200,000 liability coverage. Collision coverage, Comprehensive coverage, and Third Party Liability coverages are OPTIONAL. This means if you did not opt for the extra TPL coverage, and her injury claim exceeds $200,000 (which is likely), you are on the hook for the rest of the cost of the claim, and you will be sued for it.
Things that contribute to the cost of a Bodily Injury claim:
-Ambulance ride fee
-Any cost incurred to heal the injury
-Physiotherapy, Rehabilitation
-Wages Lost
-Cost of medication or painkillers
Good luck..
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
On September 07 2011 23:03 Horrde wrote:
Do not take any legal advice or answers from any posters here.
Seek off-forum counsel.
I'm with this poster here.
Good luck.
|
U got lucky her shin didn't broke, given how much, if ever, it would take for an old lady to heal it.
Its funny how here you could prolly lose a leg and not get USD 200,000 compensation from anyone.
|
On September 07 2011 23:26 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:23 Chill wrote:On September 07 2011 23:13 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna get a healthy bump in your premium for sure, especially since she went to the hospital. I highly doubt you have the means to pay outside of insurance, just the ambulence ride alone could run you over $1000. And even then, suppose you did pay that, she turns around and decides she's still hurting a few weeks down the road, you're getting sued anyway.
insurance handles all suits though This is Canada. An ambulance ride is $70 and the hospital is free. When I was injured in an accident the ambulance took me a whole 2 miles. My bill? $2700. They did pump me full of drugs though.
It's not a taxi bro.
On September 08 2011 01:38 raviy wrote:
Trying to minimise responsibility for negligently running someone over... Hmm...
All I can say is, I hope you're penalised enough to sufficiently compensate the lady, and the millions of other drivers who pick up a higher insurance premium because of people like you.
I'd say that running over a person, moving at a walking speed, directly in front of your car, should be grounds for immediate license revocation.
Hopefully he is billed a reasonable amount, but accidents happen and there is no reason that he shouldn't try to minimize his punishment even if he deserves it. Hopefully he learns to be more careful in the future.
|
On September 08 2011 01:47 Torte de Lini wrote:
70$ for Canada, it's really sweet. The emergency room is terrible though, not fast at all in my experience.
It is if you're an emergency. But because they use a priority system rather than first come first serve (obviously) so a minor or even severe but not life threatening injuries can get pushed back again and again.
|
On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes.
so long as she is alive he is fine from vehicular manslaughter which is the only serious criminal offense that im sure can really come from this (dont know everything...internet forums arent exactly the best place for legal advice really)
that said 2 things
1)in the future when you're driving try to pay more attention >.< and if you have blind spots dont be an idiot (the reason why the only places i drive like a retard are mountain canyons and race tracks)
2)i would expect the insurance to at least double.....good luck paying that ~___~
|
Look backwards when backing out.
Then again, don't take advice from this forums.
|
On September 08 2011 03:37 Ponyo wrote:
Then again, don't take advice from this forums.
The advice you get on TL is generally really good. Depends on the topic I suppose.
|
On September 08 2011 03:39 HackBenjamin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 03:37 Ponyo wrote:
Then again, don't take advice from this forums. The advice you get on TL is generally really good. Depends on the topic I suppose.
Yea, they did pretty good with Life Hacks and Music !
|
So, to be honest, if I were you, I probably would not have posted this online anywhere and immediately contacted someone who is certified in the way of legalities.
Seeing as you're admitting it online, everything here can be used against you, can it not?
|
On September 08 2011 04:23 Lanaia wrote:
So, to be honest, if I were you, I probably would not have posted this online anywhere and immediately contacted someone who is certified in the way of legalities.
Seeing as you're admitting it online, everything here can be used against you, can it not?
Good thing it's a made up story right?
|
On September 08 2011 01:38 raviy wrote:
Trying to minimise responsibility for negligently running someone over... Hmm...
All I can say is, I hope you're penalised enough to sufficiently compensate the lady, and the millions of other drivers who pick up a higher insurance premium because of people like you.
I'd say that running over a person, moving at a walking speed, directly in front of your car, should be grounds for immediate license revocation.
As long as something like this doesn't happen to you, because then we will see another blog of someone calling for help.
Just saying, don't be such a dick, he's clearly regretting it and people DO make mistakes.
|
On September 08 2011 04:36 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 01:38 raviy wrote:
Trying to minimise responsibility for negligently running someone over... Hmm...
All I can say is, I hope you're penalised enough to sufficiently compensate the lady, and the millions of other drivers who pick up a higher insurance premium because of people like you.
I'd say that running over a person, moving at a walking speed, directly in front of your car, should be grounds for immediate license revocation. As long as something like this doesn't happen to you, because then we will see another blog of someone calling for help. Just saying, don't be such a dick, he's clearly regretting it and people DO make mistakes.
Is it being a dick to tell him to own up like a man?
Suppose his best way to minimise legal exposure to himself is if he denies he committed any wrongdoing, that claims the lady jumped in front of his car. Would you recommend he do that?
OP ran over an old lady's leg, had the wheel on the leg for at least half a minute, and had to slowly drive off it. And he's complaining that she was old and on medication?
He made a mistake, and people do make mistakes. Shirking responsibility for a mistake is another thing.
|
On September 08 2011 02:04 HackBenjamin wrote:Hi there, I used to be a claims adjuster for Canadian Direct Insurance. I have a couple of answers for you, but I won't be giving "legal advice" and I strongly recommend you don't take any "legal advice" from us internet denizens, but here goes. Show nested quote +1. I'm 21, full-class (G) licence in Canada with 1 previous at-fault accident reported to my insurance. I'm paying ~$210/month in insurance currently, how much of an increase am I looking at after this accident?
At this point, it's not possible to give you specific rate increase information. The claim needs to be processed first. I understand that the rate increase is typically based on the amount spent on the claim. Show nested quote +2. Because the police was notified, is there any way to perhaps settle with the other party privately (i.e., sticking her a large stack of bills) without letting this accident affect my insurance premium? Or would they know anyway since the accident was reported to the police?
Although it may seem ideal to go this route, the reality is that there is likely significant damage to the pedestrian, and there is no way of knowing if these injuries will be longterm or not. Bodily Injury claims can be quite expensive - The amount of money you would be paying in a private settlement would likely be overwhelming. If she chooses to sue you, then your insurance wouldn't be able to get involved and you could be screwed bigtime. Show nested quote +3. If I go through insurance, would I be facing additional possibilities of getting sued? The victim was an old lady who was on medication, I can already feel my bank account bleeding dry.
This depends on the amount of Third-Party Liability coverage you have on your insurance plan. In British Columbia, to insure a vehicle, you require a minumum of $200,000 liability coverage. Collision coverage, Comprehensive coverage, and Third Party Liability coverages are OPTIONAL. This means if you did not opt for the extra TPL coverage, and her injury claim exceeds $200,000 (which is likely), you are on the hook for the rest of the cost of the claim, and you will be sued for it. Things that contribute to the cost of a Bodily Injury claim: -Ambulance ride fee -Any cost incurred to heal the injury -Physiotherapy, Rehabilitation -Wages Lost -Cost of medication or painkillers Good luck..
He speaks the truth (I work in the insurance field in Ontario). I hope you purchased your Third Party Liability coverage with a high limit... but even then BI claims are costly. Pray that her injuries aren't serious/disabling. Sorry, but I have a feeling she's going to sue regardless... that's why Ontario TPL premiums are so high -_- (i already consider your $210/month cheap if you purchased both compulsory and optional coverages... especially underage + bad driving record).
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
I'm relatively uninformed on the specifics of Canadian insurance law, and it seems the others here are giving good advice-- but I thought I'd just stop by and wish you well. I hope everything works out okay, man.
|
Korea (South)11575 Posts
On September 08 2011 00:40 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 00:29 CaucasianAsian wrote:On September 07 2011 23:54 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:51 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:29 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:27 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:
[quote]
Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it. I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail. Are you sure about that. It's a moving violation in the US. It could be different in Canada but I doubt it. If it's not criminal then it would be at least an equivalent to something like DUI... you might be right though about it as a moving violation. I think Canada operates the same way No, a DUI IS a criminal offense. A reckless driving is not. It's given to almost anyone who causes a wreck. (in usa) You are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_drivingReckless driving in many states is a class 1 misdemeanor. (that is a criminal offense and in my state of Virginia it involves jail time of no more than 1 year). Reckless Driving is defined as a Class 1 misdemeanor criminal offense, not a traffic infraction or a speeding ticket. Quoting http://www.ontario-criminal-lawyers.com/criminallawyer_dangerousdriving.html
Dangerous Driving is Section 249 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The offence of Dangerous Driving is made out when;
The accused drives a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and, use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A Dangerous Driving conviction results in a criminal record and an automatic one-year licence suspension. Dangerous driving offences resulting bodily harm can result in the accused being sent to jail, and imprisonment for up to ten (10) years. An accused convicted of Dangerous Driving cause death is liable for imprisonment of up to fourteen (14) years.
It's not Careless Driving as quoting DefenseLaw Dangerous Driving/Careless Driving
Dangerous Driving
The Criminal Code offence of dangerous driving is made out where viewed objectively, the driving is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A dangerous driving conviction results in a criminal record and (in Ontario) an automatic one-year licence suspension (for a first offence). Drivers with previous convictions for dangerous driving or impaired driving may face a longer licence suspension (for example, see Section 41 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act).
A good lawyer may be able to have a Dangerous Driving charge reduced to a charge of Careless Driving. This is an excellent outcome as a conviction for dangerous driving is far worse than a conviction for careless driving. Although a conviction for careless driving will lead to higher motor vehicle insurance rates, it is not a criminal offence and therefore does not result in a criminal record. Nor does it lead to an automatic licence suspension.
For driving to be deemed dangerous it must depart markedly from the standard of care of a reasonable person. By contrast, careless driving is made out where the defendant's driving departs sufficiently from the standard of a prudent and reasonable driver to make the driving deserving of punishment.
A "few seconds" of negligent driving
In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the acquittal of a B.C. driver whose pick-up truck, for no apparent reason, suddenly crossed the solid centre line into the path of an oncoming vehicle, killing all three occupants.
Witnesses testified the accused’s vehicle was being driven properly before the accident. An expert inspection concluded that the accused’s vehicle had not experienced mechanical failure. Intoxicants were ruled out.
The accused stated that he was not sure how the collision occurred but that he must have lost consciousness or fallen asleep.
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that a few seconds of negligent driving could not, without more, support a finding of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver. The B.C. Court of Appeal had earlier set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the accused’s conduct of crossing the centre line into the path of oncoming traffic could only be viewed as objectively dangerous and a marked departure.
Careless driving
Careless driving is one of the most serious charges under the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines careless driving as driving on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.
Driving on a "highway"
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines "highway" as follows:
"highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; ("voie publique")
Thus, for example, it appears that one cannot be found guilty of careless driving if the driving occurs on a sidewalk, in a shopping mall parking lot, or on a private roadway or driveway. Albeit, I don't know much about Canadian Law to input my advice on the situation. Usually these situations don't reach the court room in America. I had a friend who was hit by a car and was flown off of her bicycle and no criminal punishment was put on the driver of the car. From what the OP describes, is that the lady was hit, and may have a hurt leg, although it doesn't sound like she was in a life threatening condition (that's good for the OP). Actually no it isn't a criminal offense in "many" states. I can only find evidence of it being a criminal offense in the state which you mentioned(not going to go through the dmv of every state, which you obv. also did not do.) Reckless driving is NOT criminal offense in my state It is NOT a criminal offense in many states either. Now it's possible reckless driving does not equal reckless driving in all places, I'm sure it's called many things, as seen in the article about "dangerous driving" which I've never heard of such an offense here.
I don't want to derail the thread any further. But here is a list of where reckless driving is a criminal offense in American States.
I have used the website FindLaw as a resource: http://public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/traffic-ticket-a-z/reckless-driving-laws.html
List of states:
Alabama
Arizona
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Utah
Tennessee
Virginia
Washington D.C.
Washington State
West Virginia
That's 20 states + Washington D.C. If you wish to continue saying that it is not a criminal offense in many states then feel free to PM me.
Yes, I have done research on this, probably much more research on the law than others have. Please refrain from posting your opinions on the things that I do here on TeamLiquid. Much appreciation and nice try!
|
...
all this talk of this and that when really, just leave it to insurance and call it a day. come on guys. we've all been in auto accidents. and what happens? Just call insurance, that's what they're for.
*EDIT and plus, all you need to do is look at your insurance coverage. I bet you just about all of us have 3 mil insurance coverage or so, it's all fine. Is that lady's health woes gonna exceed even 2 mil? Probably not?
Don't be silly and imply he'll be charged for assault/attempted murder, it was clearly an accident and there is no use speaking as if it's anything but.
|
Regular insurance stuff, suing is only for lifelong disabilities and such don't worry. Reckless driving is not gonna be a problem, this can happen to everyone and there's nothing reckless about driving out of a parking space.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On September 08 2011 05:00 CaucasianAsian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 00:40 muse5187 wrote:On September 08 2011 00:29 CaucasianAsian wrote:On September 07 2011 23:54 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:51 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:29 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:27 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:
[quote]
Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of.
assault:
Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault.
Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this
Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that:
an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and
the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching.
Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it. I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail. Are you sure about that. It's a moving violation in the US. It could be different in Canada but I doubt it. If it's not criminal then it would be at least an equivalent to something like DUI... you might be right though about it as a moving violation. I think Canada operates the same way No, a DUI IS a criminal offense. A reckless driving is not. It's given to almost anyone who causes a wreck. (in usa) You are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_drivingReckless driving in many states is a class 1 misdemeanor. (that is a criminal offense and in my state of Virginia it involves jail time of no more than 1 year). Reckless Driving is defined as a Class 1 misdemeanor criminal offense, not a traffic infraction or a speeding ticket. Quoting http://www.ontario-criminal-lawyers.com/criminallawyer_dangerousdriving.html
Dangerous Driving is Section 249 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The offence of Dangerous Driving is made out when;
The accused drives a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and, use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A Dangerous Driving conviction results in a criminal record and an automatic one-year licence suspension. Dangerous driving offences resulting bodily harm can result in the accused being sent to jail, and imprisonment for up to ten (10) years. An accused convicted of Dangerous Driving cause death is liable for imprisonment of up to fourteen (14) years.
It's not Careless Driving as quoting DefenseLaw Dangerous Driving/Careless Driving
Dangerous Driving
The Criminal Code offence of dangerous driving is made out where viewed objectively, the driving is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A dangerous driving conviction results in a criminal record and (in Ontario) an automatic one-year licence suspension (for a first offence). Drivers with previous convictions for dangerous driving or impaired driving may face a longer licence suspension (for example, see Section 41 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act).
A good lawyer may be able to have a Dangerous Driving charge reduced to a charge of Careless Driving. This is an excellent outcome as a conviction for dangerous driving is far worse than a conviction for careless driving. Although a conviction for careless driving will lead to higher motor vehicle insurance rates, it is not a criminal offence and therefore does not result in a criminal record. Nor does it lead to an automatic licence suspension.
For driving to be deemed dangerous it must depart markedly from the standard of care of a reasonable person. By contrast, careless driving is made out where the defendant's driving departs sufficiently from the standard of a prudent and reasonable driver to make the driving deserving of punishment.
A "few seconds" of negligent driving
In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the acquittal of a B.C. driver whose pick-up truck, for no apparent reason, suddenly crossed the solid centre line into the path of an oncoming vehicle, killing all three occupants.
Witnesses testified the accused’s vehicle was being driven properly before the accident. An expert inspection concluded that the accused’s vehicle had not experienced mechanical failure. Intoxicants were ruled out.
The accused stated that he was not sure how the collision occurred but that he must have lost consciousness or fallen asleep.
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that a few seconds of negligent driving could not, without more, support a finding of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver. The B.C. Court of Appeal had earlier set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the accused’s conduct of crossing the centre line into the path of oncoming traffic could only be viewed as objectively dangerous and a marked departure.
Careless driving
Careless driving is one of the most serious charges under the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines careless driving as driving on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.
Driving on a "highway"
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines "highway" as follows:
"highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; ("voie publique")
Thus, for example, it appears that one cannot be found guilty of careless driving if the driving occurs on a sidewalk, in a shopping mall parking lot, or on a private roadway or driveway. Albeit, I don't know much about Canadian Law to input my advice on the situation. Usually these situations don't reach the court room in America. I had a friend who was hit by a car and was flown off of her bicycle and no criminal punishment was put on the driver of the car. From what the OP describes, is that the lady was hit, and may have a hurt leg, although it doesn't sound like she was in a life threatening condition (that's good for the OP). Actually no it isn't a criminal offense in "many" states. I can only find evidence of it being a criminal offense in the state which you mentioned(not going to go through the dmv of every state, which you obv. also did not do.) Reckless driving is NOT criminal offense in my state It is NOT a criminal offense in many states either. Now it's possible reckless driving does not equal reckless driving in all places, I'm sure it's called many things, as seen in the article about "dangerous driving" which I've never heard of such an offense here. I don't want to derail the thread any further. But here is a list of where reckless driving is a criminal offense in American States. I have used the website FindLaw as a resource: http://public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/traffic-ticket-a-z/reckless-driving-laws.htmlList of states: Alabama Arizona Alaska Arizona Arkansas Florida Iowa Maine Maryland Michigan New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Utah Tennessee Virginia Washington D.C. Washington State West Virginia That's 20 states + Washington D.C. If you wish to continue saying that it is not a criminal offense in many states then feel free to PM me. Yes, I have done research on this, probably much more research on the law than others have. Please refrain from posting your opinions on the things that I do here on TeamLiquid. Much appreciation and nice try!
"if you wish to continue saying that it is not a criminal offense in many states"
*posts less than half of the total states in the US, claims the other, larger half isn't "many"*
good arguing skills CA
|
OP is from Canada. Who cares about American law?
Also "Reckless" is a specific term. Just because you hit someone doesn't mean you were driving reckless necessarily. Perhaps the victim came from a blind spot (IE: between 2 cars in a parking lot)
|
I would first and foremost advise you to stop running things over
|
I must say that after reading all this that ppl write about getting sued bigtime for something
as "innocent" as running someone over, especially since nobody even died <.<
I am extreamly happy to be living in Sweden. I myself have never ran anyone over but my friend has and well... it resluted in a ticket and having to pay 150$ to the insurance company then the matter was settled asfar as he was concerend. He did get a minor bump to his insurance cost but nothing radicall. And talking about a law suit? well that just dosent happen in sweden. Or well it migth happen but extreamly rarely....
Seriusly something is wery wrong if ppl feel the need/right to ruin someone elses life because they made a misstake, even if this misstake they made perhaps causes you trubble for the rest of your life. And like someone posted when parents/family of someone who gets killed in a car accident sues the party whos "fault" it was that someone they cared about go out of their way to destroy their life, well to me that is just sad. Most ppl who cause such an accident will never get over it themselves without having to be brought to poverty because of a horrible accident.
This got a bit jumbled up but in the end most accident are just that, accidents there is no Need or Right to seek out revenge for something like this.
/// Stabbe
|
Korea (South)11575 Posts
On September 08 2011 06:09 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 05:00 CaucasianAsian wrote:On September 08 2011 00:40 muse5187 wrote:On September 08 2011 00:29 CaucasianAsian wrote:On September 07 2011 23:54 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:51 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:29 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:27 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:
[quote]
Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it. I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail. Are you sure about that. It's a moving violation in the US. It could be different in Canada but I doubt it. If it's not criminal then it would be at least an equivalent to something like DUI... you might be right though about it as a moving violation. I think Canada operates the same way No, a DUI IS a criminal offense. A reckless driving is not. It's given to almost anyone who causes a wreck. (in usa) You are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_drivingReckless driving in many states is a class 1 misdemeanor. (that is a criminal offense and in my state of Virginia it involves jail time of no more than 1 year). Reckless Driving is defined as a Class 1 misdemeanor criminal offense, not a traffic infraction or a speeding ticket. Quoting http://www.ontario-criminal-lawyers.com/criminallawyer_dangerousdriving.html
Dangerous Driving is Section 249 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The offence of Dangerous Driving is made out when;
The accused drives a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and, use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A Dangerous Driving conviction results in a criminal record and an automatic one-year licence suspension. Dangerous driving offences resulting bodily harm can result in the accused being sent to jail, and imprisonment for up to ten (10) years. An accused convicted of Dangerous Driving cause death is liable for imprisonment of up to fourteen (14) years.
It's not Careless Driving as quoting DefenseLaw Dangerous Driving/Careless Driving
Dangerous Driving
The Criminal Code offence of dangerous driving is made out where viewed objectively, the driving is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A dangerous driving conviction results in a criminal record and (in Ontario) an automatic one-year licence suspension (for a first offence). Drivers with previous convictions for dangerous driving or impaired driving may face a longer licence suspension (for example, see Section 41 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act).
A good lawyer may be able to have a Dangerous Driving charge reduced to a charge of Careless Driving. This is an excellent outcome as a conviction for dangerous driving is far worse than a conviction for careless driving. Although a conviction for careless driving will lead to higher motor vehicle insurance rates, it is not a criminal offence and therefore does not result in a criminal record. Nor does it lead to an automatic licence suspension.
For driving to be deemed dangerous it must depart markedly from the standard of care of a reasonable person. By contrast, careless driving is made out where the defendant's driving departs sufficiently from the standard of a prudent and reasonable driver to make the driving deserving of punishment.
A "few seconds" of negligent driving
In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the acquittal of a B.C. driver whose pick-up truck, for no apparent reason, suddenly crossed the solid centre line into the path of an oncoming vehicle, killing all three occupants.
Witnesses testified the accused’s vehicle was being driven properly before the accident. An expert inspection concluded that the accused’s vehicle had not experienced mechanical failure. Intoxicants were ruled out.
The accused stated that he was not sure how the collision occurred but that he must have lost consciousness or fallen asleep.
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that a few seconds of negligent driving could not, without more, support a finding of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver. The B.C. Court of Appeal had earlier set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the accused’s conduct of crossing the centre line into the path of oncoming traffic could only be viewed as objectively dangerous and a marked departure.
Careless driving
Careless driving is one of the most serious charges under the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines careless driving as driving on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.
Driving on a "highway"
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines "highway" as follows:
"highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; ("voie publique")
Thus, for example, it appears that one cannot be found guilty of careless driving if the driving occurs on a sidewalk, in a shopping mall parking lot, or on a private roadway or driveway. Albeit, I don't know much about Canadian Law to input my advice on the situation. Usually these situations don't reach the court room in America. I had a friend who was hit by a car and was flown off of her bicycle and no criminal punishment was put on the driver of the car. From what the OP describes, is that the lady was hit, and may have a hurt leg, although it doesn't sound like she was in a life threatening condition (that's good for the OP). Actually no it isn't a criminal offense in "many" states. I can only find evidence of it being a criminal offense in the state which you mentioned(not going to go through the dmv of every state, which you obv. also did not do.) Reckless driving is NOT criminal offense in my state It is NOT a criminal offense in many states either. Now it's possible reckless driving does not equal reckless driving in all places, I'm sure it's called many things, as seen in the article about "dangerous driving" which I've never heard of such an offense here. I don't want to derail the thread any further. But here is a list of where reckless driving is a criminal offense in American States. I have used the website FindLaw as a resource: http://public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/traffic-ticket-a-z/reckless-driving-laws.htmlList of states: Alabama Arizona Alaska Arizona Arkansas Florida Iowa Maine Maryland Michigan New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Utah Tennessee Virginia Washington D.C. Washington State West Virginia That's 20 states + Washington D.C. If you wish to continue saying that it is not a criminal offense in many states then feel free to PM me. Yes, I have done research on this, probably much more research on the law than others have. Please refrain from posting your opinions on the things that I do here on TeamLiquid. Much appreciation and nice try! "if you wish to continue saying that it is not a criminal offense in many states" *posts less than half of the total states in the US, claims the other, larger half isn't "many"* good arguing skills CA
we should argue on the definition of many.
|
you're going to get sued if she talks to a personal injury lawyer, but your insurance company will handle that shit
you shouldn't need a lawyer at all, unless shit works completely different in canada (i say this as someone who has sued for personal injury in an auto accident, and my girlfriend has been sued twice {once by me, once by a guy who was actually at fault in the accident he sued for})
|
On September 08 2011 03:43 Ponyo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 03:39 HackBenjamin wrote:On September 08 2011 03:37 Ponyo wrote:
Then again, don't take advice from this forums. The advice you get on TL is generally really good. Depends on the topic I suppose. Yea, they did pretty good with Life Hacks and Music !
He said generally!
Everyone has shitty different taste in music. I can't defend the life tricks thread but sometimes these things get by us.
|
OP: Delete this post immediately, talk to your insurance, do not admit fault to them.
e: I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer.
|
Osaka27139 Posts
On September 08 2011 15:22 blah_blah wrote:
OP: Delete this post immediately, talk to your insurance, do not admit fault to them.
e: I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer.
Yeah, even if you did it, don't take responsibility!
OP, you must feel terrible, I'm sorry you had to go through that. Call your insurance company and get the info from them. Everything changes from area to area.
|
On September 08 2011 15:56 Manifesto7 wrote:Yeah, even if you did it, don't take responsibility!
The OP has insurance for precisely this purpose, and self-incriminating on the internet when there is the possibility of future litigation is extremely foolish. It's not about taking responsibility -- the OP may be making himself liable for damages that he should not in fact responsible for.
The OP appears to have cooperated fully with police and given a detailed account of his actions; that is 'taking responsibility'.
|
Thanks so much for the replies, I'm grateful for all your responses.
This happened in Berrie, Ontario (why insurance for a 21 year old is only $210), and I'm meeting up with a few law degree friends later today to talk about my options. My third-party coverage should be $1 million if I can recall correctly, and the lady suffered a broken knee and torn tendons Doctors says she would need a knee cap replacement and take from 6-12 months to fully recover.
Thanks again, I'll check back and post more progress/questions.
|
On September 08 2011 23:42 Ravencruiser wrote:Thanks so much for the replies, I'm grateful for all your responses. This happened in Berrie, Ontario (why insurance for a 21 year old is only $210), and I'm meeting up with a few law degree friends later today to talk about my options. My third-party coverage should be $1 million if I can recall correctly, and the lady suffered a broken knee and torn tendons Doctors says she would need a knee cap replacement and take from 6-12 months to fully recover.Thanks again, I'll check back and post more progress/questions.
Oh wow, that's horrible.
While worrying about yourself is only natural and to be expected, I think it's also time for you to reflect on how much damage you've done to this unfortunate old lady.
I don't think your insurance company will be paying for the medical charges though, since it's covered by the government, given that she's a Canadian citizen.
|
On September 09 2011 00:03 Cambium wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 23:42 Ravencruiser wrote:Thanks so much for the replies, I'm grateful for all your responses. This happened in Berrie, Ontario (why insurance for a 21 year old is only $210), and I'm meeting up with a few law degree friends later today to talk about my options. My third-party coverage should be $1 million if I can recall correctly, and the lady suffered a broken knee and torn tendons Doctors says she would need a knee cap replacement and take from 6-12 months to fully recover.Thanks again, I'll check back and post more progress/questions. Oh wow, that's horrible. While worrying about yourself is only natural and to be expected, I think it's also time for you to reflect on how much damage you've done to this unfortunate old lady. I don't think your insurance company will be paying for the medical charges though, since it's covered by the government, given that she's a Canadian citizen.
I agree completely, when I was watching the paramedics help her I felt horrible and sick to my stomach, I had my hand over my mouth and I started sobbing until the policeman told me to go back into my car.
|
Well while i do think you are at fault, you shouldn't be sued. I mean why would you want to ruin a young person's life. And you are unlucky that she is old, a younger person would probably have a lot less injuries
|
Damn man I feel terrible for you and that woman. I bet you're going to be a safe ass driver now (if you can get insurance again in the next 10 years.) Good luck man.
|
On September 09 2011 01:23 Drorctopus wrote:
Well while i do think you are at fault, you shouldn't be sued. I mean why would you want to ruin a young person's life. And you are unlucky that she is old, a younger person would probably have a lot less injuries
He is most definitely 100% at fault. Regardless of circumstance, whenever a vehicle hits a pedestrian, the vehicles insurance will take the hit. It's also important to understand that suing the guy is not meant to ruin his life, and it's not like she's going to sue for "emotional damage" or anything. All she can get from him is essentially whatever it takes to get her back to where she was prior to the accident.
|
On September 09 2011 02:00 HackBenjamin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 01:23 Drorctopus wrote:
Well while i do think you are at fault, you shouldn't be sued. I mean why would you want to ruin a young person's life. And you are unlucky that she is old, a younger person would probably have a lot less injuries He is most definitely 100% at fault. Regardless of circumstance, whenever a vehicle hits a pedestrian, the vehicles insurance will take the hit. It's also important to understand that suing the guy is not meant to ruin his life, and it's not like she's going to sue for "emotional damage" or anything. All she can get from him is essentially whatever it takes to get her back to where she was prior to the accident.
This is not true. When I was 18 I had out of town surgery for my jaw and my mom was driving home. In the parking lot of the Tim Horton's a lady walked out in front of her and of course got hit.
Cops arrived on scene and told my mom she could go home now that because the pedestrian walked out in front she help the responsibility that goes along with it, but it was also mentioned she had a history of doing this for insurance pay out so it may not tie directly in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
