|
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)11567 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
