TexasCHLforum.com

MechAg94 wrote:I disagree. Stupid should really hurt sometimes.

Maybe in this case it means the victim's families taking every cent she has. I am not sure if that is possible in Canada. If she had her hazard lights on or made any attempt at all to be less of a road hazard, I might be less unmerciful about it.

We're going to have to disagree on this one. Stupid isn't criminal and you are advocating that we should look at the result and ignore intent. I don't think that's a standard you would like to be held to yourself. Do you not place an responsibility on the motorcycle operator?

Again, I would rule against her in a civil action, but I see absolutely no criminal intent, not even using a "criminal negligence" standard.

Chas.

philip964 wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/canadian-driver-j ... 36600.html

Sentenced to 90 days in jail and cannot drive for 10 years in the death of two people who rear ended her when she stopped in the highway passing lane for ducklings crossing the road.

This is a tragedy for everyone. She meant well, but while trying to save ducklings she caused the death of two people. A father was taking his 16 year old daughter for a motorcycle ride and both died because 1) a woman had a soft spot in her heart for animals; and 2) he was following too closely to stop. (That's a law in Texas, but I don't know about Canada.)

I personally would not have convicted her of a criminal offense, but I would have found against her in a civil lawsuit. I believe what she did was negligent but not criminal.

90 days in jail and served on weekends? Okay, I guess. 240 hours of community service? What on earth for? There was absolutely no criminal intent. 10 years of not driving? Utterly absurd! This has a direct impact not only on her but on her family as well. No one can honestly believe she'll ever make the same mistake again.

She should serve her time and complete the community service. Then move to the U.S. as quickly as possible and get away from that British influenced garbage!
Chas.