TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

MechAg94 wrote:If the woman wanted to save baby ducks on the road, there are safer and more proper ways to do it. Short of calling the cops, you pull over to the shoulder, turn on your hazards, put out road flares if you have them and try to get the baby ducks yourself if you can. That way, it is likely only yourself that gets killed in an accident, not other drivers. IMO, this wasn't just negligence if she parked in the middle of the road. That is criminal negligence.

Also, she did NOT have the best of intentions. The best of intentions would be the care about all life. By her actions she put other people in danger when there were things she could have done to avoid that. She gave no thought to anyone's safety but the ducks.

I would honestly be curious what her driving record looks like. Someone who would do something like that with no thought whatsoever to her or other's safety can't have a good record

gljjt wrote:

jbarn wrote:

gljjt wrote:She certainly used poor judgement, but I believe there was fault on both sides. You should (almost) always drive at a speed that you can stop for blockage already (not something darting out) in your lane. Slow down to be able to do so. She should be penalized, but not imprisoned. Her mistake, though stupid was not malicious or intentional. She will likely punish herself for the rest of her life. Unfortunately lives were lost. The surviving wife is a saint. Just my opinion.

Mistake? She didn't intend to stop in the road? It was not malicious, but it was intentional. The death was not intentional. It was negligence on her part that caused it.

Let's change things a bit and say YOUR son and his daughter was killed when their motorcycle struck the car of a woman who left it in the fast lane to rescue a duck. And really stop and think. Don't just answer to defend the position you already took.

I was not clear in my statement. Poor/incomplete choice of words. I meant she was not malicious and the RESULT was not intentional. Thanks for the catch.

As far as if it was my family member killed, I would be angry beyond measure. I would want retribution. But with the clarity that comes with not being directly involved, emotionally detached (don't misinterpret that, it does make me sad to think about), I still believe there was likely fault on both sides. If you can't stop for an obstruction in the road, you are going too fast. Can't see around the corner, slow down. Can't see over the hill, slow down. Yes, she was negligent and she should "pay". Blame can be proportional. And she has the lion's share. But the penalty she could get under the law where this occurred is excessive in my opinion.

I still say the wife/mom is a saint. I would hope I could be as forgiving.