CdM is in love!

[Razgovory]

Also the accused is rather attractive.

Ah, that's the crucial data point we've been missing up until now. 

I always cut to the heart of that matter.

[Malthus]

No question that it is extremely stupid to stop in the left lane, and no question but what the woman is negligent to a degree, but the negligence of the motorcycle rider, particularly with his daughter on board, seems to me to be the greater.

So how does negligence on part of the victim work in Canadian law, then?  I mean, other than being ignored?

Well Quebec and the civil code is a bit funny (which means fuck if I know), but in the rest of Canada you absolutely do have contributory negligence, so you can find the victim 75% responsible, but that still means the other person pays out 25%.

This is a criminal case though. I don't think contributory negligence is a defence in a criminal context.

Anyway, the headlines are highly alarmist. The maximum sentence for criminal negliegence causing death is indeed life ... but it has no mandatory minimum, unless caused by a gun (in which case, the minimum is 4 years). It is very unlikely a woman guilty of parking her car stupidly is going to jail for the maximum possible time for this offence.

I suppose headlines reading "woman potentially faces no jail time at all!" would not sell as many papers. 

220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

[Grey Fox]

Yes, this is the broadest accusation in our criminal code. Also life in Canada means 25 years.

[DGuller]

Also life in Canada means 25 years.

I knew life in Canada was hard, but not that hard.

[Grey Fox]

Also life in Canada means 25 years.

I knew life in Canada was hard, but not that hard.

It's the hard knock life for us
It's the hard knock life for us!
Instead of treated, we get tricked
Instead of kisses, we get kicked
It's the hard knock life!

[Capetan Mihali]

Last month I had to hit the breaks in my neighborhood to avoid hitting a kid.  Goofy kid runs out in front of the car and I slam on the breaks.  Nearly gave me a heart attack.

The sad thing is, Raz, if you get into an accident through no fault of your own that results in serious injury or death, there's a good chance you are going to end up charged with DUI manslaughter due to the psychiatric meds you take.  Or charged with DUI if you end up in a single car accident and make the mistake of honestly answering police questions about what medication you take.  I've worked on several cases where people were charged solely on the basis of their prescribed medications, taken at prescribed dosages.

[Capetan Mihali]

In VT, the charge of Grossly Negligent Operation Causing SBI/Death could theoretically be brought against both drivers in a two-car crash, if they both survived with serious injuries.  As I learned to my chagrin, the Driver B's negligence isn't relevant for the element of Driver A's negligence.  It is still relevant, of course, as it bears on whose negligence was the proximate cause of the crash.

EDIT:  Malthus essentially got it.

This is a criminal case though. I don't think contributory negligence is a defence in a criminal context.

Where you have a minimum in Canada, like the 4 years for a firearm, can it be suspended or split?  VT has "minimums" like that, but they are different from the real US "mandatory minimums" where it has to be a to-serve prison sentence of that length.  Our only real mandatory minimums are small jail bits for repeat DUI, I think.

[viper37]

it is highly unexpected for a car to be stopped on the left lane.  It is also illegal to stop on the left lane.

It's also completely irrelevant for someone driving legally in the right lane.

(Unless the dude  on the motorcyle whacked her car while passing on a blind curve.  )

Highway usually means 2 lanes in each direction seperated by a moat or wall.

Got more details on where it happenned:
Google link: intersections of highway #15 and #30
RDI news report (French)

Not a blind curve, but a curve, in an heavy traffic area, during day.  Most likely, there was another car in front, probably the car that narrowly avoided the collision.  The bike being blinded never saw the car in time.  It's easy to see in front of a bike, not so in front of a car.  CdM's girlfriend had stopped her car on the left lane with no parking lights whatsoever.

The surviving wife&mother says they were driving 85km/h because she was a beginner, the defense lawyer has raised the point they were driving much faster, police seems to estimate a little above 100km/h.

And driving on the left lane in this situation would not be anormal, given there's the interchange for highway #15 right there, you'd want to avoid cars slowing down to enter #15 and those coming in to #30.

[viper37]

Either Canadian law is screwy or the story is not right.  The back end of a car is sacrosanct.  You are supposed to keep a decent distance from the car ahead of you in case they have make an emergency stop or something.  If you run into the back of someone else's car you are almost always in the wrong.  Last month I had to hit the breaks in my neighborhood to avoid hitting a kid.  Goofy kid runs out in front of the car and I slam on the breaks.  Nearly gave me a heart attack.

Back end of a car is sacrosanct and you are presumed responsbile whenever you hit it.  However, if the driver commits a fault, say, stops suddenly without any reason, or decides to park on the left lane, then there's grounds for this person to be accused.

[viper37]

It was a provincial highway; four lanes and divided, but not limited access.  People claiming to be familiar with it claimed that it had the default Quebec speed limit for such roads, 90 kph (roughly 55 mph).

As I said, default speed limit is 100km/h, roughly 60mph.  This is the standard for such highways.
Secondary roads are also called highways in english, I believe, those usually have only one lane in each direction with a line seperating traffic in the middle, and those are 90km/h, roughly 55mph.

No question that it is extremely stupid to stop in the left lane, and no question but what the woman is negligent to a degree, but the negligence of the motorcycle rider, particularly with his daughter on board, seems to me to be the greater.

And I disagree.  He was driving as anyone would drive under those conditions.

[viper37]

So how does negligence on part of the victim work in Canadian law, then?  I mean, other than being ignored?

You mean like that girl who wore a mini-skirt in the park at night?  Yeah, she deserved to be raped.
...

[viper37]

I do wonder if she would have been convicted in the US or even tried.

Depends.  If she was black in Texas, that would warrant the death penalty for sure.

[CountDeMoney]

So how does negligence on part of the victim work in Canadian law, then?  I mean, other than being ignored?

You mean like that girl who wore a mini-skirt in the park at night?  Yeah, she deserved to be raped.
...

Yes, I mean exactly like that.  Thanks!

[Barrister]

Last month I had to hit the breaks in my neighborhood to avoid hitting a kid.  Goofy kid runs out in front of the car and I slam on the breaks.  Nearly gave me a heart attack.

The sad thing is, Raz, if you get into an accident through no fault of your own that results in serious injury or death, there's a good chance you are going to end up charged with DUI manslaughter due to the psychiatric meds you take.  Or charged with DUI if you end up in a single car accident and make the mistake of honestly answering police questions about what medication you take.  I've worked on several cases where people were charged solely on the basis of their prescribed medications, taken at prescribed dosages.

If someone is impaired by their prescribed drugs, then they ought not to be driving.

[CountDeMoney]

If someone is impaired by their prescribed drugs, then they ought not to be driving.

That's a very inconsiderate and intolerant perspective.