Woman who stops on road for ducks is found guilty.

[Merlot]

Hello all,

I managed to get my car out of the way onto the shoulder on time, the cyclist should have been able to do the same if he had paid attention to the road and not the "Duck Lady"

Actually do it easily since the car was not coming at him and a bike is a lot more agile than a car when it comes to avoidance maneuvers.

You had a clear view, because of the block by the trailer and the distracting site of some nut going after ducks the cyclist didn't know anything was happening until too late.

She had no control of howe fast her husband was going or that he broke the speed limit.

But if you look at the overall picture, the lady with the trailer was able to avooid the stopped car, so was the cyclist's wife travelling at the same speed as the husband right behind him.
The very short skid marks of the husband's cycle, 7 meters something if recall correctly vs tens of meters for the wife's skid marks, makes it pretty clear that the husband's distraction played a major role in what happened and contributed to his and his daughter's death.
I don't see how one can blame Emma for that part - there are distractions on the highway all the time causing accidents and nobody can use that as a defense...like, oh, was distracted by that hitchiker standing by the side of the road and slammed into the car in front of me...

One could even argue had the cyclist gone 15 kph slower he would have either hit the car with much less force (kinetic energy varies with the square of the speed) which would have caused the car to roll a much shorter distance and thus maybe not have crushed the girl or even give the cyclists the split second required to avoid the stopped car.
With the data collected at the accident scene it would have been easy to calculate several scenarios to determine the potential outcome had the cyclist been travelling at or below the speed limit.

Oh yeah, well darn those hitchhikers for always leaving very large solid objects in the high speed lane.

You're not being logical. I have to say, and I'm just trying to explain the level of how illogical it is, that it's ridiculous when you say "I don't see how one can blame Emma for that part". There is no incident at all if the duck lady had used any common sense and just pulled off to the side of the road. You act like some can do an insane thing and it's okay that she left a huge solid object without precautions right in the high speed lane because then every else should just automatically adjust to her illegal act. Everything else follows from her senseless act. Without it no one is dead.

Trying to cut up the episode into segments and say, well if the father wasn't going too fast they would have lived, is making excuses for that fact that what she did was commit a criminally negligent act that really amounts to involuntary manslaughter..."an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI)." - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...nslaughter-overview.html#sthash.1mykikxS.dpuf

MOST LIKELY SCENARIO:

1. The father is driving at between 109 to 115 KPH (roughly 68 to 74 MPH) according to the expert witness as reported by gan in post 61. On Autoroute 10 that is very average and slower than some who constantly pass me as I'm doing my usual 111 KPH/70MPH. To say his speed is excessive compared to everyone else is silly. He's probably right on average of the traffic around him.

2. The father is behind the trailer and has no line of sight on the illegally parked vehicle because of the trailer is blocking his view as he's approaching the deadly obstruction.

3. Not knowing anyone has created a very dangerous impediment in his path he glances over because he's close enough to notice some woman walking in the highway divider in the middle of nowhere, which is very unusual. It's the critical moment because seeing her means he's already close and looking for just 2 to 3 seconds would have carried him far enough to be dangerously close to the vehicle.

4. The car with the trailer, which has line of sight, had time to change lanes because of the longer time to see the stopped vehicle. The father looks back to the front and sees the dangerously stopped car, but because of the previously blocked view from the trailer and the distraction of the duck woman the warning time he would have had without a blocked view and the loss of those 2 to 3 seconds is long gone and it's too late.

This is very likely how it was since if he had seen the trailer change lanes before looking at the duck woman his now open line of sight would have given him time to stop or avoid. Her dangerously parked car, the oddity of her chasing ducks on a highway, and the blocked view from the trailer are the critical elements.

I was actually surprised by the comment that the speed would have to be excessive to be taken into consideration.
What exactly is "excessive"?

In another thread members made posts stating that speeds in Canada 10 to 15 KPH over the posted limit is considered a buffer police won't ticket anyone for. In my own experience more than half of the drivers are over 70 MPH on open highways. Trying to argue that his speed, which was average for highway traffic, was at fault is the same as blaming him for putting the stopped car in everyone's path and blaming everyone for driving dangerously just because some nincompoop wanted to commit a dangerous act without precautions so she could chase baby ducks. It's blaming everyone else but the one person who endangered all drivers.

I really don't understand how all the duck lady apologists have never cited how she could have just pulled off the road and spared two lives, but would rather blame the father for going at a very common speed. None of the apologists made reference to the complete innocence of the daughter either until gan did.

:noidea:

Merlot

BTW - This whole issue is tiresome. I suggest anyone who wants to lessen the guilt of a criminally stupid person who chases ducks on highways...consider what it would be like doing so while they are driving in that situation...or stop in the high speed lane with no hazard lights and your door open to go admire the view so you can feel what it's like for yourselves.

 

[BookerL]

Standard of review by appeal courts in criminal cases in canada

Hi Michael ,I will provide some links to help
http://www.lawsociety.mb.ca/publica...l/Standards_of_Review_on_Criminal_Appeals.pdf,
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Appeals,

I don't see how one can blame Emma for that part - there are distractions on the highway all the time causing accidents and nobody can use that as a defense...like, oh, was distracted by that hitchiker standing by the side of the road and slammed into the car in front of me...

A brief summary The Nature of the Question:
To answer this question, the “nature of the question” in issue must first be determined. The nature of the question will inform the standard of review. What is the nature of the question raised in each ground of appeal? The nature of the ground of appeal question will either be:
1) a question of fact;
2) a question of mixed fact and law;
3) a question of law;
4) a question of jurisdiction.
To argue that the speed of the motorcyclist created the accident is not the way our law sees it ?
A traffic offense with a sentence of death !!!! WoW

One could even argue had the cyclist gone 15 kph slower he would have either hit the car with much less force (kinetic energy varies with the square of the speed) which would have caused the car to roll a much shorter distance and thus maybe not have crushed the girl or even give the cyclists the split second required to avoid the stopped car.

And any case here in Canada the Criminal Code super seeds traffic l;laws

Now to speculate on different scenarios !

With the data collected at the accident scene it would have been easy to calculate several scenarios to determine the potential outcome had the cyclist been travelling at or below the speed limit.

The court heard the one at hand with all applicable laws !
Will there be a appeal her Lawyer Marc Labelle has discussed the possibility in this article :
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...rges+duck+linked+collision/9958641/story.html
A summary
“There may be room here in this case. But we’ll evaluate that: (whether) to ask the (Quebec) Court of Appeal if the way that a jury has to (consider) criminal negligence in Canada should be revised. Here we have a situation where the act was considered dangerous by the jury — that’s obvious. But there was no ill will at all — no alcohol, no speeding, no race. In a case like this, the instructions that the judge gave (to the jury) are a little bit unjust for a citizen in this situation.”

Labelle specified that he didn’t have a problem with the instructions Superior Court Justice Éliane Perreault provided to the jury before they deliberated.

“What I’m saying is that the instructions (all) judges are obliged to give on criminal negligence can’t suit a case like this. What the jury is asked is: consider the act, if it is dangerous, objectively, then you may infer there was a crime.

“What I’m saying is, the fact that (Perreault) had to give these instructions brings me to the conclusion that, in this field, Canadian law failed.”
He is not arguing speed limits! but the way the jury should considered criminal negligence ??

What we think emotionally and what law says are two different things ???
It is a very unfortunate series of event for Emma a non criminalize young lady !
Regards all
BookerL

 

[michael99]

You had a clear view, because of the block by the trailer and the distracting site of some nut going after ducks the cyclist didn't know anything was happening until too late.

Sorry Merlot, you are wrong.

I had no clear view ahead of the vehicle in front of me at all in my incident.
I remember thinking why in hell is this guy pulling off into the right shoulder going at 90 kph; not even slowing down to do that.
I saw the oncoming car in my lane as the guy in front of me pulled off towards the right and I instinctively did the same and avoided a head on crash.
But I wasn't distracted and paid attention to driving.
All I'm saying is that the motorcyclist would have been able to avoid the stopped car if he had paid undivided attention to the road.

And btw - I just found out that the speed limit where the accident occurred was 90kph, not 100 kph as I had assumed, so the cyclist was also over the 10 to 15 kph buffer you talk about.

I'm not trying to justify what Emma had done which was incredibly stupid with no left shoulder to pull off on, but based on my own experience, the cyclist could have easily avoided Emma's car if he had paid attention to the road at all times.
Emma's car could have just stalled in the left lane, then there would not have been a court case since one is supposed to be in control of one's motor vehicle at all times - the cyclist obviously wasn't.

 

[michael99]

A traffic offense with a sentence of death !!!! WoW

Happens all the time.
People speed - run into something - get killed.

And if you're involved in an accident like that on a motorcycle your chances of getting killed are much better than if you are in a car.

 

[BookerL]

Happens all the time.
People speed - run into something - get killed.

And if you're involved in an accident like that on a motorcycle your chances of getting killed are much better than if you are in a car.

Hi Michae99
Does that mean you approve ?
Because people gets murdered in Montreal as well between 50 to 60 sometimes more !
So the defense should argue that it happens all the time so it makes it ok?
Rape also occur often its ok?
Drunk driving?
Many things happen frequently are they all ok?
Or sometimes its really disturbing?
I would certainly choose you on my jury If I would to commit a crime you seem to be very lenient for the defense. Would the crown oppose to select a juror like you? Other points of view are always interesting .
But law is what counts at the end?And the verdict guilty or not based on testimony!!
Regards all
BookerL

 

[Siocnarf]

All I'm saying is that the motorcyclist would have been able to avoid the stopped car...

He *could* have been, but he *shouldn't* have to be in that situation. Regardless of the motorcyclist, stopping a car on a highway lane is a very dangerous crime. It's like if you get put in any unusual dangerous situation and I say it's no big deal, because you could have been ok if you had been more careful than the usual driver. If the motorcyclist had a part of the blame for dying, this will get taken into account in the sentencing, but not for the conviction.

 

[Merlot]

Sorry Merlot, you are wrong.

But I wasn't distracted and paid attention to driving.
All I'm saying is that the motorcyclist would have been able to avoid the stopped car if he had paid undivided attention to the road.

And btw - I just found out that the speed limit where the accident occurred was 90kph, not 100 kph as I had assumed, so the cyclist was also over the 10 to 15 kph buffer you talk about.

I'm not trying to justify what Emma had done which was incredibly stupid with no left shoulder to pull off on, but based on my own experience, the cyclist could have easily avoided Emma's car if he had paid attention to the road at all times.
Emma's car could have just stalled in the left lane, then there would not have been a court case since one is supposed to be in control of one's motor vehicle at all times - the cyclist obviously wasn't.

Michael,

You really aren't being logical at all. First, the speed limit is one thing, what everybody is doing is another. The motorcyclist's speed was right on average with highway traffic I've seen first hand many times, which points to the best reason not to just stop in the high speed lane...it's CRAZY...ie... very DANGEROUS!!! Besides that, his speed warrant's a ticket, NOT a death sentence as someone said. Everyone goes 70 to 75 MPH on these highways, and more, so in effect you're saying everyone was guilty of risking their lives and the poor defendant is the scapegoat for a guilty world. Ridiculous.

Why are you calling her Emma anyway? Do you know her? It sounds like you're fond of her or something.

Regarding your situation and your story. You were able to see the problem in time. The father and the mother were almost definitely going the same speed since they would want to keep up with each other. The difference in survival is the father did not see the danger or have time and the mother did. Since they were going about the same speed that factor is not the key to survival.

As to you being illogical, it's incomprehensible how anyone can ignore the fact the very first impulse for surviving on the highway, if you are going to stop, is to get off the road. How can you with any logic ignore or deny her failure to get off the road was the cause. The defendant didn't even do the least she could have by turning on the danger/hazard lights. Have you ever stopped in the high speed lane of a highway? Why not? Because you knew doing so would either risk killing yourself or someone else. No one with a brain would do it on purpose, yet you make it sound like sweet Emma insanely stopping and failing to use any sensible precaution was just a cute mistake.

You also say: "based on my own experience, the cyclist could have easily avoided Emma's car if he had paid attention to the road at all times." Really? So you have had your view blocked by a trailer and was at the same time distracted by some nut chasing ducks at the side of the road. You fail to give any weight to the trailer and the blocked view from it, which was probably THE critical element. Instead you keep blaming the speed of the bike.

What she did was a crime resulting in death and technically it was manslaughter. The fact that the court didn't go after that charge does not change what it was. You treat "poor Emma" like she's a 6 year-old child who couldn't know better, though actually even a 6 year-old could understand the danger.

Finally the most TRAGIC element. Poor Emma was just trying to help baby ducks. You act like this could ever be a valid reason to have endangered hundreds of lives. That's right. Two died and it could have easily have been more. Well, the price of doing so is a DEAD father and a DEAD daughter. That quite a price for baby ducks who had managed to get across half the highway already and probably never needed or wanted some human fool to interfere.

*****She had no right and no cause to endanger dozens to hundreds of lives. She committed a crime and killed two people by doing so! THAT'S where all the guilt is.

DAMN,

Merlot

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

Usually I do not flip back and forth on my decisions but have to do it again. I am going back on my first call on no jail time. The motorcycle driver did some mistakes which contributed to the accident. Some speed guessing was up to 129 KPH and speed limit was 90, some people say he was following the traffic flow but you can always travel the speed limit in the right lane. He had his daughter on the back of a motorcycle, another reason not to be doing 30% over the speed limit. A car and trailer was able to miss the car but he could not, eyes not on the road even if he was distracted by someone walking on the shoulder ( it should have been an alert that something was wrong ahead ). I read some posts that he may have been looking at her for 2 or 3 seconds which contributed to the accident, that is a long time when you are travelling on a hwy, do not check her dress color just notice a person, 1/2 sec. I have seen too many traffic tie up where people just stare at an accident, last Wednesday driving on the 20 into Montreal about 50 Km out traffic stopped in the middle of no where and then crawled along at 20 KPM for 20 min then we passed the accident.............. On the other side of the hwy in the opposing ditch, nothing within 100 meters of our driving lane, traffic should not have even slowed let alone stop and this is not the first time I have seen this. EYES ON THE ROAD. She totally fucked up yes but fault is not 100% hers. My condolences to the motorcyclist family.

 

[PSEfreak]

There would be NO, I repeat NO accident or deaths if the idiot duck girl had not STOPPED HER CAR IN THE FAST LANE. This accident happens or doesn't happen at all depending on her choices.

 

[michael99]

Hi Michae99
Does that mean you approve ?

This has nothing to do with approval or not.
I'm just stating facts.
People commit traffic offenses and get killed because of it.
"Speed is one of the leading causes of death on B.C. roads." - you can substitute BC with any other province or US state
http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/road-safety/speed.htm

 

[michael99]

Usually I do not flip back and forth on my decisions but have to do it again. I am going back on my first call on no jail time. The motorcycle driver did some mistakes which contributed to the accident. Some speed guessing was up to 129 KPH and speed limit was 90, some people say he was following the traffic flow but you can always travel the speed limit in the right lane. He had his daughter on the back of a motorcycle, another reason not to be doing 30% over the speed limit. A car and trailer was able to miss the car but he could not, eyes not on the road even if he was distracted by someone walking on the shoulder ( it should have been an alert that something was wrong ahead ). I read some posts that he may have been looking at her for 2 or 3 seconds which contributed to the accident, that is a long time when you are travelling on a hwy, do not check her dress color just notice a person, 1/2 sec. I have seen too many traffic tie up where people just stare at an accident, last Wednesday driving on the 20 into Montreal about 50 Km out traffic stopped in the middle of no where and then crawled along at 20 KPM for 20 min then we passed the accident.............. On the other side of the hwy in the opposing ditch, nothing within 100 meters of our driving lane, traffic should not have even slowed let alone stop and this is not the first time I have seen this. EYES ON THE ROAD. She totally fucked up yes but fault is not 100% hers. My condolences to the motorcyclist family.

Essentially my point(s)

 

[michael99]

There would be NO, I repeat NO accident or deaths if the idiot duck girl had not STOPPED HER CAR IN THE FAST LANE. This accident happens or doesn't happen at all depending on her choices.

Yes...and there would been NO, I repeat NO accident or deaths if the motorcyclist had not been SPEEDING AND HAD PAID ATTENTION TO THE ROAD.

All I'm saying is that this was not 100% Emma's fault and 0% the motorcyclists fault as is being stated here in this thread by some.

Good thing I wasn't on the jury - I would have had a hard time convicting Emma of "Criminal Negligence"....per the official definition:

Criminal negligence
219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
Definition of “duty”
(2) For the purposes of this section, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 202.

Did Emma really "show wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons"?

 

[EagerBeaver]

There would be NO, I repeat NO accident or deaths if the idiot duck girl had not STOPPED HER CAR IN THE FAST LANE. This accident happens or doesn't happen at all depending on her choices.

This is called the but for causation test. I agree with your point, but the issue is whether Quebec embraces the concept of comparative negligence in sentencing. As I noted previously, Connecticut does, and in a 2 fatality case in which the victims were negligent the sentence was still 5 years prison.

This lady has to do some time, but not too much. I would say a period of months is what she deserves, and during that time have her in some kind of work program with the Transportation Department, if there is such a thing in Quebec. I believe in rehabilitative incarceration.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Yes...and there would been NO, I repeat NO accident or deaths if the motorcyclist had not been SPEEDING AND HAD PAID ATTENTION TO THE ROAD.

Do we know this from the expert testimony that was submitted at trial or is this your own speculation? Did the defense present such an expert accident reconstructionist who testified to this?

 

[BookerL]

This has nothing to do with approval or not.
I'm just stating facts.
People commit traffic offenses and get killed because of it.
"Speed is one of the leading causes of death on B.C. roads." - you can substitute BC with any other province or US state
http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/road-safety/speed.htm

Hi michael
I agree lets stay with facts, she was found guilty by a jury of her peers and was represented by a top Criminal lawyer in Montreal and Quebec Lawyer Marc Labelle is not in first step !
Her guilt is determined by application of the law not emotions?
The interesting part will she appeal?
The probabilities are high ?
Did she really have criminal intent the Appeal Court of Quebec my be reviewing
The first instance decision for matters of law or facts or both?
The accident is offortunate for the accuse but even more for the deceased those are facts
That certain people does admit it, it not will change the life realm of the widow?
Best of luck on B.C Highways hopefully no one will stop for Ducks when your speeding in a curve!Stay safe
Regards all
BookerL

 

[Merlot]

Oh boy,

I read some posts that he may have been looking at her for 2 or 3 seconds which contributed to the accident, that is a long time when you are travelling on a hwy, do not check her dress color just notice a person, 1/2 sec.

For the record, it was I who wrote about the 2 to 3 seconds. It was a high end guess. So you are basing your premise on a guess by someone who obviously was NOT there.

Yes...and there would been NO, I repeat NO accident or deaths if the motorcyclist had not been SPEEDING AND HAD PAID ATTENTION TO THE ROAD.

So you were there in his position and you know precisely what he could have seen...and when.

By the trial records this your statement is untrue. We know that at one point the line of sight was obscured by the car and trailer. We know that at some point the defendant herself was a distraction, as it would be for any driver coming upon some kook chasing ducks.

Aside from that there is no way to make your statement conclusively. It could have been anyone driving on the highway where people drive all the time with distractions despite their eyes being on the road. Cell phone discussion and arguments, texting, changing lanes at speed with signals, tailgating, maybe someone else with their view blocked by an SUV, an 18-wheeler, or another trailer...just the sheer unexpected presence of a dangerously abandoned vehicle in the fast lane of the highway with no hazard lights. It could very easily have been someone else who died.

The average person drives at 70 to 75 MPH on a highway. So that factor is not unusual. But introduce and unexpected large blocking object with no warning...that changes the odds drastically. The view that he should have or might have been able to stop IF ONLY...completely misses the key point that there shouldn't have been any reason to and no one had the right to break the law or forget all common sense to create the deadly situation.

That certain people does admit it, it not will change the life realm of the widow?

I've always found this premise as a legal factor totally irrelevant. You could release nearly all murderer's and nearly all those in all the prisons because generally speaking the sentence imposed does nothing to change the life of the person the crime was committed against.

There would be NO, I repeat NO accident or deaths if the idiot duck girl had not STOPPED HER CAR IN THE FAST LANE. This accident happens or doesn't happen at all depending on her choices.

This is the one incontestable truth. The car was the instrument of death. There's no question about it. The father's speed as a factor is relative to what he was able to see and if he could within the time necessary frame to save both of them.

Good thing I wasn't on the jury -

The jury definitely would have started with the same mixed feelings that have come out on this board. But they had every opportunity to hear every detail, something no one here has. Despite the certain conflict of feelings about the episode at least some of them would have had, they convicted the defendant. THAT alone should tell everyone something about the facts and the evidence.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

For the record, it was I who wrote about the 2 to 3 seconds. It was a high end guess. So you are basing your premise on a guess by someone who obviously was NOT there.

No, not at all it was just something I wanted to point out ( many people like to look around too much while they are driving ( eyes on task ) that is why I put the statement about gawkers right after that.
My main premise is based on the motor cyclist was speeding ( about 30% ) with his daughter on the back and could not make the same safe detour around ( car & trailer made it ) so eyes were not on task. If the cyclist never saw the car due to trailer or whatever else hazard lights would not have made a difference. He hit the brakes 7 meters from impact, travelling down a hwy at 130 kph ( high end guess ) each second the driver is going 35.25 meters, with a driver going 100 kpm each second the driver is going 27.8 meters, to drive safely at 120 kpm a person should be no closer that 45 meters to the car in front of them. Again as I have stated, she totally fucked up but the death is not 100% her fault, yes if she did not stop for the ducks there would have been no accident but if he was going 100 kph the accident may not have happened either.

 

[Charles Darwin]

She will get a 1 year probation, no jail time.

 

[Merlot]

Gents,

My main premise is based on the motor cyclist was speeding ( about 30% ) with his daughter on the back and could not make the same safe detour around ( car & trailer made it ) so eyes were not on task.

Maybe you and others might want to consider exactly what your premise/principle is when you say the above. You're focusing on the speed of the motorcycle instead of the element which had absolutely no business being a factor on the road, the person committing a crime by parking in the highs peed lane of a highway. Your effort points out elements that make the speed of the bike difficult to control, yet almost nothing about the factor that makes a higher speed more dangerous, that car that should never have been there to hit.

How many times do you see most cars traveling at speeds of 100 KPH or more on a highway? Probably 70% to 90% of the time. Your figures of 27.8 and 35.25 per second point out that the tragedy could have happened with anyone, not just the motorcycle. How many people travel on the highway at the distances you state between cars of 27.8 to 35.25 meters (91 to 115 feet)? Probably no one in any stretch of road near a large city. Your numbers and the way people drive point out exactly why stopping in the highway is insane. Yet some of you focus on the speed motorcycle when it's nuts and criminal to park an impediment in front of all of that. I can't give the next car 15 meters (50 feet) without someone cutting in front of me.

People tailgate, drive distracted by phones, fail to signal anything, swerve in and out of cars, text while driving....and now someone dumps a car in front of that situation. With all of that the odds were very high someone, anyone was going to get badly hurt or killed when she made that choice. Go out to that spot and stop your own car in the same place at the same time of day. Stand next to the car or stay inside it and understand who at fault. The normal traffic or you stopped in traffic for no reason. How do you feel just thinking about it?

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

I never said she was not at fault. She was the root cause of the accident. I just think she does not deserve jail time since there were other contributing factors. 300 hrs of community service, Lose drivers license for 2 years, huge fine, 1 or all the above but jail would not do any good or make anything go away.