"But I did not cause it"

natrab said:

If she purposely moved to block him...

Click to expand...

There is no "if". She stated that she moved into his path intentionally.

People make stupid spur-of-the-moment decisions. She made one. That does not excuse her from being responsible for the consequences.

As a former Field Training Officer for my department, I was charged with the responsibility of taking "book-smart, street-stupid" recruits and turning them into effective police officers. The first thing I taught them (OK - after where to get coffee) was that to make any arrest, you need at least one of the three C's.

Compelling physical evidence.

Credible witness.

Confession.

Any one of these is enough to support making an arrest. The more, the better.

In this scenario, the motorcyclist (disgusting and foolish behavior, but not illegal) had a legal right to pass the slower motorist, and chose to do so. The car driver choses to take him out by deviating into his path of travel.

Via his helmet cam, you have "a credible witness."

Reconstructing the point-of-impact provides "compelling physical evidence" as to where on the roadway the collision occurred and who the offending vehicle is.

The driver of the car made "a confession" as to why the collision happened.

From a law enforcement point of view, charging the driver is a no-brainer. However, once the case moves into the unpredictable realm of a judge or jury, anything can happen.

Time will tell if she feels the full weight of the justice she so recklessly earned.

greenwald said:

In this scenario, the motorcyclist (disgusting and foolish behavior, but not illegal) had a legal right to pass the slower motorist, and chose to do so.

Click to expand...

Kevin

Is that statement true regardless of the speeds they were both traveling?

Not being a smart aleck. If she's driving the speed limit on that road, does he still have a legal right to pass?

20715 said:

Kevin

Is that statement true regardless of the speeds they were both traveling?

Not being a smart aleck. If she's driving the speed limit on that road, does he still have a legal right to pass?

Click to expand...

Yes. The option to pass a motorist ahead of you is not predicated solely on speed. You may find their behavior unsafe, a trailer load unsecure, your vision blocked when there is a need to view a road sign, etc.

Passing traffic is not based only on 'slower vs. faster.' Ergo, he had the option to pass. His only legal obligation was to do so where it was not prohibited by road markings or signage. I did not see any such prohibition in the brief video.

Thanks for the analysis, Kevin.

I wonder whether the DA can subpoena that interview. Her statement that she wanted to slow him down may be evidence supporting criminal intent. Without the statement, I think all the DA can prove is momentary inadvertence.

What do you think, Kevin?

Thanks, Kevin! I appreciate you explaining that, and I learned from it.

nickrides said:

I hope that bitch from hell gets convicted on a felony charge and gets put away for as long as possible.
And the local news station does a follow up story.
There is no excuse for that irrational insane behavior, none whatsoever.
I hope she burns at the stake, I do. What a witch.

Click to expand...

I like your early Salem form of punishment. It worked back the , see no more witches, might just work now days.

Diesel - really - no fault when you intentionally run someone off the road? Wow! He bounced off the side of her car as she veered into him, not her back bumper. I don't know Canadian law, so I'm not arguing, just amazed.

The kid made a heap of bad choices, but watching the video, after he committed to the pass, she took away every last inch of road. I've had drivers do this before (without contact), but I've never seen anyone put their vehicle at that much of an angle to the roadway. That said, with better judgement and reactions on his part, he could still have a leg and a story about some crazy lady. This is just a sad mess at in intersection of two individuals making poor choices.

RINTY said:

Thanks for the analysis, Kevin.

I wonder whether the DA can subpoena that interview. Her statement that she wanted to slow him down may be evidence supporting criminal intent. Without the statement, I think all the DA can prove is momentary inadvertence.

What do you think, Kevin?

Click to expand...

The statement can be both subpoena'd and, via a Goodchild Hearing, possibly suppressed.

Like I said - clear what actions law enforcement should take.

Things not so clear once the judicial system gets involved. Water gets muddy fast.

While the statement is important, a good accident reconstructionist should be able to establish the collision point-of-contact left of her 'centerline.' Much yet to be discovered about this incident - hope we hear some day how it finally was resolved.

This incident happened in 2012. It may already be resolved. I just did a quick search and I was unable to find anything.

The article was posted on 18 August 2014 and indicates she has a felony charge pending. Sounds as if law enforcement did their part and it now resides in the courts.

rxcrider said:

Diesel - really - no fault when you intentionally run someone off the road? Wow! He bounced off the side of her car as she veered into him, not her back bumper. I don't know Canadian law, so I'm not arguing, just amazed.

The kid made a heap of bad choices, but watching the video, after he committed to the pass, she took away every last inch of road. I've had drivers do this before (without contact), but I've never seen anyone put their vehicle at that much of an angle to the roadway. That said, with better judgement and reactions on his part, he could still have a leg and a story about some crazy lady. This is just a sad mess at in intersection of two individuals making poor choices.

Click to expand...

For arguments sake, she didn't intend to cut him off or hurt him, it remains, he was behind her and the onus is on him to "predict" possible scenarios.

If proven, it was her intent to cut him off/hurt him, it's not a civil matter but a criminal one.

Either way, our Public Insurance Company doesn't care and the damages awarded to him will be based on his earning potential, for the previous three months, averaged out, then adjusted for his long term care knowing he may never earn a decent income again.

He will not be able to take civil action and it isn't likely this would ever make the news here.

No Fault Insurance is a joke.

If you look closely at Quebec, the lady that stopped her car in the fast lane for the ducks and the motorcyclist slammed into the back of her car and killed himself and his daughter, the argument went on for years that he was responsible for the accident because he didn't take into account the stupid things people do. Little justice as she was found "stupid" criminally but since she had no intent to commit the crime, she remains free.

dieselyoda said:

Two words in the province I live in, "No Fault".

If you could prove, with your own money that she was the cause of the accident, our public insurance would pay a per Diem based on his expected ability to earn an income, healthy. Then deduct the costs of his long term care and provide a subsistence income.

No lawyer will touch on contingency, there isn't any money in it. It won't ever see a judge, end of story there, so all a lawyer can do is fight through the red tape to get to a public(government) appointed arbitrator. Our insurance company is a Crown Corporation, aka, the government owns it.

Even if there were charges, a conviction many years later, she is entirely covered by two words, "No Fault".

Still remains, he hit her from behind, his fault because he didn't take action to avoid it.

Click to expand...

don't confuse criminal liability with civil liability. "No Fault" only refers to insurance coverage and responsibility, it has NOT ONE THING to do with criminal responsibility
she moved to cut him off. she hit him with the SIDE of her car, thus at point of contact he was NOT behind her. She had no need to move to her right, which is NOT what you do when someone is overtaking you. Legally, drivers are required to do whatever is reasonably necessary to AVOID causing an accident. She went out of her way to do the exact opposite of that.
Criminally Guilty.
No estimation on how his civil case agianst her will proceed- but i'd guess that he will get some money from her, but it will be substantially reduced due to his actions as a rider.

dieselyoda said:

For arguments sake, she didn't intend to cut him off or hurt him, it remains, he was behind her and the onus is on him to "predict" possible scenarios.

If proven, it was her intent to cut him off/hurt him, it's not a civil matter but a criminal one.

Either way, our Public Insurance Company doesn't care and the damages awarded to him will be based on his earning potential, for the previous three months, averaged out, then adjusted for his long term care knowing he may never earn a decent income again.

He will not be able to take civil action and it isn't likely this would ever make the news here.

No Fault Insurance is a joke.

If you look closely at Quebec, the lady that stopped her car in the fast lane for the ducks and the motorcyclist slammed into the back of her car and killed himself and his daughter, the argument went on for years that he was responsible for the accident because he didn't take into account the stupid things people do. Little justice as she was found "stupid" criminally but since she had no intent to commit the crime, she remains free.

Click to expand...

SHE SAID her intent was to slow him down. She's screwed.

I wonder if she would have done the same had she known the guy had a camera on. Glad he did.

Are you guys watching a better video than I saw? (The one posted originally.)

The news is clear, as is the statement by the woman who knocked him off, but the GoPro video is lousy.

dieselyoda said:

She's innocent in Canada.

Click to expand...

You are so wrong it hurts.

dieselyoda said:

Either way, our Public Insurance Company doesn't care and the damages awarded to him will be based on his earning potential, for the previous three months, averaged out, then adjusted for his long term care knowing he may never earn a decent income again.

He will not be able to take civil action and it isn't likely this would ever make the news here.

No Fault Insurance is a joke.

If you look closely at Quebec, the lady that stopped her car in the fast lane for the ducks and the motorcyclist slammed into the back of her car and killed himself and his daughter, the argument went on for years that he was responsible for the accident because he didn't take into account the stupid things people do. Little justice as she was found "stupid" criminally but since she had no intent to commit the crime, she remains free.

Click to expand...

Diesel, would you PLEASE check your facts before posting misleading and just-plain-wrong information.

1. Your quote of Public Insurance Company is only accurate for your province of Manitoba, not the rest of the country.

2. The lady in Quebec, who was convicted June 20, 2014 of Criminal Negligence AND Dangerous Driving for stopping on a highway to allow ducks to cross the road resulting in the death of two people, remains free PENDING A SENTENCING HEARING.

bikerfish1100 said:

don't confuse criminal liability with civil liability. "No Fault" only refers to insurance coverage and responsibility, it has NOT ONE THING to do with criminal responsibility
she moved to cut him off. she hit him with the SIDE of her car, thus at point of contact he was NOT behind her. She had no need to move to her right, which is NOT what you do when someone is overtaking you. Legally, drivers are required to do whatever is reasonably necessary to AVOID causing an accident. She went out of her way to do the exact opposite of that.
Criminally Guilty.
No estimation on how his civil case agianst her will proceed- but i'd guess that he will get some money from her, but it will be substantially reduced due to his actions as a rider.

Click to expand...

I understand the difference between civil liability and criminal liability.

The reality in this province is there is no such thing as civil liability when in an insured vehicle by our PUBLIC INSURANCE Company as we are "NO FAULT". We pay enormous insurance rates to protect us from being sued because we had a stupid day.

Criminal action taken against her may result in something, doubtful, but absolutely no civil action can be taken against her.

The best a lawyer can do, paid up front, is get this guy a compensation package from our PUBLIC INSURANCE Company that is more comfortable than the established rates provided in their per Diem for losing a leg.

She will never see a Civil Trial here so her house and investments are safe. She could face a Criminal Trial but more likely, it would be a Highway Traffic Act Offense she is charged with which would result in a fine and penalty on her PUBLIC INSURANCE rates.

The point to my original post was it's moot. Who did what to whom when and where doesn't matter, compensation is a set rate in "NO FAULT" insurance. He would be screwed here and she would be off the hook.

She-Bad, Him-Bad, to what degree would never come to an argument here.

BC1100S said:

Diesel, would you PLEASE check your facts before posting misleading and just-plain-wrong information.

1. Your quote of Public Insurance Company is only accurate for your province of Manitoba, not the rest of the country.

2. The lady, who was convicted June 20, 2014 of Criminal Negligence AND Dangerous Driving for stopping to allow ducks to cross the road resulting in the death of two people, remains free PENDING A SENTENCING HEARING.

Click to expand...

I never said I was representing all of Canada, I said "here". My address is in my profile.

"PENDING A SENTENCING HEARING" is at large, free to conduct her life until such time in the distant future a decision is made, which she will appeal.

Look, I am not making any judgements about any jurisdiction or any action that could occur anywhere else on the planet. I have expressed my facts accurately about what happens in Manitoba, Canada.

I would think anybody from BC would look at the horrific runaway truck accidents which resulted in minor penalties to the drivers/owners and wonder why it continues to happen.