If she purposely moved to block him...
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If she purposely moved to block him...
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
She's innocent in Canada.
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.
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.
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.