Canadian driver jailed for deaths caused by stopping for ducks

[mick silver]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSKBN0JW26P20141218?irpc=932
Canadian driver jailed for deaths caused by stopping for ducksThu Dec 18, 2014 1:03pm EST
OTTAWA (Reuters) - A Canadian woman was sentenced to 90 days in jail on Thursday for causing two deaths in 2010 when she stopped her car on a Quebec highway to help a group of ducklings crossing the road.
Emma Czornobaj had been convicted in June of two counts each of criminal negligence and dangerous driving causing death.
According to media reports on Thursday, Czornobaj stopped her car abruptly in the passing lane of a highway south of Montreal when she saw the ducklings. The motorcycle behind Czornobaj's car then crashed into her vehicle, killing the 50-year-old man driving the motorcycle and his 16-year-old daughter.
"I just wanted to pick all these ducklings up and put them in my car," Czornobaj had testified during her trial. "I know it was a mistake."
The jail time will be served on the weekends. Czornobaj was also sentenced to 240 hours of community service, probation and banned from driving for 10 years.
Prosecutors had sought a nine-month jail sentence.
(Reporting by Leah Schnurr; Editing by Peter Galloway)

[crimethink]

Some US states have statutory assumptions that if you crash into the back of someone, you are following too closely.

[Publico]

Assumptions can be overcome.

[Glass]

Some US states have statutory assumptions that if you crash into the back of someone, you are following too closely.

Some people assume that some US states have statutory assumptions that if you crash into the back of someone, you are following too closely. This is also an assumption that people hold down here in Aus but in our case it is not actually true, despite it being an almost universally well known urban myth.

[crimethink]

Some people assume that some US states have statutory assumptions that if you crash into the back of someone, you are following too closely. This is also an assumption that people hold down here in Aus but in our case it is not actually true, despite it being an almost universally well known urban myth.

California Vehicle Code 21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway.

It's theoretically a rebuttable presumption, but in real life a nearly impossible presumption to rebut. California court cases (so-called "case law") define it even further, and "he stopped in front of me" does not cut it. 47 years ago, "case law" created a presumption of negligence based on the statute (Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal. App. 2d 207), in a case not too dissimilar to the OP (although no fatalities occurred).

[crimethink]

Assumptions can be overcome.

In theory...see my previous post.

[govcheetos]

Guy ran into a stationary object. What if a tree or boulder was in the road? Pay attention.

[Glass]

Some people assume that some US states have statutory assumptions that if you crash into the back of someone, you are following too closely. This is also an assumption that people hold down here in Aus but in our case it is not actually true, despite it being an almost universally well known urban myth.

Not arguing with you, just stating it is different in different places. People should not assume because they might take on more responsibility than they should.

[BrewTech]

Not arguing with you, just stating it is different in different places. People should not assume because they might take on more responsibility than they should.

?? You meant to quote your own post and respond to it?

[osoab]

and if she ran over the ducks she would be sitting in jail too.