In Canada, a woman is on trial for the wrongful death of a motorcyclist, and the cyclist’s passenger, after they hit the back of her car. Normally, when you rear-end somebody, you are at fault, but this case appears to be different.
How is it different?
It is different because the woman stopped her car in the passing lane of a highway in order to allow ducks to walk across the road.
However, she did not just stop momentarily.
After stopping her car in the passing lane of the highway, she exited her car and stood on the left-hand shoulder…for some reason that is unclear to me.
The motorcyclist and his daughter were not able to stop in time, and both were killed.
Under Canadian law, the woman could–technically–receive a sentence of life behind bars, although that long a sentence is unlikely.
I’m really not sure where to come down on this issue.
While I am an animal lover and would do almost anything to avoid running over an animal, I am also aware that stopping your car in a travel lane of a highway is never a good idea. And, any claim that she might have made about stopping only momentarily is made moot by the reality that she exited from her car! And, if she was able to walk to the shoulder of the road, she could have driven to the shoulder of the road.
This woman was incredibly…stupid…and…reckless, but if I was on a jury, I am not sure about what type of sentence she should receive.
What do you think?