In reply to Trans_Maro:
Yea, but apparently even the 90 days has been suspended now. She was sentenced in December and filed an appeal in January, with the sentence suspended pending the outcome of the appeal.
In reply to Trans_Maro:
Yea, but apparently even the 90 days has been suspended now. She was sentenced in December and filed an appeal in January, with the sentence suspended pending the outcome of the appeal.
Trans_Maro wrote: Yes, she stopped in the middle of the left lane for a family of ducks. A box truck was coming up behind and swerved to miss her. The father and daughter on the motorcycle behind the box truck were killed because they couldn't get out of the way in time. The stupid cow that stopped still doesn't understand what she did wrong. She should be forced to have her tubes tied for the good of humanity.
Just a couple of weeks ago they were showing a similar thing on the news from a traffic camera on a US interstate where several people were stopping and/or swerving to avoid a mother duck and her little ones crossing the interstate. It was extremely agonizing to watch, but as far as I could tell, the ducks made it and nobody wrecked.
Many years ago my wife got POed at me for not swerving to miss a squirrel. I broke her of that.
Trans_Maro wrote: In reply to NOHOME: If you come to a halt in the left lane you WILL be hit from behind, no matter what made you stop.
You are most likely correct. Some inattentive driver IS going to hit you if you stop in the left hand lane. No argument. That is reality and common sense. But it will be their fault.
Not much gets you out of the liability for rear ending another car.
Had the woman's car been stopped for any reason other than the duck rescue, the motorcyclist would have been found at fault for following too close. This is a very common situation on our highways where the guy in front of you veers to avoid a stopped or slowing car, leaving you to take the hit. Fault always lies with the guy behind. Plenty of case law on this subject.
Drivers should anticipate that those in front of them might stop:
Any cyclist or motorist must be alert to the possibility that a vehicle immediately ahead may slow suddenly and unexpectedly to avoid a bump or a darting animal, to read an address or for no apparent reason.
(Rudman v. Hollander, 2005 BCSC 1342 at para. 21).
Courts have confirmed the requirement to leave proper following distances:
The operator of a motor vehicle, following other vehicles, should keep his vehicle under sufficient control at all times to be able to deal with an emergency such as the sudden stopping of a vehicle in the line of vehicles ahead and the telescope effect that results, as each successive driver attempts to bring his or her vehicle to a halt.
(Pryndik v. Manju, 2001 BCSC 502 at para. 21).
I cant find any case law that speaks to anything as stupid as the duck rescue, but this one is similar:
In Cawson v. Quandt, 1999 CanLII 6051 (BCSC) the defendant stopped for deer that was on the road and was rear-ended by the plaintiff. The court found the plaintiff to be 85% at fault and the defendant to be 15% at fault. The court made that allocation of liability on the following findings of fact:
I find that when the plaintiff accelerated into the straightaway he not only exceeded the speed limit, but also was travelling at an excessive speed under the circumstances of the prevailing conditions. As a result of excess speed, the plaintiff failed or was unable to react appropriately, to avoid the defendant's truck which was stopped, or just proceeding forward from stopping, to let deer cross the road. In my opinion, if the plaintiff had been travelling at a more prudent and reasonable speed out of the South Curve rather than accelerating, he would have seen the defendant's truck earlier and appreciated the approaching situation such likely to avoid the accident.
However, I would like to note that stopping a vehicle in the lane of traffic on a highway, whatever be the reason, has its risks, especially at dusk to darkness or when dark, because it assumes following motorists are paying close attention and will react in a timely manner. This is often a risky assumption. When it is dusk or dark out, visibility and distance perception are reduced, thus risk created by stopping is magnified. The risk is further heightened when the stopped vehicle begins to move forward again. When this occurs, it is extremely difficult for following vehicles to judge the slow moving vehicle’s rate of speed, again, especially at dusk or night when visibility is reduced and navigation between vehicles is dependent on lights.
Consequently, I find that for a motorist in the same circumstances as the defendant, it would have been reasonable, cautious, and prudent for him to turn on his hazard lights when stopped, and to keep them on until he was up to a proper speed.
(Cawson v. Quandt, 1999 CanLII 6051 at para. 54-56 (BCSC)).
I just passed the dented guardrail on my way home from work. I wish I hadn't noticed it. 
You'll need to log in to post.
