Options
Woman facing life imprisonment for stopping on a highway to save ducklings
![[Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/85998b7e1362fdc6917683a98dc2fe1e.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 671 Forum Member
✭✭
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/22/newser-woman-who-stopped-for-ducks/11235367/A Canadian woman parked her car on a Montreal-area highway in 2010 to help a group of ducklings; almost four years to the day later, Emma Czornobaj was on Friday found guilty of causing the deaths of a motorcyclist and his passenger daughter who smashed into her car.
Czornobaj, who has no previous criminal record, faces a maximum sentence of life in prison for criminal negligence and 14 years in prison for dangerous driving.
Andre Roy, 50, who was traveling with his 16-year-old daughter, Jessie, on his Harley-Davidson, was driving an estimated 70 mph to 80 mph in a roughly 60 mph zone.
His wife was following behind them at a slower speed and avoided injury, and has said she doesn't blame Czornobaj for the deaths; her husband died in her arms, and her daughter, who was pinned beneath the Honda Civic, died later in a hospital.
Does anyone else find this story ridiculous? I certainly wouldn't want to run over poor little ducklings who got lost from their mother and strayed on to a highway. I don't think I'd be able to just leave them there either; I'd feel awful!
The man on the motorbike should have been more vigilant especially if he had his 16 year old daughter on the back and it has already been determined he was going over the limit. The wife managed to avoid a parked car by going at a reasonable speed....
0
Comments
You would want to help the ducklings but would need to bear in mine potential danger of stopping.
Having said that the sentence does seem harsh, especially if he was speeding.
It doesn't say what happened to the duckling though.
criminal & driving offences and definitions.
Seems she stopped in the left hand lane, which is the overtaking lane of course. Would have been ok if in the other lane.
Apparently Canada hasn't got a 'death by dangerous' - just 'injury by dangerous', so deaths go into criminal negligence by default.
The life sentence is the maximum. No doubt her sentence will be nearer the other end of the scale.
ETA. I'm confused now, as I couldn't see death by dangerous in their list of offences, but this link says that there were 2 counts of D by D and 2 counts of criminal negligence.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1399756/duckling-motorcycle-deaths-trial-victims-family-speaks-out/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2663995/Canada-woman-stops-ducks-guilty-2-deaths.html
Utter stupidity and she deserves a harsh punishment, but a life sentence seems excessive.
The motorcyclist shouldn't have been speeding either.
Sounds like both were stupid. He paid for it with his life, her by getting a criminal record and losing her freedom. The daughter had no blame in it but lost her life too.
Woman facing life imprisonment for causing fatal highway accident.
The second title is the shorter of the two, so should fut in the space just fine.
That being said, life imprisonment seems excessive for accidentally causing death, but that's the maximum sentence rather than a guaranteed outcome.
It was entirely right that she faced serious charges, it was an incredibly stupid place to stop and downright dangerous, leading to the two deaths.
Life imprisonment, if that's what she gets, does seem a tad harsh though.
Agreed.
A few years for sure, but life seems ridiculous, especially as the motorcyclist contributed to his own and his daughters deaths by speeding so much
Huh? You're actually blaming the motorcyclist?? You don't stop in the middle of a motorway - ever. Even when parking up in the shoulder there's information about ensuring you're as far away from the main lanes as possible. What she did was imbecilic. She and she alone caused the deaths. If she doesn't do it, they don't die. Cause and effect. A speeding ticket compared to causing death. I don't condone the speeding but I don't think that's as relevant as parking up in the middle of a motorway. The animals are effectively irrelevant to the situation. IMHO.
She did a ridiculously stupid thing, but the motorcyclist was speeding, his wife behind him was going slower and was able to not hit the car.
"doesn't give you an excuse to go crashing into them".
I'm kinda stunned by this. The motorcyclist didn't go out of his way to crash. His wife's motorcycle also hit the car but thankfully she survived. I don't think the driver even had the hazard lights on.
'Czornobaj testified in her own defense. She said if the same thing were to happen today “I would not have stopped.”'
I think that speaks for itself.
Now I hope she doesn't go for life, it doesn't seem right. I'm not entirely sure what the sentence should be. Seems a terrible situation for all parties. She's remorseful that's clear. The wife seems to want it all to be over and laid to rest, harbouring no ill will on the driver.
If the cyclist was speeding then he broke the law - okay. She broke the law as well by stopping in the middle of a busy motorway on the actual road, with a door open and not having the hazard lights on.
There's no situation where I'd place the life of an animal over the life of a human. We're of the same race for pete's sake. Surely that counts for something??
So if a moose wanders on to the highway and stops in the fast lane, as i believe they are prone to do, i guess you've got plough straight in to it? Extreme example i know. Stopping distances are there for a reason.
1. He could have swerved round the car.
2. He could have stopped.
3. He could have crashed into it.
Now, which of those do you think is the worst option?
You can't legislate for the action of a moose or other animal. If you're driving on a motorway, you ought to know the laws that govern it. And stopping in the driving lane is a hugely wrong thing to do.
I've read the ducks weren't even on the motorway itself but off it. Doesn't that make it even worse? Look I'm not discounting he may have been speeding (but I haven't seen a news article that states that as fact - could you help please as I may have missed it?), but if the car wasn't stopped in the lane then he and his daughter wouldn't be dead now. Why didn't she put on the hazard lights? I mean....any time I'm on the motorway I know I need to have my wits about me at all times. It's not a time to relax or lose concentration. That doesn't absolve the man of guilt if he was speeding but the point is what she did caused this.
Okay I found it now. So he was "speeding 10-20 miles over the speed". Okay fine that was wrong and I can accept that may have contributed to this. Even her defence team said that they were "partly responsible" for their own deaths. I can understand that argument. I just consider her actions to have contributed more to their deaths and to be more dangerous.
If lessons are to be learned here. Don't park in the middle of the motorway and don't speed.