Mockery of the law..

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bells, Apr 28, 2014.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Way to miss the point entirely. The crash investigation established that it was an accident due to low visibility. What hasn't been established is why she was not breath tested at the scene and allowed to leave the scene immediately and whether she was on her phone or not at the time..

    Unless you are arguing that someone who smashes their car into someone and kills them can sue their estate for the emotional trauma killing the person caused them? And I'm not even touching on the husband's lawsuit..

    Also, this case happened in Canada, not New South Wales. And in Ontario Canada, they are required to either have a light or reflector strips, which they had on their bikes.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Quite agree, the apparent lack of the basic breath-test is surprising. In the UK it is a mandatory procedure at any RTA. And they'd certainly be able to tell if she as on her phone from phone records etc.
    But the fact remains that she was not charged (rightly or wrongly) so she has the right to defend herself against a civil suit which looks to blame her for the accident. And one form of her defence in this case seems to be via a suit of her own.
    It does depend on what the person who was killed was actually doing that ended up with them being killed.
    If the person in the car had no way of avoiding the incident, and suffered distress as a result of what they thought was the victim's fault...? In this case it is the issue of who is at fault that is key, but there is an adage that "a witness to violence is a victim of violence".
    (I wouldn't be surprised if you could sue someone's estate if you witnessed their suicide.)

    So until fault in this case can be established, I think it unwise to pass judgement when we don't have all the facts, and are unlikely to ever have them all.
    And it is because of tragic accidents like this, often noone's fault, that the laws in other countries have eventually changed and toughened up.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Apparently there was no other traffic on the road, so the cyclists surely must have heard TWO cars approaching from behind. Why didn't they pull off the road to allow them to pass? Even if they had simply pulled over to the edge of the lane, the motorist might have been able to steer around them. There is enough contributory negligence in this case for litigation to drag on for years.

    Nonetheless, since I am still an unreconstructed hippie and in four decades nothing has happened to mitigate my hatred of cops, I vote with the people who say that the authorities are giving the killer and her husband a free ride out of professional courtesy.

    And yes, the suits and countersuits are just legal jousting, allowing a couple of predatory attorneys to make some money from the tragedy.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I can agree to that... the only ones making money in this case are the attorneys... and that's just sick.
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    In the ideal world, vehicular homicide is still homicide, and charges should have been filed.
    That being said: We do not live in an ideal world, and never have and most likely never will.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    They may not have been able to. I bike to work and it is sometimes not possible to "pull off the road" - and indeed the effort can sometimes be worse than remaining in the road.

Share This Page