 Motorist fined $85 for fatal crashLaw & Order | 206719 hits | Dec 04 9:29 pm | Posted by: Hyack  TORONTO -- An $85 fine and an admission of guilt seems like a small price to pay for killing someoneCommentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
$85 ?
I paid more by losing a toll ticket on the highway,
and coming to the booth with out.
That is a maximum 77euro charge.
He will get six points and the insurance company's take a dim view of a Careless conviction. His rates will double.
What a joke though $85 fine for Careless when somebody is killed. The JP needs to be kicked in the slats.
The courts are fucked.
will the family now be able to sue the driver's insurance company in civil court?
Well, no, you would sue the driver/owner of the vehicle. Their insurer would pay to defend them. If you were to sue the insurance company you would have to prove the insurance company caused the accident.
In other words - it was an accident. That's why they're called . All the family wanted was to ensure that their lost loved one was in no way blamed. They weren't looking to hang anyone. They got it.
I don't see a problem with this.
I don't see a problem with this.
I think you're about the only one who doesn't.
It was a collision caused by the accused driving on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.
Motor vehicle collisions are nearly always caused by negligence or piss poor driving.
Accidents are caused.
In other words - it was an accident. That's why they're called . All the family wanted was to ensure that their lost loved one was in no way blamed. They weren't looking to hang anyone. They got it.
I don't see a problem with this.
An accident because the victim was driving a car that broke down and didn't safely clear the road and left his car hanging onto a highway and he got nailed.
There's fault on both sides of the argument.
It's easy to sit here and say the guy's a tool for hitting a parked car, but when you're flying along and the car in front of you moves to avoid someone parked on the highway, you have a fraction of a second to react.
It's easy to sit here and say the guy's a tool for hitting a parked car, but when you're flying along and the car in front of you moves to avoid someone parked on the highway, you have a fraction of a second to react.
If thats the case, then he was following the car in front of him too closely.
He is at fault.