![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This will never make news story of the year. But it's one of those cases where I found myself dissatisfied with the verdict and left with the niggling suspicion that justice had not been done. Moreover, if anyone actually agrees with me, it seems they've been pushed by the forces of editorial policies and political correctness to remain stumm.
So here goes. In June of 2010, Emma Czornobaj stopped her car on a highway to help a family of ducks safely cross the road. While she was engaged in this nobly-intentioned pursuit, a motorcyclist slammed into her vehicle and the driver and his teenaged daughter both died in the crash. When the case came to trial recently, a jury convicted Czornobaj of two counts of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of dangerous driving causing death. Her punishment, other than the realization that she had in some way contributed to the death of two people? Ninety days of jail time, 240 hours of community service and a 10-year prohibition on driving.
Now, let me be perfectly clear about one thing. It's very sad that two people died, especially the teenaged passenger who essentially had no control over the situation. I have every sympathy as well for the family left behind. But I'm left with more questions than answers about this whole tragic story.
Ought our good Samaritan have known that she was likely to cause a fatal accident? Well, that depends. In which lane did she leave her vehicle? Did she leave her four-ways or at least some lights on? Generally speaking, it's the party who rear-ends YOU, not the rear-end-ee, who is considered at fault. The fact that the rear-ender in this case was a motorcyclist gives rise to some additional concerns. There are safety measures required of motorcyclists, such as the wearing of helmets, that are not required of car-drivers, and that reflects the fact that motorcyclists are naturally more vulnerable out on the highway. Does that not suggest that a motorcyclist, if anything, has that much greater a responsibility to drive defensively, especially with a passenger on board? If this man had survived, particularly if his daughter had still been killed, it seems to me he would be looking at a LIFETIME ban on driving, whether self-imposed or handed down by a court of law!
A tragic ending to the story was seemingly far from inevitable. What might have happened instead?
The best possible outcome, of course, would have been that Ms. Czornobaj successfully rescued her ducks, got back in her car, and was on her way with a minimum of inconvenience to others. In that case, she would no doubt have been hailed as a hero, although the authorities would probably have felt obliged to add the disclaimer, "But still, don't try this at home, folks...."
Or she might have just continued on her way without stopping. If everyone else had done likewise, the ducks (some of them, anyway) would probably have become roadkill but no human lives would have been lost. Many people would think that was a rational course of action, although I'm sure a few environmentalists and other concerned citizens would have been up in arms. "Couldn't someone at least have done SOMETHING?" they would demand. "Like maybe call 911 and bring out the cops, the fire department, the Humane Society or the Ministry of Natural Resources?" And what if it were subsequently determined that the particular ducks in question were of a threatened or endangered species? Then the environmentalists would REALLY be up in arms! Multimillion dollar construction projects have been delayed or abandoned for far less!
To be fair, the justice system did to some extent acknowledge that this lady's intentions were honourable. She was not, after all, facing a charge of murder, which would have brought with it a far stiffer sentence. But the punishment in my view still doesn't entirely fit the crime. If you administer CPR to someone and end up breaking a few ribs in the process, you're protected in many jurisdictions by some sort of good samaritan legislation. That kind of wisdom or empathy doesn't seem to have prevailed in this instance. And community service?? C'mon, folks - it was her desire to perform community service of a sort that got her into this whole mess in the first place!!
One thing's for sure - the verdict in this case is bound to serve as a deterrent to good deeds in the future, whether the creature in distress is avian, feline, canine or perhaps even human!
So here goes. In June of 2010, Emma Czornobaj stopped her car on a highway to help a family of ducks safely cross the road. While she was engaged in this nobly-intentioned pursuit, a motorcyclist slammed into her vehicle and the driver and his teenaged daughter both died in the crash. When the case came to trial recently, a jury convicted Czornobaj of two counts of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of dangerous driving causing death. Her punishment, other than the realization that she had in some way contributed to the death of two people? Ninety days of jail time, 240 hours of community service and a 10-year prohibition on driving.
Now, let me be perfectly clear about one thing. It's very sad that two people died, especially the teenaged passenger who essentially had no control over the situation. I have every sympathy as well for the family left behind. But I'm left with more questions than answers about this whole tragic story.
Ought our good Samaritan have known that she was likely to cause a fatal accident? Well, that depends. In which lane did she leave her vehicle? Did she leave her four-ways or at least some lights on? Generally speaking, it's the party who rear-ends YOU, not the rear-end-ee, who is considered at fault. The fact that the rear-ender in this case was a motorcyclist gives rise to some additional concerns. There are safety measures required of motorcyclists, such as the wearing of helmets, that are not required of car-drivers, and that reflects the fact that motorcyclists are naturally more vulnerable out on the highway. Does that not suggest that a motorcyclist, if anything, has that much greater a responsibility to drive defensively, especially with a passenger on board? If this man had survived, particularly if his daughter had still been killed, it seems to me he would be looking at a LIFETIME ban on driving, whether self-imposed or handed down by a court of law!
A tragic ending to the story was seemingly far from inevitable. What might have happened instead?
The best possible outcome, of course, would have been that Ms. Czornobaj successfully rescued her ducks, got back in her car, and was on her way with a minimum of inconvenience to others. In that case, she would no doubt have been hailed as a hero, although the authorities would probably have felt obliged to add the disclaimer, "But still, don't try this at home, folks...."
Or she might have just continued on her way without stopping. If everyone else had done likewise, the ducks (some of them, anyway) would probably have become roadkill but no human lives would have been lost. Many people would think that was a rational course of action, although I'm sure a few environmentalists and other concerned citizens would have been up in arms. "Couldn't someone at least have done SOMETHING?" they would demand. "Like maybe call 911 and bring out the cops, the fire department, the Humane Society or the Ministry of Natural Resources?" And what if it were subsequently determined that the particular ducks in question were of a threatened or endangered species? Then the environmentalists would REALLY be up in arms! Multimillion dollar construction projects have been delayed or abandoned for far less!
To be fair, the justice system did to some extent acknowledge that this lady's intentions were honourable. She was not, after all, facing a charge of murder, which would have brought with it a far stiffer sentence. But the punishment in my view still doesn't entirely fit the crime. If you administer CPR to someone and end up breaking a few ribs in the process, you're protected in many jurisdictions by some sort of good samaritan legislation. That kind of wisdom or empathy doesn't seem to have prevailed in this instance. And community service?? C'mon, folks - it was her desire to perform community service of a sort that got her into this whole mess in the first place!!
One thing's for sure - the verdict in this case is bound to serve as a deterrent to good deeds in the future, whether the creature in distress is avian, feline, canine or perhaps even human!
