Quebec Trial - Car Stops to help ducks, Motorcycle hits car (fatality)

[DECIMIS]

Update from Monday's trials:

A Quebec provincial police officer tasked with reconstructing the scene of the accident in June 2010 told the accused's jury trial that Czornobaj's vehicle was parked in the left lane of a busy highway south of Montreal but that she wasn't in it.

"The collision was caused by a human factor," said Samuel Beaudet. "The driver of the Honda (Czornobaj) parked in the left lane on a limited access road and got out of her car.

"The driver of the Harley-Davidson (Roy) was surprised by the presence of the Honda in the left lane and was not able to come to a complete stop or take evasive action to avoid a collision."

Beaudet, the final Crown witness, said Roy was going between 113 and 129 km/h at the moment he applied his brakes. Beaudet said Roy managed to slow down to between 105 and 121 km/h at the time of impact.

Roy and his daughter, who was riding on the back seat, were propelled from the motorbike. The girl was caught under the car, which itself was launched nearly 20 metres on impact.

Roy's wife, Pauline Volikakis, was on another motorcycle behind the victims, but was able to stop and avoid serious injury.

The rear window of the accused's car was shattered and Jessie Roy's helmet and sunglasses were found in the back seat of the vehicle. It was one of several dozen images Beaudet presented to the jury of 10 men and two women.

The investigator said the crash occurred on a section of highway where the maximum speed dropped to 90 km/h from 100 km/h.

Earlier on Monday, Beaudet said both victims were wearing helmets that did not meet safety standards. Later, he specified that a visual examination of the helmets suggested they did meet standards,. Beaudet said the helmet issue did not contribute to their deaths.

Charges against Czornobaj, who is now 25, were laid more than a year after the deaths. While the maximum sentences are unlikely, criminal negligence causing death carries a maximum term of life imprisonment, while the charge of dangerous driving causing death comes with a maximum of 14 years in jail.

The defence is expected to begin its case once the final Crown witness wraps up on Tuesday.

(http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...related+road+deaths+police/9921928/story.html)

 

[DECIMIS]

Update from Tuesday's trial:

The jury was told on Monday that Roy was likely driving over the 100-kilometre speed limit when his motorcycle hit the parked Honda Civic.

On Tuesday, the same expert referred to one of Newton’s laws of motion to explain how Jessie Roy ended up where she did. He said that as she was propelled off the back of the Harley and over the Civic, she was moving at the same speed as the motorcycle was when it hit the car.

She ended up striking a divider, known as a Jersey wall, and landed on a tiny shoulder on the left-hand side of the highway.

The expert said the force of the impact caused the car to roll forward a distance of 19 metres. He said that as it rolled forward it ran over Jessie Roy, who was still alive at that point, and caused her more injuries.
Czornobaj wasn’t in the Civic at that point. She had exited the car to try to rescue the ducks.

The expert, Samuel Beaudet, testified that based on his calculations while reconstructing the scene of the accident, Roy’s Harley-Davidson struck the Civic at a speed of 105 kilometres per hour.

He also calculated that the Harley-Davidson was travelling at a maximum speed of 121 kilometres per hour when Roy tried to stop his motorcycle in a failed effort to avoid a crash.

The prosecutor in the case, Annie-Claude Chassé, asked Beaudet to explain the difference between one of his earlier estimates, that Roy was travelling at around 113 kilometres per hour, and another estimate that he could have been going as fast as 129 kilometres per hour.

Beaudet said the difference involves variables that he could not be certain of in his reconstruction of the accident.

Chassé then asked Beaudet what speed he ultimately believed Roy was travelling at. The expert witness said it was most likely the Harley Davidson was moving at 113 kilometres per hour before the brakes were applied.

Beaudet also testified that the Civic’s hazard lights were on when it was examined after the accident. This supports a statement that Czornobaj provided to police after she was arrested. She told officers she turned on the hazard lights before she stopped her car and got out to get to the ducks.

Two eye witnesses testified that the hazard lights weren’t on before and after the accident.

While being cross-examined by defence lawyer Marc Labelle, Beaudet said his reconstruction of the accident showed the car wasn’t completely parked in the left-hand lane of the highway. Part of the car was in the left-hand side of the lane, Beaudet said, which meant the rest of the car was on a narrow shoulder next to it.

(http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/montreal/Ducksaving+trial+Expert+describes+force+impact+that/9924731/story.html)

 

[Ugur Dinch]

Unreal....

I always tell the gf how she is not supposed to follow so close, and she says "but you do it all the time" and she doesn't understand how she is supposed to be watching 5cars ahead, instead of the brake lights of the car in front...

I'd rather chance the unchecked lane change vs. slamming into the back of a stopped car. Infact, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even go for the brakes in that situatin and would concentrate on getting around it. Bike is what... 2 ft wide, even if there was a car next to it, it may not even have to move for the bke to have the room needed... regardless, better to side swipe a car than run into the back of one dead stopped in front of you.
And don't forget.. right before the Mother watched her husband and child die.. she watched her husband gesturing to the girl... instead of riding the bike!?

Just FYI, really easy to type these things..
Once you are in that split second all of a sudden facing a stopped Civic, it's the survival instincts that take over control, and who knows what that guy is gonna pull =)

 

[LoneRonin]

It's hard to gage distance and speed of a stationary object when travelling at high speed.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

seriously?? If I see that I'm coming up on something and its getting bigger...and bigger and not moving, I get the **** outta the way.

 

[Roomie]

seriously?? If I see that I'm coming up on something and its getting bigger...and bigger and not moving, I get the **** outta the way.

Fully agree with this. This concept is as simple as breathing. I don't understand how some people don't get it

 

[ddusseld]

This is where training can take over. If you have practiced enough emergency maneuvers then your training can override your survival instinct.

Imo, this is a situation where the driver is clearly at fault but the crash was completely avoidable by the rider.

Just FYI, really easy to type these things..
Once you are in that split second all of a sudden facing a stopped Civic, it's the survival instincts that take over control, and who knows what that guy is gonna pull =)

 

[hedo2002]

So do we all still feel the Rider was 100% innocent? given what the accident investigator has testified to?

1. Car wasn't completely in the left lane, (it appears there is only a small shoulder and the driver had pulled over onto it), but this still left part of the vehicle in the left lane.
2. Despite what witnesses reported the investigator determined that the hazard lights were actually activated at the time of the collision.
3. The bike was speeding, (at least 23 km/h to as high as 39 Km/h over the limit), Given the range of 11 - 129 and the speed limit was 90Km/h at the scene.
4. This part I don't understand at first they say the helmets were not "approved" helmets, But upon visual inspection they were "approved" helmets. Puzzled if you look at a helmet it is either approved helmet, (DOT or Snell), that doesn't change from the time it is on the riders head and when you "look" at it. Could be there were not approved and the translator got it wrong. Not that an approval in this case would have saved their lives.
5. His wife was able to stop, (which would tend to support the theory stated earlier that she simply "dropped" her bike while dismounting), after witnessing the crash rather than she laid it down to avoid a collision.

Now, I ride a cruiser and I know our stopping distance is MUCH greater than sport bike but at best this guy only slowed from 129, to 105 or 113 to 105 upon impact. To me that says he didn't brake very hard or he was so inattentive he didn't see the car until he was literally upon it. In either case it would appear he was definitely riding beyond his line of sight.

 

[raginduck]

Unreal....

I always tell the gf how she is not supposed to follow so close, and she says "but you do it all the time" and she doesn't understand how she is supposed to be watching 5cars ahead, instead of the brake lights of the car in front...



Just FYI, really easy to type these things..
Once you are in that split second all of a sudden facing a stopped Civic, it's the survival instincts that take over control, and who knows what that guy is gonna pull =)

I said "I'm pretty sure I wouldn't...." because of my past experiences.. and reactions. I've had to rely on "my guy" enough that I'm confident in predicting what he'll do in a lot of situations.

 

[coyo]

I NEVER said the rider was 100% innocent, but the rider is dead so not able to be charged. I still say that the car driver's decision was negligent and created this situation and that the appropriate charge is before the courts.

So do we all still feel the Rider was 100% innocent? given what the accident investigator has testified to?

1. Car wasn't completely in the left lane, (it appears there is only a small shoulder and the driver had pulled over onto it), but this still left part of the vehicle in the left lane.
2. Despite what witnesses reported the investigator determined that the hazard lights were actually activated at the time of the collision.
3. The bike was speeding, (at least 23 km/h to as high as 39 Km/h over the limit), Given the range of 11 - 129 and the speed limit was 90Km/h at the scene.
4. This part I don't understand at first they say the helmets were not "approved" helmets, But upon visual inspection they were "approved" helmets. Puzzled if you look at a helmet it is either approved helmet, (DOT or Snell), that doesn't change from the time it is on the riders head and when you "look" at it. Could be there were not approved and the translator got it wrong. Not that an approval in this case would have saved their lives.
5. His wife was able to stop, (which would tend to support the theory stated earlier that she simply "dropped" her bike while dismounting), after witnessing the crash rather than she laid it down to avoid a collision.

Now, I ride a cruiser and I know our stopping distance is MUCH greater than sport bike but at best this guy only slowed from 129, to 105 or 113 to 105 upon impact. To me that says he didn't brake very hard or he was so inattentive he didn't see the car until he was literally upon it. In either case it would appear he was definitely riding beyond his line of sight.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

So do we all still feel the Rider was 100% innocent? given what the accident investigator has testified to?

1. Car wasn't completely in the left lane, (it appears there is only a small shoulder and the driver had pulled over onto it), but this still left part of the vehicle in the left lane.
2. Despite what witnesses reported the investigator determined that the hazard lights were actually activated at the time of the collision.
3. The bike was speeding, (at least 23 km/h to as high as 39 Km/h over the limit), Given the range of 11 - 129 and the speed limit was 90Km/h at the scene.
4. This part I don't understand at first they say the helmets were not "approved" helmets, But upon visual inspection they were "approved" helmets. Puzzled if you look at a helmet it is either approved helmet, (DOT or Snell), that doesn't change from the time it is on the riders head and when you "look" at it. Could be there were not approved and the translator got it wrong. Not that an approval in this case would have saved their lives.
5. His wife was able to stop, (which would tend to support the theory stated earlier that she simply "dropped" her bike while dismounting), after witnessing the crash rather than she laid it down to avoid a collision.

Now, I ride a cruiser and I know our stopping distance is MUCH greater than sport bike but at best this guy only slowed from 129, to 105 or 113 to 105 upon impact. To me that says he didn't brake very hard or he was so inattentive he didn't see the car until he was literally upon it. In either case it would appear he was definitely riding beyond his line of sight.

The left paved shoulder on AR30 is tiny. You could almost consider it to be over-pave, rather than a breakdown lane. Unless a car ventured onto grass, it would be roughly half in the active passing lane.

But for the negligent actions of the motorist, the situation would not have occurred. That goes to the issue of guilt. The issues surrounding the situation go to sentencing.

 

[MarcosSantiago]

seriously?? If I see that I'm coming up on something and its getting bigger...and bigger and not moving, I get the **** outta the way.

If you see it, sure.

If you don't see it, then what?

The guy did not see it. Truck blocked the view, sun blocked the view, a lady herding ducks distracted him. So he is dead.

Is he at fault? If so, how much? I think that is the question.

 

[MarcosSantiago]

The left paved shoulder on AR30 is tiny. You could almost consider it to be over-pave, rather than a breakdown lane. Unless a car ventured onto grass, it would be roughly half in the active passing lane.

But for the negligent actions of the motorist, the situation would not have occurred. That goes to the issue of guilt. The issues surrounding the situation go to sentencing.

The shoulder is tiny. The CTV video shows the location of the accident, and it was just criminal to stop the car there for no good reason.

I'll look up the video or the photos.

 

[DECIMIS]

More information from Tuesday's trial, with the defendant on the stand:

(I cut and paste only some of the article)

Emma Czornobaj says she took precautions before stopping her car in the left-hand lane of a highway in an effort to gather a group of ducklings to safety.

...

"I saw somebody go into the air. That's the only person that I saw — in that moment," she said. "She went into the air over the car."

Czornobaj said she recalled seeing Pauline Volikakis, Roy's wife, who was following behind him on a Yamaha motorcycle, approach the scene of the accident.

"I was just standing there. She came to me and asked me to turn off the car," Czornobaj said, adding she got into the passenger side of the vehicle and removed the key from the ignition.

Following that, a woman believed to be a nurse approached Czornobaj.

"She told me to come sit away from the accident. She told me to stay with her and to not look (toward the area where Roy and his daughter were lying on the ground)," she said, adding she believes she was in shock at that point.

At different points in her testimony, Czornobaj testified that she tried to take precautions to alert other drivers that she was slowing down and gradually came to a stop in the left-hand lane of the highway.

She said she turned on her hazard lights and checked to make sure no one else was on the highway at that point. She said a male driver moved over to the right-hand lane after she turned on her hazard lights.

Prosecutor Annie-Claude Chassé used part of her cross-examination to show that Czornobaj had no idea how the ducks would react to her actions. Czornobaj admitted she had never interacted with ducklings before and didn't know they would avoid her.

"They were small. It didn't look like they were fast. It looked like they'd be easy to (grab)," she said.

"So you thought that you would be able to take eight ducks (and put them in your car)," Chassé asked.

"My idea was to grab them, at that time. When I saw them running away, that's when I decided to go back to my car," Czornobaj replied.

Chassé said she might have more questions for Czornobaj when the trial resumes on Wednesday

(http://www.montrealgazette.com/tech...nd+duck+linked+crash+trial/9924731/story.html)

 

[DECIMIS]

Update from Wednesday trial (closing statements period):

The case against Emma Czornobaj might hinge on a vague wording of the Highway Code.

The point was raised by Czornobaj’s defence lawyer, Marc Labelle, while he made his final arguments Wednesday in the jury trial where the accused is charged with two counts each of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death.

Czornobaj is accused of being responsible for the deaths of two people who were riding on a motorcycle when it crashed into her car, which she had parked on the left-hand lane of Highway 30 in Candiac in an effort to herd a group of ducklings to safety.

Labelle argued there was no criminal element involved in what Czornobaj did. He also noted that while it is a violation of the Highway Code to stop on a highway and to walk on a highway, there is a “caveat” that allows someone to do so if it is a necessity. Labelle noted that the Highway Code does not define what a “necessity” is.

He also asked the jury to not judge his client based on the type of animal she was trying to rescue. For instance, he asked, don’t try to compare the situation if it involved “four (Labrador) puppies.”

(http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...riving+trial+delayed+juror/9928372/story.html)

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Update from Wednesday trial (closing statements period):

The case against Emma Czornobaj might hinge on a vague wording of the Highway Code.

The point was raised by Czornobaj’s defence lawyer, Marc Labelle, while he made his final arguments Wednesday in the jury trial where the accused is charged with two counts each of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death.

Czornobaj is accused of being responsible for the deaths of two people who were riding on a motorcycle when it crashed into her car, which she had parked on the left-hand lane of Highway 30 in Candiac in an effort to herd a group of ducklings to safety.

Labelle argued there was no criminal element involved in what Czornobaj did. He also noted that while it is a violation of the Highway Code to stop on a highway and to walk on a highway, there is a “caveat” that allows someone to do so if it is a necessity. Labelle noted that the Highway Code does not define what a “necessity” is.

He also asked the jury to not judge his client based on the type of animal she was trying to rescue. For instance, he asked, don’t try to compare the situation if it involved “four (Labrador) puppies.”

(http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...riving+trial+delayed+juror/9928372/story.html)

Traditionally 'necessity' is defined exactly as it sounds. In other words for a reason such as your car has ceased operation. I suppose it could easily be extended to something like giving aid in case of an accident, but I have to think that giving aid and comfort to ducks isn't intended to qualify.

 

[hedo2002]

Not defending her just showing that there were other conditions and incidents that led up to the crash. As I said all her lawyer has to do is convince ONE juror the rider contributed to his demise. Or there only need be ONE juror who think riders are hooligans and don't respect the laws etc. Deadlocked jury.

Look back at the crash that happened on Yonge street about two months ago where the rider was lane splitting and collided with the SUV. So many were quick to blame the SUV until they looked at the totality of the incident then many considered the rider at fault.

Again was what she done stupid?? Certainly.

Just pointing out from my experience with the legal system she will not be going to jail nor will she be convicted of the most serious charge.

Would we all feel the same if the rider had been in a cage and rather than looking at the woman at the roadside and gesturing, been texting instead??? They both amount to undue care and attention.

Lastly, the reason I feel she will get a light sentence is just look at how they treat people who left turn in front of a rider and that rider dies.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Not defending her just showing that there were other conditions and incidents that led up to the crash. As I said all her lawyer has to do is convince ONE juror the rider contributed to his demise. Or there only need be ONE juror who think riders are hooligans and don't respect the laws etc. Deadlocked jury.

Look back at the crash that happened on Yonge street about two months ago where the rider was lane splitting and collided with the SUV. So many were quick to blame the SUV until they looked at the totality of the incident then many considered the rider at fault.

Again was what she done stupid?? Certainly.

Just pointing out from my experience with the legal system she will not be going to jail nor will she be convicted of the most serious charge.

Would we all feel the same if the rider had been in a cage and rather than looking at the woman at the roadside and gesturing, been texting instead??? They both amount to undue care and attention.

Lastly, the reason I feel she will get a light sentence is just look at how they treat people who left turn in front of a rider and that rider dies.

Whether or not she is convicted essentially will depend on how the jury is instructed. With the right instruction a juror could only find otherwise by ignoring law. What she did is against the law and it resulted in a death. I suppose it could come down to hair splitting between simple and gross negligence, but that's where the instructions come in.

I do agree that she isn't likely to do any time for it.

 

[hedo2002]

Well, we have already seen in his closing argument the defence has put forth two moves.

1. The ambiguity of the wording in the Highway Code.

2. He played the "puppy card"..lol It is unlikely any of the jurors have ducks but some will likely have a puppy, (BTW I think the translation again is skewed I think he said "think if it were four Labrador puppies", I doubt he said don't consider that). He is playing upon the emotions of the jurors to think of their own puppy and how this woman surely would have saved their puppy the same way she tried to save the ducks.

I agree the instructions are important but jurors often don't understand fully the instructions and therefore often err in their verdicts.

Unlike our legal system here in Ontario which is based upon British common law the Quebec laws are based more upon, what is commonly referred to as "civil code" Not sure if that will be a benefit or hindrance to the driver and her legal team

 

[Dave L]

Jail or not there is no way she should ever hold a drivers license again. She displayed such poor decision making its scary.

 

[matt123]

So let's change the scenario a bit, seeing that many are speculating..lol

How many would still want to hang here hide if the car had become disabled and was unable to clear the lane? Then she got out to avoid being hit in a stationary vehicle?

Was what she did smart? Not in the least, but that is why the justice system generally treats younger people differently, because they don't always possess the experience and maturity to make wise decisions. I have seen many young people kill a friend while drunk driving get a lighter sentence with the reasoni9ng being they didn't make a mature decision.

So she made a very poor decision. BUT others contributed and compounded upon it. The vehicle with the trailer had to take evasive action, (so also obviously NOT paying attention). The biker was IMHO riding beyond his ability as he couldn't avoid the vehicle. Had he been traveling slower or left more distance between him and the trailer he would have increased his reaction time. He "gestured" to the bike following him. Now I know if I gesture to a fellow rider I usually look in the mirror to see if they acknowledge it. Had he not done this "could" have he braked harder or got out of the way?? No one will ever know.

For the person who said the "training" teaches us to do a shoulder check. Well I can tell you with almost 30 years riding I wouldn't do a shoulder check in this case. Better to hit something traveling in the same direction as me than to hit a parked car, full on.

Remember if it is jury trial ALL her lawyers need to do is convince ONE juror. I can see a mistrial or deadlocked jury on this one. If they do convict ti will be a much lesser charge.

She would be negligent for not putting on the hazards either way.A shoulder check I would hope is second nature and was absolutely required.Furthermore from experience the time it takes to stop an ingrained reflex and make the decision not shoulder check while bearing down on an stationary object at 110 kph is inconsequential.
MOST IMPORTANTLY consider that he knew the second bike was bearing down on him as illustrated by his gesturing to slow.He probably had no idea where the trailing bike was going to go and was likely braking hard.
If you ask me he may have saved his wife's life while avoiding a cutting her off and killing all three of them.In this instance there is a very strong indication he had no safe escape route,no time to process the situation in entirety, and no time to react.
I think what he did was all he could do and is a victim of sear stupidity on the duck chasers part.

There are two questions to be asked

Had she not stopped on the road would he and the daughter still be alive?

Had she had her hazards on would the leading car have recognized the situation sooner and left enough time and real estate for both bikes to react?

I would say yes to both.