Careless in a parking lot

JJDM
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined:

Careless in a parking lot

Unread post by JJDM on

My daughter (new driver with G2) was practicing with a manual transmission in our own driveway.
As she was nearing the street at the end of our driveway she somehow mixed up the pedals and instead of stopping, she accelerated across the road, directly into a school driveway where she collided with a parked car. Both cars were heavily damaged.
The officer charged her with careless driving and also advised her to take it to court.

We are going to x-copper for a consultation but I'm curious if this scenario can be fought and won, or should she take a plea.
Is an accident in a school driveway or parking lot covered under the HTA ? I'm very concerned for our insurance rates since we have to list her as an occasional driver.

Thanks in advance for any insight!


Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined:
Location: Ontario

Unread post by Stanton on

If the incident had taken place entirely in the school parking lot (i.e practicing there when accident occurred) then I would say the Highway Traffic Act doesn't apply. Since however your daughter crossed the roadway while out of control, the highway traffic act would be applicable. Quite likely a plea deal will be offered, whether you should try fighting the charge outright however is best discussed with a professional.


OTTLegal
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 97
Joined:
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Unread post by OTTLegal on

Careless Driving is a Highway Traffic Act offense, the charge has to occur on the roadway. If the charge should be dismissed. The officer shouldn't have given your daughter the ticket in the first place.
Chris Conway
Retired Toronto Traffic Officer, Hit & Run Squad Detective,
Breathalyzer Tech, Radar/Highway Patrol
Licenced Paralegal


Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined:
Location: Ontario

Unread post by Stanton on

I agree that the accident itself isn't directly applicable since it occurred off the highway, but I’d still argue the rest of the accused’s actions would be sufficient grounds to lay the charge. Though unintentional, the accused entered, crossed and drove off the highway while not in control of her vehicle. Is that sufficient for conviction? I don’t know. But I’d respectfully disagree that the charge shouldn't have even been laid in the first place. I’d argue that it shows a lack of reasonable skill in handling a motor vehicle that could have conceivably posed a danger to other persons.


Brian Smith
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined:

Unread post by Brian Smith on

From the description provided I would have probably laid the same charge. I would also expect a 50/50 chance of losing the case at trial depending on the JP hearing the matter. I've had similar cases go both ways.

Regardless of disposition of the charge, your insurance company has all the relevant information and will act accordingly.


OTTLegal
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 97
Joined:
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Unread post by OTTLegal on

As a former Toronto and Ontario Provincial Police Officer, Level 2 Accident investigator, with 28 years experience, and 10 years as a paralegal. My opinion is that it's on private property. The Highway Traffic Act unless specifically specified does not apply to private property and the charge should not have been laid.

Your welcome to listen to who you like. Many times the police do not know their own jobs, as unless they have specific training in that field.

I have investigated numerous accidents in the past, and appear at court 100's of times.

If you want to read the case law here it is http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... cj310.html.

Either appear yourself or hire a paralegal and the charge should be dismissed.
Chris Conway
Retired Toronto Traffic Officer, Hit & Run Squad Detective,
Breathalyzer Tech, Radar/Highway Patrol
Licenced Paralegal


bend
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1153
Joined:

Posting Awards

Moderator

Unread post by bend on

OTTLegal wrote:As a former Toronto and Ontario Provincial Police Officer, Level 2 Accident investigator, with 28 years experience, and 10 years as a paralegal. My opinion is that it's on private property. The Highway Traffic Act unless specifically specified does not apply to private property and the charge should not have been laid.

Your welcome to listen to who you like. Many times the police do not know their own jobs, as unless they have specific training in that field.

I have investigated numerous accidents in the past, and appear at court 100's of times.

If you want to read the case law here it is http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... cj310.html.

Either appear yourself or hire a paralegal and the charge should be dismissed.

You are assuming the careless charge is 100% related to the accident on private property. I would think it would be careless to admit to an officer you mixed up your pedals and blindly accelerated through a "highway" without regard to anything else on the road.

So if i'm driving down a "highway" and I lose control of my vehicle and end up crashed on private property, I am free and clear of any wrong doing in the highway traffic act?


User avatar
Decatur
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 697
Joined:

Posting Awards

Moderator

Unread post by Decatur on

I tend to agree with Stanton and bend. The officer would be negligent if they didn't consider the totality of the events leading up to the collision that just happened to end on private property. Pre collision events are often the most important things to consider.
The case cited is also one that occurs entirely on private property and does not involve a "highway" at all






Post Reply

Return to “Careless Driving”