Quote:
Originally Posted by 68style
^ This... it’s cuz he turned left in front of the Audi if I remember correctly... the law never cares how fast the other car is going or whatever they will just say he should have seen him... we all know it’s bullshit but I think that’s the missing info
|
That would make sense, and could likely explain what the judge meant by "momentary"... that is, Dr. Hui happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time by turning left at a green light.
I am not a MVA lawyer, but my assumption is that had speed NOT been a factor, let's say Chung was driving at 60 km/h through a green light, and hit and killed Dr. Hui (very possible depending on size, age, structural integrity etc. of the two vehicles involved), he would not be found guilty of "causing death". If Dr. Hui did not tragically die, he in fact would have been found at fault by ICBC for not yielding the right of way. It's possible that the judge viewed the excessive speed as secondary to the fact that Dr. Hui was turning left without yielding to oncoming traffic. Was speed a factor? Absolutely. But I am assuming the judge is agreeing that is the left-turning driver's responsibility to gauge the speed and distance of oncoming traffic.
Yes, Ken Chung is a piece of shit for excessive speeding not just once but twice and also because he killed an innocent individual... and let's face it, the leniency showed by our justice system means he will probably end up speeding again... but I think it's important to consider all of the factors involved here.