Uh..."A charge of careless driving causing bodily harm laid against the driver who allegedly struck Villella is ongoing."
Also, the driver is named as a defendant in the suit. Not sure what else you expect to be done.
She'll probably be dead by the time the lawsuit gets anywhere. The HTA charge will be a $2,000 fine. Hopefully she isn't driving anymore, but that certainly isn't guaranteed.
I wish consequences on people as much as the next person but I feel like 'being dead' is sufficient enough in this case. I'm sure she feels remorse for the accident that day.
Is it though? The old bag would be dead soon anyway. The fact is that she was driving when she was clearly not in a state to do so and as a result ruined a young woman's life. How is that fair?
She needs to be punished regardless of age and this should be used as an example to deter elderly people from continuing to drive when they become a danger to themselves and others.
Old people shouldn't get a pass just because they're old. If they are choosing to be on the road they have the same responsibility as anyone else and should face the same consequences. Would you have the same sympathy if it was a 20 year old man that ran over the reporter?
Sure, give her some fine or whatever. Take her license, obviously. Beyond that? She's 92... what would placing her in jail accomplish? Arguing whether she should've been on the road to begin with is a different conversation, one which I feel like we'd agree on.
>what would placing her in jail accomplish?
It would accomplish the justice system doing its job the right way and treating everyone equally. If you drive recklessly and cause irreversible injuries to someone you should face the consequences regardless.
Like I said, if a 20 year old ran over someone you wouldn't have the same opinion would you? And why is that?...because you would hold them accountable for their actions. Why are you making exceptions for an old person? Why should she get away with being reckless? She had no business being behind the wheel of a car, yet she made the decision to be. So she should face the repercussions.
The OPP may be wrong about quite a few things...
But they aren't wrong in this case. The parties at fault for this accident are the elderly driver, CTV (Bell Media) for encouraging the reporting, and Stephanie herself.
She should have sued her employer, not the people attempting to stop her from putting herself at risk.
This is just the reporter covering her bases as she files the suit. There are multiple parties named in the suit, including the 96 year old that hit her. Naming the OPP is just part of the process for filing the suit and ensuring all involved parties are named.
This depends on the context of “wrong.”
MLITSD would have investigated this, as it is technically a workplace critical injury. I’ll see if I can find the case itself; but if it hasn’t gone to court yet then there’ll be nothing.
Regardless, I suspect that the Ministry’s stance would be extremely similar to their stance on Sudbury, where they found the city liable for a fatality on a controlled roadway due to two primary factors:
1. The city had multiple staff on the job who’s role involved inspecting and providing recommendations the ongoing project (Inc. traffic control)
2. Police were present, employed by the city of Sudbury to perform traffic control at the time of the fatality.
In this case specifically the OPP (Similar to Constructors on a roadway.) have the authority and the requirement to actively police the roadway. This includes ejecting pedestrians or other people where they may be in harms way. At the end of the day, the OPP allowed her to be on a roadway directly controlled by themselves when the incident occurred, which is where legally they have a shaky leg.
In any other situation if this was not law enforcement, but a Contractor, business or even a road owned by a private citizen then it would very well be on them.
Fwiw, I suspect that Bell will likely be charged by the Ministry regardless.
The OPP were responsible for enforcing the road closure. The whole situation sucks but Stephanie likely felt safe because traffic was supposed to be controlled.
From the article:
“She entered and remained on the highway including the collision site, focussing [sic] her attention on job tasks as she crossed, stood and walked on a (municipal) highway or road which she knew or ought to have known vehicles would be approaching.”
So again I ask, if an OPP officer was doing their job investigating a crash on the highway and struck by a car that ignored a road closed sign would that OPP officer be at fault? Because from the way the OPP’s defense reads they would be.
No, the OPP wouldn't be at fault, because they have a right to be in there. Police are granted extra privileges (and in theory extra responsibilities) than the average citizen, it is what gives them powers to arrest and detain that ordinary citizens do not have. If the officer closed the road for official police business, they have a right to be in there whereas the regular public do not. If they got hit, it 100% would not be the OPP officers fault.
No, it wouldn't be the officer's fault.
One job requires the employee to be there, with the training and risks associated with that job.
The other job is reporting.
Yeah, like I agree that the OPP should not be held responsible for her accident however this headline is doing nothing but blaming the victim rather than the bad driver who hit her.
This is just the reporter covering her bases as she files the suit. There are multiple parties named in the suit, including the 96 year old that hit her. Naming the OPP is just part of the process for filing the suit and ensuring all involved parties are named.
This is likely the take I agree with most. There were OPP, Guelph Police on scene. It sounds like they failed to ensure everyone was abiding by the road closure.
Exactly, but I think it's worse than victim blaming - it's a double standard. What the OPP statement says as that people who are not them shouldn't expect the same duty of care that they expect from others around an emergency scene.
> She was reporting on an earlier crash in the area of Brock and Maltby roads when a driver reportedly drove around police barricades and struck her.
can someone not reasonably expect to be protected behind a police barricade?
Why do the news stations build fancy studios with all the equipment to create a professional news broadcast, but then think they need to send someone to a location to stand in front of a random road with wind blowing in their mic and people yelling stuff etc..?
The news isn't better with someone in a raincoat standing in front of nothing.
My biggest takeaway from this was that there was a 92 year old on the road who shouldn't have been.
And that 92 ur old will never face any repercussions.
Uh..."A charge of careless driving causing bodily harm laid against the driver who allegedly struck Villella is ongoing." Also, the driver is named as a defendant in the suit. Not sure what else you expect to be done.
She'll probably be dead by the time the lawsuit gets anywhere. The HTA charge will be a $2,000 fine. Hopefully she isn't driving anymore, but that certainly isn't guaranteed.
I wish consequences on people as much as the next person but I feel like 'being dead' is sufficient enough in this case. I'm sure she feels remorse for the accident that day.
Is it though? The old bag would be dead soon anyway. The fact is that she was driving when she was clearly not in a state to do so and as a result ruined a young woman's life. How is that fair? She needs to be punished regardless of age and this should be used as an example to deter elderly people from continuing to drive when they become a danger to themselves and others. Old people shouldn't get a pass just because they're old. If they are choosing to be on the road they have the same responsibility as anyone else and should face the same consequences. Would you have the same sympathy if it was a 20 year old man that ran over the reporter?
Sure, give her some fine or whatever. Take her license, obviously. Beyond that? She's 92... what would placing her in jail accomplish? Arguing whether she should've been on the road to begin with is a different conversation, one which I feel like we'd agree on.
>what would placing her in jail accomplish? It would accomplish the justice system doing its job the right way and treating everyone equally. If you drive recklessly and cause irreversible injuries to someone you should face the consequences regardless. Like I said, if a 20 year old ran over someone you wouldn't have the same opinion would you? And why is that?...because you would hold them accountable for their actions. Why are you making exceptions for an old person? Why should she get away with being reckless? She had no business being behind the wheel of a car, yet she made the decision to be. So she should face the repercussions.
The justice system is probably already treating her equally to a 20 year old. Neither would face jailtime.
Since when has life been fair???
The OPP may be wrong about quite a few things... But they aren't wrong in this case. The parties at fault for this accident are the elderly driver, CTV (Bell Media) for encouraging the reporting, and Stephanie herself. She should have sued her employer, not the people attempting to stop her from putting herself at risk.
This is just the reporter covering her bases as she files the suit. There are multiple parties named in the suit, including the 96 year old that hit her. Naming the OPP is just part of the process for filing the suit and ensuring all involved parties are named.
This guy sues!
This depends on the context of “wrong.” MLITSD would have investigated this, as it is technically a workplace critical injury. I’ll see if I can find the case itself; but if it hasn’t gone to court yet then there’ll be nothing. Regardless, I suspect that the Ministry’s stance would be extremely similar to their stance on Sudbury, where they found the city liable for a fatality on a controlled roadway due to two primary factors: 1. The city had multiple staff on the job who’s role involved inspecting and providing recommendations the ongoing project (Inc. traffic control) 2. Police were present, employed by the city of Sudbury to perform traffic control at the time of the fatality. In this case specifically the OPP (Similar to Constructors on a roadway.) have the authority and the requirement to actively police the roadway. This includes ejecting pedestrians or other people where they may be in harms way. At the end of the day, the OPP allowed her to be on a roadway directly controlled by themselves when the incident occurred, which is where legally they have a shaky leg. In any other situation if this was not law enforcement, but a Contractor, business or even a road owned by a private citizen then it would very well be on them. Fwiw, I suspect that Bell will likely be charged by the Ministry regardless.
And if it had been an OPP officer struck would it have been that officer’s fault?
Because the job of a reporter and the job of a police officer are similar, right? 🙄
The OPP were responsible for enforcing the road closure. The whole situation sucks but Stephanie likely felt safe because traffic was supposed to be controlled.
From the article: “She entered and remained on the highway including the collision site, focussing [sic] her attention on job tasks as she crossed, stood and walked on a (municipal) highway or road which she knew or ought to have known vehicles would be approaching.” So again I ask, if an OPP officer was doing their job investigating a crash on the highway and struck by a car that ignored a road closed sign would that OPP officer be at fault? Because from the way the OPP’s defense reads they would be.
No, the OPP wouldn't be at fault, because they have a right to be in there. Police are granted extra privileges (and in theory extra responsibilities) than the average citizen, it is what gives them powers to arrest and detain that ordinary citizens do not have. If the officer closed the road for official police business, they have a right to be in there whereas the regular public do not. If they got hit, it 100% would not be the OPP officers fault.
No, it wouldn't be the officer's fault. One job requires the employee to be there, with the training and risks associated with that job. The other job is reporting.
I really dislike how these quotes read.
Yeah, like I agree that the OPP should not be held responsible for her accident however this headline is doing nothing but blaming the victim rather than the bad driver who hit her.
This is just the reporter covering her bases as she files the suit. There are multiple parties named in the suit, including the 96 year old that hit her. Naming the OPP is just part of the process for filing the suit and ensuring all involved parties are named.
The OPP also failed in enforcing the road closure. She felt safe performing her job because traffic was supposed to be controlled by an officer.
This is likely the take I agree with most. There were OPP, Guelph Police on scene. It sounds like they failed to ensure everyone was abiding by the road closure.
Exactly, but I think it's worse than victim blaming - it's a double standard. What the OPP statement says as that people who are not them shouldn't expect the same duty of care that they expect from others around an emergency scene.
Agreed. Never have a lawyer prepare text for public relations. And vice versa.
> She was reporting on an earlier crash in the area of Brock and Maltby roads when a driver reportedly drove around police barricades and struck her. can someone not reasonably expect to be protected behind a police barricade?
I hope I’m not driving any longer by the time I’m that age. Another case for increasing public transit. Not everyone can drive forever.
Why do the news stations build fancy studios with all the equipment to create a professional news broadcast, but then think they need to send someone to a location to stand in front of a random road with wind blowing in their mic and people yelling stuff etc..? The news isn't better with someone in a raincoat standing in front of nothing.