Ontario Reg.455/07 and Demerit point System The Ontario regulation 455/07 and the demerit system work together in order to promote safe driving on roads and to discourage dangerous activities on roads. Regulation 455/07 is a very detailed article containing rules against extreme drivers. It contains rules prohibiting stunts and racing on roads. Stunts are defined as drivers attempting to lift one or all of the vehicle's wheels off of the road, to lose traction of one or all of the vehicle's tires while turning or to spin, to drive with the driver or any passengers out of their seats or to intentionally endanger other passengers on the highway. Racing is defined as any cars competing against, chasing, or trying to outdistance any other car.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE I have found some cases that can be utilized for defense purposes and also key parts of the Motor Vehicles Act. Pitezel v. Danielson No39369…following too closely and failure to keep proper lookout State v. Darrah No54389…failure to wear proper safety gear in the form of a motorcycle helmet Woten v. Day NoWD35290… failure to keep proper lookout... (contributory) Mo. Rev Stat. §304.015(6) Supp 1971…Prohibits driving in left lane when not passing other vehicles Per the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT: 144(1)(a) Careless Driving: a person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway without due care and attention. 145(1) Slow Driving: a person must not drive a motor vehicle at so slow a speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
A dilemma zone is defined as an area approaching the stop line within which a driver finds himself too close to stop safely and yet too far away to pass completely through the intersection at a legal speed before the red phase commences. Any decision made by the driver may lead to an accident or near accident. (International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Vol: 10 No: 03, May 10, 2010) As shown in the diagram below. 3.0 Aim The aim of this experiment is to prove or
The negligence was certainly made by the driver , but in what capacity. Proximate: This form of negligence requires foreseeability of what happened Causation: The basis upon which a lawsuit may be brought to the court Negligence: would be carelessness except the following did occur: The tortfeasor was under a duty to use due care. The tortfeasor breached that duty of due care. The tortfeasor’s act was the actual cause of injuries or damages. The tortfeasor’s act was the proximate cause of injuries or damages.
As is presented in the text of the case, management does plan to continue significant involvement after the closures. They plan to take some of the business that Pit Stop Centers offered and offer them at the Auto Boyz locations. These will be significant because they will include the sale of automotive services and tires. Overall, the significance of the continuing operations that will result from the closures of Pit Stop Centers are too significant to be considered as discontinued operations and need to be reported as continuation of
4.2 The defendants owed to the plaintiff a duty to use reasonable care in the distribution of their beer cases, the breach of which duty would have prevented the cases of beer from falling on the interstate. 4.3 The truck at the time of the accident was loaded with cases of beer ready for delivery. Said cases were not properly secured causing them to become unstable and fall from the truck onto the interstate into the path of the plaintiff. 4.4 The defendants owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and other drivers on the road to ensure all safety measures are followed and the product will stay in the truck until time to unload. The defendant breached this duty.
One is stopping at a red traffic light set out in the Road traffic Act 1988. In this example the omission to stop at a red traffic light results in a criminal offence. Another example is to care for your own children. The omission to care for your children is a criminal act set out in S1 of the Children & Young Persons Act 1993. Also statute makes it a crime to allow the death of a child or vulnerable adult under S5 of the Domestic Violence and Crime and Victims Act 2004.
The fact is that there were several cars involved which means a large number of witnesses. The reality is that more than one person saw the accident the way that it actually happened and will be able to say that Jackson is the one that caused it, not the woman. Even if this were not the case Jackson has a moral obligation to step forward and say that he caused the accident. Moral reasoning involves “reasoning from moral rules, principles, or standards and resolving conflicts among them, thereby placing limits on what one may do with a clear conscience (Barnet & Bedau 399). In other words does the decision you are making go against your own morals, principles, or standards.
If you don’t think that texting and driving in America is a serious issue, then you need to visit the National Safety Council website, and check out their information on distracted driving. 1. 930,000 death cause of mobile technology [Before we figure out how to solve it, you may ask yourself, ”What’s the harm in texting while driving?”] II. Problem: Texting while driving is a huge distraction and takes your attention away from the road. 1.
Everyday simple tasks such as adjusting the radio, talking to someone else, or sending a quick text message can have deadly consequences if they are done while a person is driving. Drivers should always use caution and pay full attention to the road. They should reduce or avoid distractions in the car which interrupt careful driving. A very large number of accidents are caused by distracted driving, many of them fatal. Laws are being put into effect to penalize distracted drivers, but the drivers themselves are ultimately responsible when it comes to safety and responsibility while on the