The accused was convicted at trial of dangerous driving causing death. A central fact in the conviction was the condition of the vehicle's tires.
The trial judge held there was a duty of care upon the accused to inspect the condition of the vehicle tires. The unsafe condition of the tires was a critical factor in ordering a conviction. The accused had no actual knowledge of the condition of the tires.
The Court of Appeal held such a duty to inspect was not established. The Court went on and held even if a duty to inspect existed, the trial judge erred in finding that a breach of that duty constituted a marked departure from the standard expected of a reasonably prudent person.
No comments:
Post a Comment