Was Caitlyn Jenner’s traffic accident a crime?
I doubt it would be deemed so by authorities in Quebec if it had happened here.
Caitlyn wasn’t intoxicated when she was involved in a multi-vehicle accident that took the life of a woman. She wasn’t texting or using a smartphone. She wasn’t going over the speed limit. Reports say she may have been driving unwisely for the traffic conditions at the time, but she wasn’t breaking any traffic laws.
But according to reports, authorities might charge her with vehicular manslaughter, anyway, while the relatives of the dead woman have launched a lawsuit seeking compensation for their loss.
In Quebec, if a similar accident occurred, there would be no charges, no lawsuits. We have provincial government-sponsored no-fault insurance, which covers bodily injury. Victims in car accidents receive compensation from the province.
Charges might be layed if a person was over the legal alcohol limit, was on drugs, or was using a mobile communications device illegally — or was driving very recklessly, as in doing stupid things like passing people on the soft shoulder of the highway or zigzagging in and out of lanes etc
But if it was just a rear-ender accident like the one Caitlyn was involved in, I highly doubt there would be charges.
We pay annual fees for our government-sponsored no-fault auto insurance — a few hundred a year or more, depending on your driving record and the number of road infractions you have incurred. We also pay for private auto insurance, which covers vehicle and property damage.
I think Quebec’s system is fair. I’m not so sure about California’s system.
What say you?
— Jillian
Jillian Page 
California law does assign fault to any auto accident. The California Driver’s handbook states: “California has a ‘Basic Speed Law.’ This law means that you may never drive faster than is safe for current conditions. For example, if you are driving 45 mph in a 55 mph speed zone during a dense fog, you could be cited for driving ‘too fast for conditions.'”
From what I can tell, it was foggy at the time of the accident.
I lived most of my life in California, so the concept of “No Fault” is very strange to me, and, I think, inherently unfair. If someone causes an auto accident and the family breadwinner dies, somehow just paying the medical expenses doesn’t seem fair at all. The dead breadwinner’s family is devastated and has nothing but the person who caused the crash may only have to pay a fine and higher insurance premiums. Where’s the compensation for the dead person’s family’s loss? Where is the justice?
LikeLike
I suspect the Quebec plan pays compensation to family members, especially in cases where the deceased had no life insurance. Am really not sure.
LikeLike
And, if it doesn’t, where’s the justice?
I just find it extremely odd that the victim’s families can’t sue for compensation for their losses. It just feels unfair to let the offender off with only a fine.
LikeLike