A BC Provincial Court found a driver guilty of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after she hit a child while speeding and texting. This blog will look at the requirements of the offence and why the Court found the defendant guilty in this case.
What are the requirements of Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm?
As we saw in the previous blog, s. 249(1) of the Criminal Code covers the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. It is an offence to operate:
(a) A motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place;
Dangerous operation causing bodily harm is punishable with up to ten years in prison. The standard of proof for the offence is quite high. A person is only held criminally responsible if their actions were intended to cause harm, or, if their actions represented a “marked departure” from the standard of care expected of a driver in the circumstances of the case.
Excessive speeding and distracted driving
In the case in question, Tenessa Rayann Lyric Nikirk struck an 11-year-old girl at a marked crosswalk, leaving her with life-changing injuries. The Court heard witness testimony that Ms. Nikirk was tailgating and passing other vehicles before the crash.
Evidence of the defendant’s speeding consisted of video analysis of dash-cam footage and the force of the collision. The analysis showed she reached speeds of 95 to 100 km/hr in a 50 km/hr zone to pass two vehicles. Since this was more than 40 km/hr over the speed limit, it constituted excessive speeding.
The Crown submitted text records that the accused was continually texting before the crash. “Many” witnesses’ statements also corroborated the speeding and texting.
Why the Court found the defendant guilty?
In this case, the Court had to assess whether the actions of the driver simply constituted a momentary lapse of attention or was a product of a more prolonged period of inattentiveness.
The judge found that it was “impossible” to determine whether Ms. Nikirk was texting at the precise moment of impact. However, she engaged in distracting behaviour for some time prior to the moment of impact. Therefore, the judge inferred her distraction at the time of the accident.
The judge said:
The accused was speeding, not paying adequate attention to clearly visible markers at the crosswalk, the child and the stopped vehicles and was engaged in conversations with other parties by way of a handheld electronic device. Because of that, she failed to see that which is plainly there to be seen.
The Court decided this amounted to a marked departure from the actions of a prudent driver. For this reason, it found her guilty.