5 killed on Macleod trail crash - Update: GUILTY!

[Redliner]

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

dont most people that drive company vehicles have to submit a drivers abstract?? i know any job I applied for that included driving you had to include abstract with application.

maybe there are some companies that just dont care but i bet their insurance companies do

I drive company vehicles on a regular basis and have never had to submit an abstract. I do think it's a good idea though, and I know that many companies require it. Some even require special training - my dad did some consulting work with Husky and before he was allowed to drive a company vehicle he had to submit and abstract and complete a 2-day defensive driving course.

[FlamesKickAss]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Clearly not enough

Wow that is unreal.. I agree with you that hopefully this is a wakeup call for those companies and we can get these people off the road for their main part of employment and driving large death machines, that really what it is when you drive commercial vehicle recklessly.

I know if I was a company that relied on my workers getting to jobsites and relied on my vehicles for work I would want the safest drivers driving it, because this is probably going to effect C & J's insurance premiums, even with him not working there anymore. If they even covered the claim.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

they already are liable for the actions of their employees through vicarious liability

That's not necessarily true. There are many ways to avoid the attachment of vicarious liability, even in an employer employee setting. I'm not sure that there's a way out here, but it's not an automatic thing. I'd expect the argument would be that the actions of Tschetter were so unforeseeable and extreme that he had stepped out of his role as an employee. I have no idea what the Alberta precedent is in this area, but based on the lengthy record of driving related incidents he had the employer definitely has a hill to climb.

[FlamesKickAss]

Originally Posted by valo403

That's not necessarily true. There are many ways to avoid the attachment of vicarious liability, even in an employer employee setting. I'm not sure that there's a way out here, but it's not an automatic thing. I'd expect the argument would be that the actions of Tschetter were so unforeseeable and extreme that he had stepped out of his role as an employee. I have no idea what the Alberta precedent is in this area, but based on the lengthy record of driving related incidents he had the employer definitely has a hill to climb.

if he was still on company time then it wouldnt matter. From what I understand anyways, I am in taking a insurance liability course right now so it is fresh but I could be misunderstanding what I am reading. He is still driving the company vehicle as well. I don't really feel bad for this company at all though, the knew what they were getting themselves into, maybe just not this magnitude.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

if he was still on company time then it wouldnt matter. From what I understand anyways, I am in taking a insurance liability course right now so it is fresh but I could be misunderstanding what I am reading. He is still driving the company vehicle as well. I don't really feel bad for this company at all though, the knew what they were getting themselves into, maybe just not this magnitude.

Company time and company vehicle lend to the argument that vicarious liability attaches, but it's not a finished case at that point. Under common law torts there's a 'frolic v. detour' rule that will relieve an employer of liability for the actions of an employee if the actions are so outside the realm of the employ as to render them a detour, as opposed to a mere frolic. Now defining frolic and detour is a pretty grey area, so there will be some litigation there unless something in Alberta case law is close to on point (which may be the case, I have no idea).

The history of driving violations this guy has also opens the door to a negligent hiring action, so even if vicarious liability isn't found there could be another path.

I'm not really that sympathetic for the company either. I'm all for second chances, but this guy seemed to have a pretty clear history of not giving a damn about safe driving.

[FlamesKickAss]

Originally Posted by valo403

Company time and company vehicle lend to the argument that vicarious liability attaches, but it's not a finished case at that point. Under common law torts there's a 'frolic v. detour' rule that will relieve an employer of liability for the actions of an employee if the actions are so outside the realm of the employ as to render them a detour, as opposed to a mere frolic. Now defining frolic and detour is a pretty grey area, so there will be some litigation there unless something in Alberta case law is close to on point (which may be the case, I have no idea).

The history of driving violations this guy has also opens the door to a negligent hiring action, so even if vicarious liability isn't found there could be another path.

I'm not really that sympathetic for the company either. I'm all for second chances, but this guy seemed to have a pretty clear history of not giving a damn about safe driving.

Yeah I know about the frolic on his own defence, which probably what they will try I would think. We actually just finished going over defences and master/servant relationships and vicarious liability.

[burn_this_city]

Hes appealing his sentence..
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ce...870/story.html

[keratosis]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

He's appealing his sentence.

That's an automatic, isn't it

[flip]

Hopefully he'll be killed in prison so the length of sentence won't matter.

[dre]

"sentence is unfit"
I agree 100%.....Should be 25 years x 5.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by keratosis

That's an automatic, isn't it

Nope.. He had 30 days to appeal and they waited until the second last day.

[CaptainCrunch]

The crown should be pushing for the 11 to 16 year sentence.

What a dirt bag. Accept your guilt, do your time and hopefully come out a better person.

the only thing that this piece of human trash feels bad about is that he got caught, not that he killed a family.

[Vulcan]

Par for the course with Balfour Der. At least he's not appealing the conviction, as he doesn't mind putting families of the deceased through the ringer over and over.

[InglewoodFan]

http://http://www.calgaryherald.com/...068/story.html

Applying for parole. Won't be surprised if he gets it, it seems as long as you keep your nose clean in prison the parole board guidlines are to approve you. So what, less than 3 years served? What a pile of excrement.

[Russic]

Your link has been broken, here's a different one:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...068/story.html

Even if he was refused parole, it looks like his actual sentence would be up in about a year anyway (sentenced to 5.5 years). Unreal.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Russic

Your link has been broken, here's a different one:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...068/story.html

Even if he was refused parole, it looks like his actual sentence would be up in about a year anyway (sentenced to 5.5 years). Unreal.

He was convicted and started sentence in sept 09,(not sure if there was any time served while awaiting trial) he's asking for full parole after 3 years served...which is his right under our crazy laws.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by InglewoodFan

http://http://www.calgaryherald.com/...068/story.html

Applying for parole. Won't be surprised if he gets it, it seems as long as you keep your nose clean in prison the parole board guidlines are to approve you. So what, less than 3 years served? What a pile of excrement.

Well yeah...he's behaved himself in prison. He didn't drunkenly kill any families while locked up.
If that's not good behavior, I don't know what is.

[midniteowl]

If he get paroled, I hope the first time he gets on the road, some drunk ram into his car and kill him.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

If he get paroled, I hope the first time he gets on the road, some drunk ram into his car and kill him.

Not funny,if your serious you need help.

[Mightyfire89]

This is completely unacceptable.

This complete piece of garbage kills 5 people because it's more important to him that he drink his bottle of vodka than to care about everyone out there?

I hope this ####### dies in the most horribly painful way imaginable.