As I understand it, getting someone killed through negligence of any kind is manslaughter.
So I'd say yes.
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
47 points (91.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43755 readers
2136 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't know if anyone's tried to prosecute this, though. It would seem kinda mean after someone's been in a serious accident.
Also, IANAL, but there can be factors that protect you from charges sometimes. If the driver knew you weren't wearing a seatbelt it probably becomes their fault in my jurisdiction, and if there's debate about who knew what that's reasonable doubt right there.
I'm having a hard time imagining an accident caused by not wearing a seatbelt... I guess maybe being thrown from the vehicle and hitting a passenger in another car who was wearing a seatbelt?
Or a passenger in the same car. People are heavy, and there's enough force involved here to move the "projectile" all kinds of places.
If you don't wear your seatbelt in the back of the car, you become a projectile who can possibly break one or two necks on the way out of the front window.
Caution CW: contains simulated road accident resulting in death - was considered safe for TV in the UK
I think OP was picturing a situation like this.
Are you saying the driver is wearing the seatbelt, the passenger(s) aren't?
And how does the death result? Is it because of an accident? Are they messing/moving around in the car? Are they legally allowed to not be wearing a seatbelt in the vehicle?
There's too many undefined variables I think for anyone to give you a solid answer.
I've heard it mentioned that a passenger in the rear without a seat belt becomes a projectile in a crash and can kill or injure the person sitting in front of them.
That's on the driver. If you're driving, you are responsible for everyone in the car and out of it. If you drove off with someone unbuckled, that's on you.
That was my thoughts
It depends on the Jurisdiction.
IANAL, but in Australia, the Driver is responsible if any passengers are not wearing their seatbelt.
Same idea, but if a pedestrian is jaywalking across a street, technically illegal and it's not a safe move - but is struck by a car - the car is still at fault. As a driver you are still in charge of driving a 2-5 thousand pound hunk of steel and you accept that risk when you get behind the wheel. So I think logically, what the person was doing was not the smartest - but that doesn't mean they deserved death for it - you are responsible.
Think about it this way - if you hadn't been there driving would they have been fine? If so, you caused it, you're at fault.
Same applies to rape and dressing provocatively. It's an irrelevant argument because it puts blame on the victim, when no matter what they do they don't deserve that outcome. The blame is on the person who caused it in the first place.
I'm sorry, but this kind of logic just baffles me. Are you talking out of your ass on this one? If you're driving and I'll jump onto the road right in front of you, will you still be at fault? Where in the world would that be the case? If I come to a factory and stick my hand into a wood chipper that someone was operating and then say "whoever the hell was operating this 5 thousand pound hunk of steel should be at fault now!", would I be correct in my logic?
Think about it this way - if you hadn't been there driving would they have been fine? If so, you caused it, you're at fault
This is next level mental gymnastics. If someone robbed you, think about it this way - if you hadn't been there, none of it would have happened. So maybe you're at fault after all
It's easy. You decided to drive a vehicle, you're at fault, it's your job to watch out for pedestrians. If you can't stop in time, you're moving too fast. If your vehicle is so large that it kills them instead of simply hurting them (see - large trucks with huge grills instead of safer lower fronts), then you're at fault 100% because you chose an unsafe vehicle. If you can't see them because it was at night, still I don't care, that was on you, you should be able to see them. Feel free to argue it in court, that's what they're there for, but duty should on the driver to prove that, they were the one operating the heavy machinery. If that worries you or makes you feel emotions then good. You should feel nervous when you drive a vehicle, it's quite literally heavy machinery that you're hurtling forward at 60mph. You're responsible for it.
You didn't adress any of my points though, can you please come out of your bubble?
Fine, you want me to be explicit?
If youβre driving and Iβll jump onto the road right in front of you, will you still be at fault?
Yes. I would be at fault. I'm the one driving a hunk of metal that is capable of easily killing people, you could be drunk, delirious, it doesn't matter. It's on me.
Where in the world would that be the case?
I say everywhere.
If I come to a factory and stick my hand into a wood chipper that someone was operating and then say βwhoever the hell was operating this 5 thousand pound hunk of steel should be at fault now!β
Irrelevant. Streets are not supposed to be deathtraps. No one deserves to die simply by wandering into the street. Again, drunk, delirious, or a child - none of them deserve to die because they wandered into the street.
If someone robbed you, think about it this way - if you hadnβt been there, none of it would have happened.
Again, victim blaming. It is not the victims fault. It doesn't matter that they were there, if they had 100 sticking out of their pocket. Still robbery. It doesn't matter if a woman is revealing "too much". Still rape. It doesn't matter why a person was in the street. They're still dead.
If you don't appreciate what you're capable of when you're driving, then you shouldn't be driving.
Feel free to argue it in court
Sadly, there are plenty of instances of drivers who killed pedestrians doing just that and succeeding. Heck, in two cases the pedestrian was on the sidewalk or inside a building.
- https://dailyprogress.com/news/local/charlottesville-driver-found-not-guilty-of-ivy-road-pedestrian-death/article_f6620862-b94d-11ed-8e8e-2bdbe8368a37.html
- https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/bus-driver-found-not-guilty-in-pedestrian-death-1.1362139
- https://www.kolotv.com/content/news/Reno-police-investigating-pedestrian-injury-accident-on-Plumb-Lane--427602243.html
- https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2019/01/04/driver-found-not-guilty-in/6376784007/
- https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2022/08/18/lamborghini-driver-found-not-guilty-over-pedestrian-death
- https://globalnews.ca/video/3873815/driver-found-not-guilty-of-killing-pedestrian-on-leslieville-sidewalk
I think it happens even more when it comes to cyclists being killed by drivers
My grandpa ran over a woman who walked into the street late at night. There was no way for him to have avoided it. He did not get in trouble. This was in California.
It still falls back onto the driver, as they chose to start driving without everyone buckled in.
What if the passenger unbuckles half way through?
In the US at least, it's not a requirement to wear a seatbelt in the back seat most places.
I
These laws differ widely from state to state and there are different requirements for minors and adults.
O.o this comment is from 2024?
The US continues to surprise me.
In Canada the driver is penalized if any of their passengers are not wearing a seatbelt. Refusal to wear one means getting booted from the vehicle.
According to this page, you could attempt to argue "lack of causation" if there was no connection between you not wearing a seat belt and your passenger getting killed.
But, the person who died is buckled in. That's how I read it.
Yes, and that is my point: unless you wearing a seat belt somehow made the accident more likely to happen, it really doesn't seem like manslaughter applies here.
I think the unbelted passenger became the lethal projectile in this case (and somehow survived to be prosecuted).