Sleeping at the wheel is no crime: Supreme Court
Richard Foot, Canwest News Service
Published: Saturday, February 23, 2008
Drivers who fall asleep behind the wheel or commit "momentary acts of negligence" should not be held criminally responsible for their mistakes -- even if there are devastating consequences, says the Supreme Court of Canada.
In a unanimous ruling on Friday, the nine justices of the country's highest court restored the acquittal of a British Columbia man charged with dangerous driving causing death, following a tragic accident in 2003.
Justin Beatty was driving his pickup truck on the Trans-Canada Highway near Chase, B.C., on a clear summer day when the truck briefly crossed the centre line of the road and collided with an oncoming car, killing three aboriginal women inside.
At the scene, a stunned Beatty told police and paramedics that he had either fallen asleep behind the wheel, or lost consciousness due to heatstroke, after working all day in the sun.
There was no evidence of intoxication, and witnesses driving behind Beatty said his truck had been driven normally, at the legal speed, before the crash.
Still, Beatty was charged with three counts of dangerous driving causing death, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.
He was acquitted by his trial judge, who said Beatty's "few seconds of negligent driving" -- while making him liable for civil damages -- were not enough to be called a crime.
The B.C. Court of Appeal disagreed and ordered a new trial, saying the mere fact that Beatty's truck crossed the road, regardless of whether it was a momentary mistake, constituted dangerous driving.
Beatty appealed to the Supreme Court, which on Friday struck down the previous order and restored his acquittal.
Although the Supreme Court has ruled before on the question of dangerous driving, Beatty's case is important for drivers across the country because of what the court says about the fatal yet utterly momentary nature of his negligence.
"Even the most able and prudent driver will from time to time suffer from momentary lapses of attention," said Justice Louise Charron, writing for the court.
"Such automatic and reflexive conduct may even pose a danger to other users of the highway. Indeed, the facts in this case provide a graphic example."
Yet driving, said Charron, is "inherently risky . . . if every departure from the civil norm is to be criminalized, regardless of the degree, we risk casting the net too widely and branding as criminals persons who are in reality not morally blameworthy."
