ASHNI’S ACCIDENT

Mar 05, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

In one of the most memorable scenes from the movie ‘And Justice for All’, the defence lawyer, Arthur Kirkland, played by Al Pacino, is making his opening remarks to the jury.  He accuses the Prosecutor of tapping into a common emotion: that which says, “Let’s get somebody in power; let’s get a judge.”
This is exactly the same emotion that is being tapped into by many of those who have arrogated to themselves the right to comment on the accident/collision that took place on Mash Night and which involved the Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh.
Many of those making uninformed comments are more interested in tapping into certain emotions than they are about determining the facts, culpability and liability. Many of the comments have appealed to that emotion that says when it comes to enforcing the law there are two sets of standards: one for those in authority and another set for the ordinary citizen.
Many would love nothing better than to see the Minister severely reprimanded. As a consequence all manner of accusations, most of which cannot be substantiated are being made.  A great many assumptions are also being made that are not necessarily valid. This particular column addresses these issues.
The first issue is the question of equality before the law. There are subtle implications being suggested that the failure so far of the authorities to charge the Minister somehow suggests that he is being afforded special treatment. This position is based on the assumption that the Minister is somehow culpable for the accident. It is also premised on a belief that whoever is wrong in an accident should be charged.
The basis of the first assumption, that is, the culpability of the minister, is that the vehicle the Minister was driving was proceeding along a minor road while the other vehicle was on the major road. As such, it is being contended that the Minister did not stop at the junction and collided with the other vehicle.
Even if it is true that the Minister did not stop, it does necessarily automatically follow that he is culpable. Let us assume for argument’s sake that it was small child on foot instead of the Minister that was approaching that junction. The child without ensuring that it was safe to proceed across the junction moved into the path of the incoming vehicle. Let us assume that the other vehicle could have avoided hitting the child but did not. Who in such a case would be liable? Would it be the child or would it be the person who though on the right away failed to take evasive action when it was possible to do so?
Many drivers in Guyana are of the mistaken belief that because they are on a major road approaching a junction with a minor road that they are not required to proceed along the right of way with due caution. Even if someone jumps a stop sign at a junction, so long as the other vehicle is proceeding with due care and caution and at the designated speed, there is always a possibility of avoiding a collision. There have been numerous cases where motorists have jumped intersections and collided with other vehicles and held not to be either liable or fully liable because the other driver may have either been proceeding dangerously or failed to take evasive action.
It is for the police to investigate the circumstances of the accident and to decide who is liable or whether there is contributory negligence. It does not follow automatically that because someone jumped onto a major road and collided with another vehicle, that person is guilty of an offence. It depends on the overall facts of the case, including accommodations for blind spots, darkness of the area, and the speed with which the respective vehicles were proceeding.
The second assumption is that whoever is culpable for an accident should be charged. This however is not always the case. There are hundreds of accidents in which no party is charged. In some of these cases the police may advise private action. In others, the parties to the accident may agree not to pursue prosecution of each other. And in many cases, actually proving the standard of careless of dangerous driving may be difficult, even if one person accepts culpability for the accident.
There have been criticisms also about the Minister not rendering assistance. This is a most disingenuous proposition. Again this proposition is based on two sets of assumptions. The first is that there were persons other than the Minister who required assistance and secondly that the Minister himself was capable of rendering assistance.
Many years ago, there was a gentleman who was involved in an accident and sought to render assistance to other passengers, one of whom had suffered injuries to his neck. Not being competent in how to handle persons with neck injuries, the gentleman ended up causing more harm than good when he opted to have the person with the injury sit upright. This however does not mean that assistance should be rendered where it is necessary to do so. The law in fact obligates one to do so.
In the case of the accident involving the Minister, he can claim that he too required assistance or was in such a shaken state that he could not respond or needed to get to the hospital to ensure that he did not suffer internal injuries.
But aside from this which some may consider as facetious, there is the more material fact that immediately after the accident, numerous persons converged on the scene and offered assistance to both the Minister and to the occupants of the other vehicle. This makes moot the issue of the Minister not rendering assistance.
In addition, the Attorney General has come in for flak for meeting with the other parties to the accident. It is claimed that the Attorney General should not be acting in a private capacity.
Well, in this instance he is not. The vehicle being driven by the Minister belongs to the State and therefore it is the State that may incur a liability in respect to damage to the other vehicle. And it is the Attorney General who in any civil proceedings will be required to be answerable because he represents the owners of the vehicle, the State. He therefore has every right to be involved in a settlement.

---

---