Quick Fire Questions (A Place to Ask and Answer)

[springs]

Can't help with one but two is I'm pretty sure true - dependent on the nature of the injury and I would guess how far on the pregnancy is.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Mouse

1. If a driver knocked down and killed a child, how long would they get in jail?

He/she might not go to jail - it depends on how culpable he/she is. If a child runs out in front of you and you do everything right but just can't stop in time, then it's an accident and no prosecution. If your attention is distracted for a moment eg by your own crying baby, then it would probably be only careless driving, for which the norm is a fine -- though checking I see there might be an offence of causing death by careless driving for which the max is 5 years. (It's confusing -- I can see the Act but can't work out if it's in force yet.) Then there's reckless driving (eg using the laptop while driving) which gets higher sentences and repeat offenders do, too. NB Killing a child raises emotions, but the judge has to sentence for the offence, not for its consequences.

Worst case, likely 3 or 4 years I think, though how much is actually served is another matter, but if this is for the book, then you'd need to do a good bit more research. Check out a few local papers. Just recently there was a new road deaths map which came out -- you can log in and find when and where accidents happened, how many killed etc. Using that you could research in local papers to find out the results of any court proceedings.


EDIT: here's the map I was talking about http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15975720

PS If you're going to write a court scene, for goodness sake go to a court and watch them in action -- don't rely on what you see on TV which is nonsense half the time (except for that ludicrous Eternal Law which was nonsense all the time...)

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by The Judge

if this is for the book, then you'd need to do a good bit more research.

Don't worry, I've not run anybody over.

Thanks TJ, Springs.

I'm thinking that it'd be somebody going to jail instead of somebody else - they said they were driving when they weren't, sort of thing.

Although my problem is that I tend to run over people a lot in my stories. A lot. So not keen on doing it again, really.

Which leads me to the pregnancy thing. It'd be an accident where the driver (not the mum) was fine, but the lady passenger lost the baby.

edit: no court scenes, don't worry. It's for a flashback, so any court scenes would've happened off page.

[Hex]

Mouse -- when someone's pregnant they're advised to wear the seat belt under the bump, which can be fairly uncomfortable (but -- according to babycentre -- there are risks to positioning the lap belt across your bump). A seat belt positioned across your bump could, in an accident, damage the placenta (which you need) or -- according to the more dramatic babyworld -- "cause the placenta to tear away from the uterus" (which is bad).

In fact, seat belts when you're pregnant can be pretty uncomfortable, and people don't always wear them -- which is clearly not a brilliant plan.

There are things you can buy to redirect force/ change the way the belt works etc. For example, this new kind of seat belt. There are claims (which I don't know much about) that with traditional seat belts the diagonal belt crossing the body can be dangerous to the foetus in an accident. You can't win, really, except by buying a fancy new seat belt...

So: yes, a car crash could result in the death of an unborn baby. I would imagine that it would get more dangerous when there was a visible bump (ie: from maybe 18 weeks) and, if it's placenta damage, before the baby is 'viable' outside the womb (I'm guessing now -- I don't know how fast damage to the placenta would affect the baby). I'd guess riskiest times might be 18 to 30 weeks. I don't know if any of that's relevant...

[Mouse]

Thanks Hex. I didn't know that about the seatbelt, that's interesting. So if the passenger was wearing a seatbelt across her bump and the car had a clang, then it's likely that only the baby would be hurt?

TJ, that map's really interesting, thanks. Not surprising where the accidents are around my area. I'm very often late for work because of all the accidents on that particular road.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Mouse

I'm thinking that it'd be somebody going to jail instead of somebody else - they said they were driving when they weren't, sort of thing.

What you're looking at there is perverting the course of justice for which the maximum is life (for both parties, ie the one who drove and the one who claimed to be driving). So it's ripe for blackmail attempts!

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by The Judge

What you're looking at there is perverting the course of justice for which the maximum is life (for both parties, ie the one who drove and the one who claimed to be driving). So it's ripe for blackmail attempts!

Aaah! No, see that's perfect.

Now I don't know what to do.

[David Evil Overlord]

I know of one case where the accident caused a pregnant woman to lose her baby. However, the law in our state at that time did not recognise a fetus as alive until birth, so the driver responsible only got a fine for careless driving or something.

[springs]

I think Hex is probably right about the time scale; the baby is pretty well protected in the early stages. In trtms of the placenta it depends how badly it was damaged but it can cause massive bleeding so the mother's in danger too if it's damaged.

[Mouse]

Ok so... say there were three people in a car. Two men and a pregnant woman. They had an accident and the woman lost the baby. The men lie about who is driving.

Is that all still perverting the course of justice? What would happen there? What would the 'driver' get? A fine?

[The Judge]

The men are perverting the course of justice. The woman, too, if she gives a statement to the police and doesn't tell the truth (though she'd likely get a lesser sentence by far in the circumstances). But you've got no death. As far as I'm aware, it's still the case in English law that the foetus is legally not a person, so the baby's death doesn't amount to killing under the relevant provisions -- as David has noted the law was then in his state.

Penalties depend on the offence and what mitigation can be brought. As I've said, a momentary loss of concentration is one thing, driving recklessly ie 90mph in a 30mph zone, or under the influence of drink or drugs will result in higher charges and higher sentences.

[Mouse]

Hmm. I'm not sure there needs to be a death in the eyes of the law, just in the woman's eyes.

So, say both men had been drinking. They crash. Baby dies. Men lie about who's driving.

The men would be thinking that the driver would be in trouble, I'm guessing, that's why they lie.

Nobody has to go to jail. I just want huge amounts of guilt.

Thanks TJ, this is hugely helpful.

[springs]

I do know at the time of the omagh bombing over here, one of the victims was pregnant with twins and they have never been able to be taken into account either from teh civil lawsuit or in terms of the victim numbers. Sad, innit.

[Mouse]

Tis pretty sad.

[Vertigo]

My only problem is that the men's lie about who is driving would have to be confirmed by the pregnant woman, and your posts suggest that she might not be too happy about that.