Criminology: Analysis of Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm and Death

This article analyzes the case of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and death under Section 249 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It discusses relevant case laws and possible defenses.

Running head: CRIMINOLOGY
Criminology
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRIMINOLOGY
Issue
To ascertain whether Pluto is guilty of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous
driving causing bodily harm.
Rule
Section 249 of the Criminal Code of Canada in its Subsection 1(a) states that it is an
offence to drive a motor vehicle, which is dangerous to the public, considering the nature and
condition of the road, vehicle and the amount of traffic at the time of the accident ("Criminal
Code", 2018). Subsection 1(b) states that it is an offence to operate a floating vessel on water
in a manner that is dangerous to the public, considering the nature and condition of the water-
body and the vessel at the particular given time. Subsection 1(c) of the Code specifies that
flying an aircraft in such a way that it may be dangerous to the public, be held as an offence;
taking the nature and condition of the airspace and the aircraft at the specified time into
account. Lastly, under subsection 1(d) dangerously driving a railway equipment, which has
the potential to harm the public, is held as an offence considering all the peculiarities, like the
nature and condition of the railways track and the equipment at the given time.
Section 249(3) of the Criminal Code states that when an offence is committed under
subsection 1 of section 249 of the Code and such offence is resulting in bodily harm of a
victim, the offender would be liable to imprisonment for a term not more than 10 years.
Section 249(4) of the Criminal Code states that when an offence is committed under
Section 249(1) of the Code and such offence has caused death of a person, the offender
would be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 14 years or less.

2CRIMINOLOGY
However, in R. v. Plumpton, 2014 ABQB 385 a vehicle could not hit the brake, went
through Stop sign, and hit a car. It was held that a man of common prudence would not have
comprehended the risk of momentary slip of attention, or else would have taken a precaution
to avoid the danger to the public. In this case, the accused was acquitted citing the defense of
lack of mens rea and foreseeability of the risk. The court held that the evidence is not
supportive of the accusation that the accused had failed to adopt the standard of care that is
expected from a prudent man in the exact same situation.
In R. v. Ciantis, 2011 BCCA 437 the accused was initially held liable for hitting a car,
and causing death and injury. The accused argued in his defense that it was normal to exceed
the speed in that road for it being empty and his change of lanes was induced by another
driver’s action. The court held that the evidence produced against the accused was
insufficient to hold him guilty. Therefore, in absence of substantial evidence, the accused was
given the benefit of doubt and hence was acquitted.
In R. v. Martin, 2012 BCCA 194, the accused was acquitted, even though his
dangerous driving causing injury to a person, citing the defense of ignorance as to the
standard of the vehicle. It was justified by the defense lawyer that Martin was not a seasoned
driver to drive a powerful vehicle like Mustang. It was found that Martin had a difficulty
controlling the vehicle while bringing it to a stop. Martin was in no situation to apprehend the
risk of loss of control that would be dangerous to public. Hence, he was acquitted.
In the case of R. v. Garnham, 2012 MBQB 231 the accused caused death due to a
collision in the highway however she tried his best to avoid the accident and justified himself
by mentioning that the he could not see the victim’s car as it must have been in his blind spot
or due to the glaring sun. It was held by the court that the accused had no mens rea and the

3CRIMINOLOGY
traffic in a distance was barely traceable either due to the sun, the curve of the road or the
obstruction of view (the blind spot).
Application
In the given case, Pluto could be held guilty of dangerously driving causing bodily
harm and causing death under Section 249 of the Criminal Code of Canada. However, he has
the defense to plead innocence on the term that he was diagnosed with epileptic condition and
therefore he should be acquitted on such medical grounds. Additionally, it could also be taken
into consideration that Pluto could not foresee the risk and thus he had no mens rea for
committing the offence.
Conclusion
Pluto would be acquitted from the charges of dangerously driving causing bodily
harm and death for his medical condition.

4CRIMINOLOGY
References
Criminal Code. (2018). Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-
249.html
R. v. Ciantis, 2011 BCCA 437
R. v. Garnham, 2012 MBQB 231
R. v. Martin, 2012 BCCA 194
R. v. Plumpton, 2014 ABQB 385