Probation for driver seriously injured in crash

| 03/11/2017 | 7 Comments

(CNS): A man severely injured in a two-car collision in which he was thrown from the driver’s seat was allowed to plead guilty to a charge of careless driving by the crown Thursday, and was subsequently sentenced to 18 months probation. Dominique Pearson (34) was not wearing a seatbelt and driving about 52mph in a 40mph zone on Shamrock Road, Bodden Town, near Rankin’s Jerk Centre when he drifted seven feet into the other lane, hitting an oncoming car. Both his wife, who was in the passenger’s seat, and the driver of the other car suffered minor injuries in the crash, which occurred in October 2013.

Pearson’s car hit a wall at Rankin’s and wound up spinning 360 degrees, during which he was thrown, causing significant injuries. As a result of the accident, Pearson has suffered from Pseudobulbar affect, a condition causing him to have bursts of inappropriate anger or laughter, defence counsel Christer Brady told Justice Marlene Carter.

Brady explained that Pearson has no recollection of the accident and was in no position to satisfy any financial condition imposed by the court. He added that Pearson still lives with his partner and they share 12 children, eight of whom are Pearson’s, with one more on the way. Brady told the magistrate that it was unknown how long Pearson’s financial difficulties and physical incapacity would persist.

In recounting the details of the case, crown counsel Greg Walcomb referred to recent Summary Court convictions for DUI and using a vehicle with an expired licence, for which Pearson was given one-year probation as well as revocation of his licence for 12 months from October this year. He also noted that a seatbelt offence remains to be dealt with in Traffic Court.

Walcomb said the sentence for careless driving could be a fine of $1,000 or six months in prison, or both, or a disqualification of not more than 12 months.

After hearing from the two lawyers, Justice Carter noted that the defendant still suffered from injuries from the accident, which occurred four years ago. In determining the appropriate sentence, she said, “Clearly, the court would have in mind to impose a fine”, but added that Pearson’s position would make that “onerous”.

She then sentenced him to 18 months probation, with no conditions, to be served concurrently with his Summary Court sentence.

Tags:

Category: Courts, Crime

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. "Anonymousir" says:

    Brady explained that Pearson has no recollection of the accident and “was in no position to satisfy any financial condition imposed by the court.” He can’t afford finances from the court? but has a lawyer ….




    9



    2
  2. Veritas says:

    Yet another driver who “remembers nothing”. He has no money, 12 children, yet he has another one on the way, and was convicted of DUI. His licence should have been revoked for 5 years as he could have killed the occupants of the other car.




    29



    0
  3. Anonymous says:

    In regards to the longstanding epidemic levels of impaired driving, we need to amend the Traffic Law to lower the acceptable blood alcohol level from Caribbean-leading 0.1% to Global norm of 0.05%, criminalize this offense, and penalize bars and restaurants that allow their patrons to juice up and get behind the wheel to roll the dice with innocent people’s lives. Drivers should have zero blood alcohol levels. We also need THC test kits, with legislated limits of <50ng/ml, as well as widespread high profile education on the dangers of driving impaired in any form. All the cars driving around without their headlights after dusk should be pulled over for probable cause. Given the innocent blood shed over the last 40 years, all the families of victims killed or paralyzed, one would think it would be easy and logical to do all of this…




    14



    4
    • Anonymous says:

      As with most things here we don’t need new laws, or even changes, we just need the ones we’ve got enforced. If we were having a bunch of accidents where people were blowing a 0.06 or similiar it would make sense, but we don’t, we have people blowing a 0.2 or 0.3…I would like to see it law that headlights are required when it rains as well.




      14



      0

Please include your email address in the form below if you are using your real name. You can use a pseudonym, with or without leaving an email address, or just leave the form blank to be "Anonymous". All comments will be moderated before they are published. Please read the CNS Comment Policy at the top of this page.