Calgary Herald

Jurors urged to reject driver’s claim that blinding sun caused deadly crash

- KEVIN MARTIN KMartin@postmedia.com Twitter: @KMartinCou­rts

A driver’s claim that blinding sunlight was to blame when she struck and killed a cyclist should be rejected, a prosecutor said Wednesday.

Crown lawyer Vince Pingitore said jurors should use common sense in determinin­g whether Joely Lambourn’s testimony should be believed.

And Pingitore said jurors should also dismiss Lambourn’s claim she never saw cyclist Deric Kryvenchuk until after she struck and killed him.

The prosecutor noted three Crown witnesses who were also driving on Highway 7, at the south end of Okotoks, on May 4, 2015, all said they saw Kryvenchuk as he rode his bike on the shoulder.

Pingitore said the five-man, six-woman jury (one juror was dismissed mid-trial) should consider the normal environmen­tal conditions for early May.

“Consider your own personal experience­s,” the prosecutor said.

“Consider the time of year, the month of May,” he said. “This was before 4 p.m.” Lambourn, 43, testified she was driving westbound when she crested a hill and was blinded by sunlight.

She testified that she veered onto the shoulder as she reached to pull her visor down and heard a loud bang, and realized she’d hit something.

But Lambourn said it wasn’t until she parked her car farther down the road and ran back to the scene that she realized that she’d struck a cyclist.

Pingitore suggested Lambourn’s claim she didn’t notice Kryvenchuk wasn’t believable.

“Each of the Crown witnesses ... testified they observed Mr. Kryvenchuk riding his bicycle on the shoulder prior to the collision,” he said as he argued that jurors should convict Lambourn of dangerous driving causing death.

But defence lawyer Mitch Stephensen said Lambourn’s driving pattern wasn’t sufficient­ly poor for jurors to find it was dangerous.

“We don’t deny that Ms. Lambourn’s driving at the time of the hill caused Mr. Kryvenchuk’s death,” Stephensen said.

“The issue is whether the driving that caused the death was, in fact, dangerous,” he said.

The lawyer said there is a difference between intentiona­lly bad driving and an inadverten­t act.

“People can make mistakes and accidents do happen,” Stephensen said.

“And being involved in a tragic

Simply because there was an accident, or someone was killed, does not necessaril­y prove that the driving was dangerous.

one does not automatica­lly make you a criminal.

“Simply because there was an accident, or someone was killed, does not necessaril­y prove that the driving was dangerous. We’ve all had momentary lapses when we’re driving, but it doesn’t make us criminals, it makes us human.”

Jurors will receive final legal instructio­ns from Justice Earl Wilson on Thursday morning before beginning deliberati­ons.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada