No charges against officer whose cruiser struck senior

An officer driving a Windsor police cruiser “simply did not see” an 87-year-old man who was using a mobility scooter at a crosswalk — but the resulting collision doesn’t warrant criminal charges, according to the Special Investigations Unit.

The province’s SIU has finished its examination of the Sept. 2 incident that seriously injured an elderly man at the intersection of Wyandotte Street East and Mcdougall Street.

“How it is that the (subject officer) failed to see the complainant remains unknown. Perhaps he was distracted by something or other,” wrote SIU interim director Joseph Martino.

The collision happened shortly before 9:30 a.m. The roads were dry and the weather was clear.

The 87-year-old man was on his mobility scooter on the southeast corner of the intersection. He waited for the traffic lights to change, then proceeded north into the designated crosswalk.

“It is apparent that the complainant did nothing wrong to cause or contribute to the collision,” Martino wrote. “He had the right of way on a green light and was entitled to expect that traffic around him would yield pending his safe passage across the crosswalk.”

However, one vehicle did not yield: Surveillance and traffic cameras showed a Windsor police Dodge Charger heading south on Mcdougall Street turned left into the eastbound lane, colliding with the man and the scooter in the process.

The man was knocked off his scooter and suffered a serious head injury. The officer got out of the cruiser to help him until paramedics arrived and took him to hospital.

“As a motorist on the highway, the (subject officer) was legally obliged pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act to refrain from turning left until it was safe to do so and yield to pedestrians lawfully within a crosswalk. He clearly failed in these duties,” Martino wrote.

“The question is whether the (subject officer)’s transgressions ran afoul of the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

“In my view, they did not.” Martino cited a Supreme Court of Canada decision that expressed its reluctance to brand “a momentary lapse in judgment” as criminal driving conduct.

There were no indications of excessive speed or reckless disregard for public safety.

“In the result, while I accept that the (officer) is responsible for the regrettable collision that resulted in the complainant’s injury, I am not satisfied on reasonable grounds that the officer’s conduct was sufficiently wanting to attract criminal liability,” Martino concluded.