There was a man called William Wee. He was driving home to conduct his bible study. It was a winter night and very dark but not that he couldn't drive alone and see where to park. A pedestrian crossed at defective cross walk with lights that did not activate.

There was a man called William Wee. He was driving home to conduct his bible study. It was a winter night and very dark but not that he couldn't drive alone and see where to park.  A pedestrian crossed at defective cross walk  with lights that did not activate.   It was illegal and she committed a highway Traffic Act offense(see foot note 1) by entering the roadway illegally at a non-functioning Pedestrian cross walk. It was winter and the pedestrian may not have noticed that the lights were not working but she is an adult and is entirely responsible for her own safety when it comes to entering the roadway illegally.   Since it was dark and she should have also paid more attention to her surroundings.  A functional traffic light with pedestrian crossing was less than 250 meters away and if her own safety was her paramount concern, then she should have opted to use the traffic lights. she was reckless as to her own safety and being a student of the neighboring college is not an alibi. She was also a police applicant.

She was named Malintenthotra. She had no injuries after a collision with the vehicle driven by William Wee.  There were four police witnesses and a few ambulance drivers. It was quite conclusive. She committed an offense. Mr. Wee was not speeding and did not commit any HTA or Provincial offense.   Ms. Malintenthotra sued the Hydro company as the pedestrian crosswalk was defective. She also sued the driver, Mr. Wee, but he is not liable to answer to Ms. Malintenthotra for her own malfeasance. She is not a victim under the law of tort. Mr. Wee is not a tort feaser.  However, he must answer the law suit. His lawyer made it abundantly clear that he is not liable  and she be released from the proceeding or else he would be entitled to significant costs. Zero costs were offered in settlement and then costs of more than $60,000.00 was requested in settlement to allow Mr. Wee his full and final release since it was asinine.  It was a case heard in the courts of Johannesburg, South Africa. Mr. Wee was also aided by what seemed like consistent character but then he lied before a court officer about money.   His lawyer wanted to have the matter resolved in court with a motion but when the client lies about money, his credibility is zero if the matter was to go to trial. The lawyers defending Malintenthotra would have a field day with him at trial except they could not out maneuver  the witness statements of four impartial officers who explained the accident scene and the ambulance drivers who could attest to Mr. Wee's lack of culpability. There is no judgement against his original lawyer but the second lawyer who represented the owner Mrs. Wee Wee and the driver  Mr. WEE WEE who were in direct conflict of interest went to jail for trying to assist Mr. Wee with a fraud on the court concerning the first lawyer's fees.   They were beheaded by the Saudi Prince who built a gleaming white pyramid-like temple to worship the Agha Khan in Johannesburg since they offended the natural law. Mr. WEE WEE, however, is the only tortious victim since the law does not say a suicidal Asian female who jumps off a bridge and hits a vehicle on the way to the ground is a victim. No. She is a tortfeaser whether she jumps off the bridge illegally or walks into the road illegally contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. 


They both went to jail; Mr. Wee Wee and his second lawyer who billed Mr. WEE $100,000.00 and said work against it.





 ------------------------

Foot note 1:  Duties of pedestrian when walking along highway

179. (1) Where sidewalks are not provided on a highway, a pedestrian walking along the highway shall walk on the left side thereof facing oncoming traffic and, when walking along the roadway, shall walk as close to the left edge thereof as possible. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 179 (1).  Highway Traffic Act.

Pedestrian crossing
144(22) Where portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use, no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (22).
Pedestrian - green light
(23) Subject to subsections (24) and (27), a pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular green indication or a straight-ahead green arrow indication and facing the indication may cross the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (23).

Pedestrian - stopping at flashing green light
(24) No pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal and facing a flashing circular green indication or a solid or a flashing left turn arrow indication in conjunction with a circular green indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (24).

Pedestrian - stopping at red or amber light
(25) No pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal and facing a red or amber indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (25).

Pedestrian control signals - walk
(26) Where pedestrian control signals are installed and show a "walk" indication, every pedestrian facing the indication may cross the roadway in the direction of the indication despite subsections (24) and (25). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (26).

Pedestrian control signals - don't walk
(27) No pedestrian approaching pedestrian control signals and facing a solid or flashing "don't walk" indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (27).

Pedestrian right of way
(28) Every pedestrian who lawfully enters a roadway in order to cross may continue the crossing as quickly as reasonably possible despite a change in the indication he or she is facing and, for purposes of the crossing, has the right of way over vehicles. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (28).         

• Pedestrian fail to use crosswalk - $50.00
• Pedestrian disobey green, red light, don't walk signal - $50.0