[News] Deadly driver loses appeal

[Rob]

Deadly driver loses appeal

By DOUG BEAZLEY AND MAX MAUDIE, SUN MEDIA

March 1, 2007


A city man whose dangerous high-speed driving led to the death of a pedestrian saw his appeal tossed by a three-judge panel this week.

Ricky Richardson, 59, was convicted Nov. 8 of dangerous driving causing death for an Aug. 5, 2004 collision that killed Irene Nicholson, a 55-year-old mother of two.

Yesterday, Nicholson's husband Mike said he was pleased with the decision.

"I'm just glad this is some kind of closure.

"(But) it'll never bring Irene back," he told the Sun.

He had feared Richardson would win his appeal, but told himself "I'm never going to give up, because she was such a wonderful lady.

"She deserves me going to the end."

The trial judge found that Richardson was driving dangerously when he hit the throttle on his 500-horsepower supercharged Corvette at a city intersection in August 2005.

Richardson's car struck a median and spun onto a sidewalk, striking Nicholson and sending her flying 10 to 15 feet in the air.

Richardson was convicted last year and given an 18-month conditional sentence, which included one year of house arrest and a ban from driving for five years.

His appeal claimed the trial judge failed to take into account the failure of a "traction control" system in the Corvette.

But the appeal court ruled Richardson was wholly at fault.

"(The) evidence is insufficient to indicate a reasonably held belief that rapid acceleration to two-thirds throttle was inherently safe due to the expected operation of the traction control system," the court ruled.

Mike said he'd like an apology from Richardson, though he doesn't expect one. And he was critical of Richardson's dabbling with powerful, youthful toys.

"This guy's trying to relive his childhood and it's retarded.

"He's always denied everything (and said) that he's got no involvement."

The judges also shot down another angle of Richardson's defence - that he'd revved the Corvette before without causing harm.

"The fact that a dangerous act has not resulted in harm on other occasions is not evidence that the dangerous activity is actually safe," the court ruled.

Source: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmo...80582-sun.html