What is obligatory in a car accident in which one of the workers died?

The questioner : The owner of an establishment has a group of workers under his sponsorship. As he traveled from one city to another, he was carrying some of them with him.

The Shaykh : He drove the car at high speed, then the car overturned, and one of the workers died. He sent his family a full compensation. Is he still required to perform expiation after that, or is the compensation sufficient?
If it is established that the accident was due to negligence or excess—negligence is leaving off what is obligatory, and excess is doing what is not permissible. Negligence is leaving off what is obligatory, such as when the car requires checking, but he neglected it, saying, "The distance is short, and it is not from Allah, it is not from the road, we found that only a cell phone was used, so the accident happened." In this case, we say the man is negligent. He also says the man did not place the traffic signs and the starting signs. What are they? The signals. For example, if the light went out under the signal and he fixed it, we say this man is negligent, not negligent, because the harm is what is obligatory upon him. As for excess, it is doing what is not permissible. It is obligatory to load the car with more than it can bear. What is this? Excess or intoxication? Excess, because it exceeds the limit. Loading the car with what it cannot bear is a valid cause for it to be among the accidents. And it is like speeding at an illegal speed. And I feel in my hearts the denial of the word "legal."
But if the law is derived from the Shari'ah, it is part of the condition, and you may name it whatever you wish, unless it arises from a limited naming, in which case it prevents the naming. The law, the system, and the system of the rulers is obligatory to implement, as long as it does not involve disobedience to Allah. The evidence for its obligation is the saying of Allah the Exalted: And among them are the rulers, the judges, and the scholars. The scholars are the rulers in explaining the condition, and the judges are the rulers in applying the condition. And upon each of the two is a great responsibility, just as they have a right over the general public. A man passed by the signal, and the signal was red, meaning stop, but he exceeded it, and a situation occurred. What is it called? A valid one or a negligent one? Excess or distortion? This is excess because he said, what does he want? Fine. A man stopped at the signal when the load was added, stopped, and said, "I fear Allah." And another man stopped and said, "I fear the nine hundred riyals." Which one is correct? The one who said, "I fear Allah," because the rulers raised these signs, and they are silent signs that speak. No? Silent signs that speak. They point with this signal to stop, and the other signal points to continue. So they are silent signs that speak. And therefore, I say now that exceeding the signal with the red light is considered disobedience to Allah, because it is contrary to the orders of whom? To the orders of the rulers, who ordered obedience to them without disobedience. That is important. The rule for us, so that you know these evidences, is to apply the following: If the accident is the result of negligence or excess, then upon the one who caused it is expiation to Allah and compensation to the heirs of the deceased. The compensation to the heirs of the deceased is dropped by the forgiveness of the heirs of the killed person. And here is an important point: the one who was killed by the accident may have something upon him. Is it permissible for the one who is certain to forgive the killer? Pay attention to this, because some people now forgive and do not inform the court that the killed person had a debt, and the judge does not know. And if the compensation becomes obligatory, it is among the things that are distinguished from what is owed to him, and he inherits from him. A second time, and a third is taken from it, and the two-thirds are restricted to the heirs if he had bequeathed the third. And on this basis, the forgiveness of the heirs is not valid if the killed person had a debt. And if the killed person had young children. Oh, allow the forgiveness, oh, trustee. If the inheritance is restricted to these young children, then the brother does not know. But if he has other adult heirs, then the contract is valid in their right, not in the right of the young ones.
I say that if a person is the cause of the accident and one died because of him, then two rights are attached to him: a right for the deceased, a right for Allah, and a right for the heirs of the deceased. The right of the heirs of the deceased is dropped by forgiveness, but the right of Allah is not dropped except by performance. Even if the heirs forgive, the expiation remains. And even if the heirs forgive the compensation, the expiation remains. And it is obligatory for the person to fast two consecutive months. If he cannot, it is obligatory for him to feed two months of consecutive poor people. If he cannot, then nothing is upon him, because if the obligatory matters are turned away from, they are dropped by the opposite. Fine, and why with two men? He fasted four months, and three six months, and four eight months. But is it obligatory to be consecutive in the eight? No, it is obligatory to be consecutive in the two months. So he fasts two months in one year, and if he wishes to rest and then resume the two months from one to the other, and so on. And based on this, the procedure is distinguished from the questioner's question about the worker who died with him. If it was an accident without excess from him or reduction, then the worker is not counted as a sin, and no sin is upon them in obedience.