Motorist kills cyclist... sues victims estate for 7 figures.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


That's exactly what I'm asking, so it's all because he was a minor? Or is there a precedent for something like this, but with the deceased being 18+ at the time of death and still having their estate sued?

In either case, minor or age of majority, any suit brought posthumously would be brought against the estate of the defendant.

Whether or not the parents of a child under the age of majority can be held liable in a civil case for actions of their children is a different matter.

In Ontario the governing legislation would be the Parental Responsibility Act of 2000. However, the awards that can be made under this act are capped at what the Small Claims Court can claim jurisdiction for. In addition, there would be no parental liability if it can be established that the actions which resulted in the loss were not intentional.

[16hypen3sp]

Originally posted by spikerS


It does have merit.

Take emotion out of it, and the three kids were breaking the law, and caused an accident.

As for emotional distress, I also believe it. I remember I just about smoked this chick one night. She was dressed in all black, with her hood up. She was even in a marked crosswalk. But I could not see her until the last second, and I was only doing 50-60kph. I managed to avoid her, but only just. That experience shook me to the core when I realized how close I came to hitting her, and thinking about the guilt I would feel for doing it.

I can only imagine what she is going through emotionally for having killed one, and injured 2 others. A guy I used to play billiards with was a wreck for years because he hit and killed a 5 year old that darted out from between 2 cars on his bike. He was never the same guy afterwards. Where he was once jovial, and a happy go lucky guy, he became very quiet, and preferred to blend into the shadows.

I know we all want to go with emotion and make the chick out to be a heartless bitch, and make the kid on a bike the innocent because he was killed, but the kids bears the bulk of the responsibility for this, and while the kid died, does not necessarily make him the victim.

Well said spikers. I completely agree. When I posted this thread I was kind of on the fence. This comment won me over. If I go out and do something stupid, and somebody hits me in their car, it still doesn't change the fact that I was doing something stupid. Especially when the investigation places the blame squarely on me.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by ercchry


i believe whoever inherited the estate now holds the liability.... this happened to me. but since the one that hit me was in a car their insurance covered it. the person's brother was named on the lawsuit though as they had died at some point between hitting me and two years down the road

I'm confused as to what you're trying to say here.

Beneficiaries of estates do not inherit liabilities or debts.

All liabilities or debts of the deceased are addressed by the estate before beneficiaries are paid.

If there is money in the estate after all the debts and liabilities are resolved, the beneficiaries are paid from that money.

If all of the assets of the estate are not enough to pay out all the debts, the creditors get their share of the assets and never get paid the shortfall. The beneficiaries of the estate receive nothing in this case, but they don't receive any obligation to pay debts either.

[DEATH2000]

Originally posted by dexlargo

Beneficiaries of estates do not inherit liabilities or debts.

All liabilities or debts of the deceased are addressed by the estate before beneficiaries are paid.

If there is money in the estate after all the debts and liabilities are resolved, the beneficiaries are paid from that money.

If all of the assets of the estate are not enough to pay out all the debts, the creditors get their share of the assets and never get paid the shortfall. The beneficiaries of the estate receive nothing in this case, but they don't receive any obligation to pay debts either.

I know this part for debts is true. I know someone who's father passed away and had owed about $12,000 in CC debt as his death was unexpected. She was never on the hook for any of the debt, and reffered any creditors that called her to the Courts.

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by dexlargo
They are suing his estate, which is how you sue a dead person.

I don't get why they bothered naming the kid - is it very likely that he owned any assets? Would his family's home insurance apply? Could they get at his family's assets? I don't think so. There's no point suing someone who has no money.

The kids were 17, 16 & 16 years old at the time of the accident. Minors living under the roof of their parents therefore the homeowner's insurance of the parents will respond to this lawsuit. The kid is an insured person under the wordings of the homeowner's policy and since this will be a lawsuit not relating to the operation of a motor vehicle, the liability coverage on the HO policy will apply. The minimum any policy comes with is $1,000,000 and a lot of them have $2,000,000. She's suing for $1,350,000 but it will settle at well under $1,000,000. The parents home insurance will pay for it all, including defense costs and nobody is going bankrupt.

[01RedDX]

.

[codetrap]

You guys are serious about this? You think it's ok? SpikerS, put yourself in the families place. Your cute little girl bolts across the street between two cars & get's hit and killed. Now, someone is suing her estate (read you), for a million dollars because they're traumatized by the fact that they killed your little girl. How would you feel about this. Would it be ok to serve you with papers at your child's funeral too, or is that just in bad taste?

Personally, I think this is cruel. So, now the family has lost their son, and the other son died due to depression due to the death of the first, and now the they may have to pay the person who partly caused all this loss.

You guys that think they have a case, and that this has merit really need to do a humanity check.

Oh, and tell me again how they were breaking the law? Their bikes had the required reflectors, and they were legally taking the lane. Just because they were "at fault" doesn't mean they were doing something illegal.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by codetrap
You guys are serious about this? You think it's ok? SpikerS, put yourself in the families place. Your cute little girl bolts across the street between two cars & get's hit and killed. Now, someone is suing her estate (read you), for a million dollars because they're traumatized by the fact that they killed your little girl. How would you feel about this. Would it be ok to serve you with papers at your child's funeral too, or is that just in bad taste?

Personally, I think this is cruel. So, now the family has lost their son, and the other son died due to depression due to the death of the first, and now the they may have to pay the person who partly caused all this loss.

You guys that think they have a case, and that this has merit really need to do a humanity check.

Oh, and tell me again how they were breaking the law? Their bikes had the required reflectors, and they were legally taking the lane. Just because they were "at fault" doesn't mean they were doing something illegal.

Hey Codetrap, take your head out of your ass, and think logically like you normally would instead of letting emotion run rampant.

If my daughter jumped out from between 2 parked cars and got hit, I would be angry, but not at the driver.

3 kids riding side by side by side down a unlit, 80kph road at night in dark clothing. Rules of the road state that to be riding on the road, cyclists MUST be in single file.

Now codetrap, if you had actually READ the article, you might understand what happened.

1) kids got hit, one died.

it was going to end there, and it should have. But then...

2) parents filed suit against the driver, even AFTER the driver has been exonerated by the police, stating that she did NOTHING wrong, but the parents insist that she was texting, or intoxicated, or whatever. (This screams blatant cash grab to me)

3) the driver then, in response to the parents lashing out with a lawsuit, files a COUNTER claim, presumably with her defense.

The driver didn't do anything wrong, no charges filed, and did not initiate the lawsuit, but responded to one filed against her.

But yeah, if I run in headstrong with emotion, yeah, the bitch driver KILLED an innocent boy who did nothing wrong, was just riding his bike down the street when she maliciously mowed him down doing 200MPH.

Now take emotion out, and look at the facts, and it is a whole different story.

as for it being illegal, here, let me show you what Calgary, and Alberta has on the books.

Cycling Law
The regulations governing cycling in Calgary are:

Traffic Safety Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. T-6(TSA)
Vehicle Equipment Regulation, Alta. Reg. 122/2009 (VER)
Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation, Alta. Reg. 304/2002 (RR)
City of Calgary Traffic Bylaw, 26M96 (TBl) and
City of Calgary Parks and Pathways Bylaw, 20M2003 (PPBl)
According to these rules and regulations,

Bicyclists have all the rights and are subject to all the duties of a motorist (RR 75, TBl 41)
Cyclists must not ride on sidewalks (TBl 42(1))
Bicycles must travel single file (RR 78(a))
Bicycles must be equipped with a horn or bell (VER 60, PPBl 44(b)), a brake (VER 113(2); PPBl 44(a)), and, if operated at night, a white headlight, a red taillight and a red rear reflector (VER 113(1), PPBl 44(c)). The lights must be on at night or when visibility is less than 150 m (RR 55(1), PPBl 45(a)). ("Night" means 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise on pathways, and 1 hour after sunset to 1 hour before sunrise on the roads.)
Cyclists must ride as close as practicable (i.e., safe and legal) to the right curb (RR 77(1); or left curb if on a one-way street (RR 77(2))
Bicycles count as High Occupancy Vehicles (TBL 2(q.2)) and are therefore entitled to the use of HOV lanes.

And just one more thing, even the police said the kids had inadequate reflectors.

[spikerS]

also, fwiw, as masked bandit said, the kid is covered under the home owner's policy. The parents won't pay a dime out of pocket.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by spikerS
Hey Codetrap, take your head out of your ass, and think logically like you normally would instead of letting emotion run rampant.

If my daughter jumped out from between 2 parked cars and got hit, I would be angry, but not at the driver.

3 kids riding side by side by side down a unlit, 80kph road at night in dark clothing. Rules of the road state that to be riding on the road, cyclists MUST be in single file.

Now codetrap, if you had actually READ the article, you might understand what happened.

1) kids got hit, one died.

it was going to end there, and it should have. But then...

2) parents filed suit against the driver, even AFTER the driver has been exonerated by the police, stating that she did NOTHING wrong, but the parents insist that she was texting, or intoxicated, or whatever. (This screams blatant cash grab to me)

3) the driver then, in response to the parents lashing out with a lawsuit, files a COUNTER claim, presumably with her defense.

The driver didn't do anything wrong, no charges filed, and did not initiate the lawsuit, but responded to one filed against her.

But yeah, if I run in headstrong with emotion, yeah, the bitch driver KILLED an innocent boy who did nothing wrong, was just riding his bike down the street when she maliciously mowed him down doing 200MPH.

Now take emotion out, and look at the facts, and it is a whole different story.

as for it being illegal, here, let me show you what Calgary, and Alberta has on the books.



And just one more thing, even the police said the kids had inadequate reflectors.

It's difficult not to get emotional about this. I always get a little riled up when kids are involved. However I AM still being rational. You guys simply aren't looking at the bigger picture. You're all stuck on debating who's "right" or justified compared to the other, when the reality is that neither of them are. They're BOTH wrong. Also, if you're going to quote the law, quote laws from the correct jurisdiction.

ONTARIO HTA
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pub...ction5.0.shtml

HTA 62(17) - Lights a bike must have a white front light and a red rear light or reflector if you ride between 1/2 hour before sunset and 1/2 hour after sunrise and white reflective tape on the front forks and red reflective tape on rear forks. Set fine: $20.00

HTA 147 - Slow moving traffic travel on right side
any vehicle moving slower than the normal traffic speed should drive in the right-hand lane, or as close as practicable to the right edge of the road except when preparing to turn left or when passing another vehicle.

I also understand that the parents of the TWO dead boys are upset, and I don't doubt they tried to file charges, and are trying to blame the driver. I also think that their case should be thrown out of court at the first hearing, as it appears they don't really have a case. Now here's where my empathy and compassion kick in. These parents are obviously in pain. As per human nature, they're looking for someone to blame because they apparently can't accept that this was just a tragic accident. Fine, treat them like grieving parents with empathy and compassion. They deserve that, as the parents really are the living victims in this.

That does NOT give the driver the right to try to sue the estate (read parents) of the dead child for millions of dollars because she's upset and can't live with what happened, or even as a legal defense. The whole situation stinks. Neither of them are in the right. Neither case should be allowed to proceed by the courts, and I honestly hope that both groups get the help they both obviously need instead of lashing out from pain at the other party.

SpikerS, I hope you realize that I would never wish ill on you or your family, and that I just attempted to get you into the mindset of the family that endured the loss of one son to the tragic accident, and the loss of the other son to grief. I think we should treat both parties with compassion and empathy.

Edit... I can see why the family of the deceased was questioning it... here's a picture of the road where they were killed. If you were driving down it on a black as an ape's armpit night, and you saw several somethings reflecting at you, wouldn't you stop? Be that as it may, she WAS cleared by the police....

[frizzlefry]

Home Owner's insurance is not legally required though. I have read a couple articles and the forum, and if I missed it being factually stated that the dead boy's family does have home owner's insurance than forgive me. But if they don't then they pay out of pocket.

I understand the whole you get sued so you counter sue thing. I can't say what I would do in this woman's situation but either way I would sure feel like big sack of crap. And if I was emotionally suffering from hitting that boy I severely doubt suing his "estate" would make me feel any fucking better.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by codetrap

That does NOT give the driver the right to try to sue the estate (read parents) of the dead child for millions of daughters because she's upset and can't live with what happened. The whole situation stinks. Neither of them are in the right. Neither case should be allowed to proceed by the courts, and I honestly hope that both groups get the help they both obviously need instead of lashing out from pain at the other party.

It absolutely does give the driver right to sue, and in this case counter-sue. She has suffered emotionally, and I am sure has damage to her vehicle. The only thing the driver is guilty of is going 10KPH over the limit. I can completely understand how traumatizing this can be to the driver, and the driver has to live with the fact she killed ONE kid with her car, through no fault of her own. She has to live with that knowledge, and it can't be reversed. I don't care who you are, it will affect you, and I have seen first hand those effects.

If this was an un-insured and un-registered motorcyclist going slow with out the proper safety equipment, you would be singing a different tune. And to just touch on the law for Ontario, it quite clearly states that a Cyclist is subject to laws and regulations of motor vehicles, and it does state that motorcyclists are not allowed to ride abreast too. Also, the police say that there was inadequate reflectors, so since in Ontario, it must either be a red reflector or a red light on the back of the bikes, since there was no light, and it was inadequate reflection, that means it wasn't there at all.

SpikerS, I hope you realize that I would never wish ill on you or your family, and that I just attempted to get you into the mindset of the family that endured the loss of one son to the tragic accident, and the loss of the other son to grief. I think we should treat both parties with compassion and empathy.

Of course you don't wish ill on me or mine. We are friends, this is a discussion of events, nothing more.

But at what point are you going to put responsibility on the 17 year old kid, who by all rights knows the difference between right and wrong and risks they were taking?

But you are right, the parent's lawsuit will get tossed quite quickly, but whether or not you agree, the driver DOES have a case, and a court WILL hear it.

Examine the facts, and take emotion out. That is what the court will do, and look at it objectively. You should too.

Like I said before, the easy knee jerk reaction is to blame the driver because the 17 year old died, and because he died, he must be the victim in our minds, and as such absolve him from responsibility from their own wrong doings.

Now, take a deep breath, and examine it at arm's length. leaving emotion and the kid dying out of it, and examine it as an accident. And be truthful.

and yes, it is only ONE that died, not TWO.

Brandon took the brunt of the impact, and was thrown over the roof of the car; he was barely alive when paramedics arrived, and despite vigorous efforts at resuscitation, was pronounced dead about two hours later at the Royal Victoria Health Centre in Barrie.

Richard’s bike was struck simultaneously, and he was later transferred to St. Michael’s Hospital in downtown Toronto, where he spent weeks recovering from his injuries. The third boy, Jake, was knocked off his bike, but wasn’t seriously hurt.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
^ Great, that's the answer I've been looking for! Much better than "durr, do you know what an estate is?"

Your comical inability to get your point across in this thread is nobody's fault but your own. It took you four tries to come up with a question anyone could make half sense of.

[Unknown303]

I hope mom and dad make up (codetrap and spikers), I hate seeing them argue in threads like this.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Mom, dad's right when he says two boys died. The older brother did as a result of the situation and that's what he's referring to.

I hate it when you two fight all the time.....

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Unknown303
I hope mom and dad make up (codetrap and spikers), I hate seeing them argue in threads like this.

[codetrap]

So, just for the record. All the news articles agree on one thing. The police reported "Two of the bikes had what police called "minimal reflectors," and none of the boys were wearing helmets". That doesn't mean that they didn't have any reflectors, or that the 3rd bike was fully kitted out. It could go both ways. Also the police didn't clear the driver, they said "The Crown prosecutor in the case declined to lay charges, believing there was no likelihood of a conviction." Which only means that they don't think they could get a conviction, not that the driver didn't fuck up.

The reality of the situation is this. If you see something reflective bobbing ahead of you in the middle of the road, 3 abreast, you slow down. Period. She didn't, for whatever reason, and she struck and killed a young man/child. She was obviously overdriving her headlights, or she would have been able to stop in time. Was the kid complicit in his own death? Absolutely.

None of this gives her the right to sue the family of the dead kid because she's upset. There's no justification for her to inflict more harm on someone else in an attempt to "cash in" or as simply a legal strategy. Even if it is only a legal strategy, it's a morally bankrupt one. On top of all the harm that is already done, what is she going to actually accomplish by pushing this case? Force the family of the dead kid to relive the tragedy that took their two sons and destroyed their family? Force them to cough up $600k (federal max on punitive damages) in cash to pay the driver? No good can come from this. Even *if* through no fault of her own, the driver has already directly and indirectly caused the deaths of two people, and the destruction of a family. To attempt to sue the family of the dead child is just wrong, regardless of the potential legality.

I honestly hope that both cases get thrown out of court. I can see no good coming from allowing this proceed, or from the potential precedent it could set.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
Mom, dad's right when he says two boys died. The older brother did as a result of the situation and that's what he's referring to.

I hate it when you two fight all the time.....

if he is referring to the brother that offed himself, that is a stretch to blame the driver for that, and one I am shocked Codetrap would try and reach for when he prides himself on being logical.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by spikerS


if he is referring to the brother that offed himself, that is a stretch to blame the driver for that, and one I am shocked Codetrap would try and reach for when he prides himself on being logical.

Causation. Seems very logical to me. The incident set a chain of events in motion.

[codetrap]

Spikers, I'm not blaming the driver directly for the death of the second son. She cannot be held responsible for his death at all. I'm just pointing out that the parents themselves have suffered enough. And truly, the parents ARE the innocent victims here. They ultimately did nothing wrong, other than having some bad judgement and trying to find someone to blame. And there's little to no way you can convince me that it's right that the parents should have to pay the driver a large sum of money because she can't live with the consequences of her actions, whether she is blameless or not.

And so ends my semi-intelligent conversation in this thread, because I'm going to go have a drink. I'll chat with SpikerS about this tomorrow maybe, when I'm going down to pick up my new tonneu cover, this time the correct size lol.