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

[Mista Bob]

This whole thing is just pathetic.
I'll lose all faith in humanity (what little is left anyways) if the motorist wins this case.
Not just because it is downright stupid but because this sets an absolutely horrible precedent for future court cases.

When does this bullshit stop? If she can sue for emotional damages as the result of killing the kid....then the parents should be able to sue her for the emotional damage caused by having to go through this legal BS after losing their kid.
Whats the difference? It's all bullshit. Courts should not be an avenue for people to help support their personal issues. That is what shrinks are for.

As more and more crap like this gets into courts our legal system becomes more and more of a joke.
Criminals get slapped on the wrists, victims have less rights than criminals and you can get sued for millions over hurt feelings.
You better just stay in your house because the next time you go outside you might get sued into oblivion over nothing.

It's just straight up retarded and if anyone honestly supports this shit they clearly were dropped on their head too many times as a kid.
Maybe you should sue your mother for that?

[spikerS]

Originally posted by 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.

For the last time, it isn't the driver doing this. the driver filed a COUNTER SUIT, meaning that the parents filed theirs first, so no one is going to have any sympathy for them for "dragging themselves through it."

If there was something the cops could go after the driver for, they would have. Those are the facts.

you can try and invoke emotion all you want, and how "bad" this is going to make someone feel, and what it is going to put them through, it doesn't get the kids off the hook for their stupid actions.

And if she is over driving her headlights at 80 or 90 kph, we all better slow down on the QEII after dark to less than that, just in case there are 3 abreast cyclists taking the lane.

the police specifically state that cause of the accident was a lack of visibility of the cyclists. They caused the accident. They are at fault.

If someone makes an illegal left turn in front of me, and I hit them and they die because they were not wearing a seat belt, do I just shrug my shoulders and say "man he died, I better pony up and pay for my damages to my truck out of pocket." or do I go after the driver's estate and insurance to get my truck fixed and medical bills paid?

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Mista Bob


When does this bullshit stop? If she can sue for emotional damages as the result of killing the kid....then the parents should be able to sue her for the emotional damage caused by having to go through this legal BS after losing their kid.

If the parents did not want to go through all this legal BS after losing their kid, they should not have initiated the lawsuit.

The driver didn't start that process, the parents did, the driver filed a counter suit.

and Codetrap, you make it sound like the parents will pay out of pocket for this, despite Masked Bandit explaining WHY they WON'T. If they had a mortgage on the house, they had insurance.

The parents were innocent, but now they are filing a lawsuit, because winning that would bring their son back.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by spikerS


For the last time, it isn't the driver doing this. the driver filed a COUNTER SUIT, meaning that the parents filed theirs first, so no one is going to have any sympathy for them for "dragging themselves through it."

None of the news articles I read show who filed first. So, unless you came across something, we don't know. The driver could have filed first.

Originally posted by spikerS

If there was something the cops could go after the driver for, they would have. Those are the facts.

Also not established. I personally was told once the police were going to lay charges of "break and enter with theft over $1000", yet the CP told me that there was no case, not enough evidence and there was no way they were going to pursue charges. In fact, I WAS totally innocent. The officer had a standing grudge with my parents. Small town politics...

Originally posted by spikerS

you can try and invoke emotion all you want, and how "bad" this is going to make someone feel, and what it is going to put them through, it doesn't get the kids off the hook for their stupid actions.

And if she is over driving her headlights at 80 or 90 kph, we all better slow down on the QEII after dark to less than that, just in case there are 3 abreast cyclists taking the lane.

the police specifically state that cause of the accident was a lack of visibility of the cyclists. They caused the accident. They are at fault.

If someone makes an illegal left turn in front of me, and I hit them and they die because they were not wearing a seat belt, do I just shrug my shoulders and say "man he died, I better pony up and pay for my damages to my truck out of pocket." or do I go after the driver's estate and insurance to get my truck fixed and medical bills paid?

So, even if the cyclists themselves were entirely at fault. Why should the parents pay? They weren't there. They didn't do anything wrong. As for the vehicular damages.. Ontario = no fault insurance. Her Kia would have been fixed, and whatever medical bills paid. She's going after what's known as punitive damages, basically, money for hurt feelings. Attempting to make the parents pay for the kid's actions. Is that a precedent you really want set? Especially when your little munchkin takes over the military, and then Canada, and then starts WW3 in her attempt at world domination? lol

[codetrap]

Ok.. time to start drinking.. ttyl tomorrow buddy.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by codetrap
None of the news articles I read show who filed first. So, unless you came across something, we don't know. The driver could have filed first.

Dude, you are grasping at straws now to back yourself up and repeating yourself after I have demonstrated how you are wrong. I so badly want to refer you to your FB post about how you are not entitled to your opinion at this point LOL.

here, you have to read between the lines of the way the journalist WANTS you to think, about how evil the driver is, but here...

However, the Majewski-Mlynczyk statement of claim, filed last March, is much more the norm: Whatever else, it is their son who was killed.

But now Ms. Simon, her husband and mother and her three children are suing Brandon’s estate and the boys who were with him that night.

and yeah, we can talk tomorrow LOL

[01RedDX]

.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


No, you seem to be the only one struggling with it

No, I was the only one willing to hold your hand until you finally asked a question MB could actually answer. But feel free to continue on being buttmad.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by spikerS

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.

Did she sprint out in front of you? Let's assume she was just standing there, in the middle of the lane, in the middle of the crosswalk, and you hit her. Who is at fault, and who is going to jail? YOU (unless she had an invisibility cloak!).

You are responsible for being able to react to something in front of you - ALWAYS - be it a broken down car, a jack-knifed semi, an unconscious person collapsed in a crosswalk or THREE kids in a group on bikes! How can you possibly miss that? Especially if they are abreast which is often the CORRECT way to ride. Not charging her with texting doesn't mean she wasn't doing it it just means they couldn't prove it.

On a side note, that mom that jumped the barrier on Glenmore with the pickup and killed her kid? According to you everyone who witnessed that, or was involved in any way has some degree of right to sue the mother for the mental anguish she caused them by involving them in such a tragic accident. If death is worth 1.3 mil, then surely having to see the bloody carnage is worth a few hundred grand? There's plenty of mental trauma to go around.

[01RedDX]

.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Khyron


Did she sprint out in front of you? Let's assume she was just standing there, in the middle of the lane, in the middle of the crosswalk, and you hit her. Who is at fault, and who is going to jail? YOU (unless she had an invisibility cloak!).

absolutely, you are right, I would be at fault, just because she was hard to see, she was in a marked crosswalk, and as such, yes, would have been at fault.

BUT, I would be racked with such incredible guilt for hitting that person, whether they died or not, I would be scared for life. Knowing that I hit that person, would make it very difficult for me to drive again, regardless of who is at fault.

You are responsible for being able to react to something in front of you - ALWAYS - be it a broken down car, a jack-knifed semi, an unconscious person collapsed in a crosswalk or THREE kids in a group on bikes! How can you possibly miss that? Especially if they are abreast which is often the CORRECT way to ride. Not charging her with texting doesn't mean she wasn't doing it it just means they couldn't prove it.

incorrect. not always. Otherwise there would never be an accident for failing to yield, running red lights, wildlife, whatever. Your straw man argument is absurd.

Abreast is NEVER the correct way to ride, and in fact I have provided laws that even state that.

You are also grasping at straws to claim she was texting with absolutely ZERO evidence to back that up, and it complete rumor. If the police could have proven that she was, I am sure she would have been charged with distracted driving, or careless driving. In the end, she was not charged.

get your facts straight.

On a side note, that mom that jumped the barrier on Glenmore with the pickup and killed her kid? According to you everyone who witnessed that, or was involved in any way has some degree of right to sue the mother for the mental anguish she caused them by involving them in such a tragic accident. If death is worth 1.3 mil, then surely having to see the bloody carnage is worth a few hundred grand? There's plenty of mental trauma to go around.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your straw man argument sounds right now? But lets say I entertain your attempt for a moment.

Are you trying to tell me that the semi driver that sustained damage to his rig because that mother jumped the guard rail is not going after her insurance company to fix his truck, or is he going to say, you know what, that mother lost her son, so I am not going to go after her insurance company to fix my truck, that would just be to rough to do to that poor mother.

[Toma]

Makes no difference how the kids were riding. Stunned cunt managed to hit all 3 anyway.

Unless you got some JDM eBay headlights, or burnt bulbs.... This can't happen.

And if your headlights are dim that you can't see ahead enough to be able to react and stop for your speed. Slow the fuck down.

No other way but guilty for the chick driving.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Mista Bob
This whole thing is just pathetic.
I'll lose all faith in humanity (what little is left anyways) if the motorist wins this case.
Not just because it is downright stupid but because this sets an absolutely horrible precedent for future court cases.

This. Absolutely unfucking believable that any moron would support her case.

Booohhooo hooo.... I'm emotionally distressed that I killed somone... boo hoo hoo.

Yeah? What about the emotional distress of the parents that lost a child cause you can't fucking drive?

The kids didn't suddenly beam down in front of her from the enterprise.

[spikerS]

Toma's posts remind me of the song "Special Fred"

By his logic, no accidents would happen. Ever.



sorry Toma.

[Maxt]

NAGOYA —
The 91-year-old widow of an elderly dementia patient who went wandering outside and was hit and killed by a train in Aichi Prefecture has been ordered by the Nagoya High Court to pay compensation to the train company for damages incurred by the disruption of its services.

In the case, which occurred in Obu city in December 2007, a 91-year-old man suffering from dementia was killed after he walked aimlessly onto the tracks, NTV reported. JR Tokai sought reparations for the damages from the man’s wife and 63-year-old son, although the son had not lived at home with his parents for 20 years.

In its April 24 ruling, the court ruled that the wife bore some responsibility for the events leading up to the accident, but that the son could not have done anything since he didn’t live with his parents.

The court heard that on the day of the fatal accident, the wife who was 85 at the time, dozed off in the afternoon, NTV reported. The man managed to leave the apartment and began wandering around the neighborhood. He walked onto the train tracks and was struck by a train and killed. Following the accident, all trains along the JR Tokaido line were delayed for over two hours, and the entire schedule for the rest of the day was disrupted.

In filing a suit for 7.2 million yen in damages, JR Tokai argued that the man’s family should have predicted that he might go wandering off, as he had done so two times before, NTV reported.

During the first trial in August of last year, the Nagoya District Court ruled that the family was responsible for the accident, and ordered them to pay the full amount of 7.2 million yen to JR Tokai. However, the son appealed.

In the ruling, handed down on Thursday, the court upheld the district court’s decision but dismissed the son’s responsibility and reduced the amount of damages to half of the original amount.

The case has garnered a lot of attention on the plight of elderly people suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s disease who are not being cared for in facilities. NHK recently did a story on the issue in which it reported that last year, more than 200 people suffering from dementia had wandered off from their homes for large periods of time without their family members knowing it. Most were found after a short time, but others were found days later—some dead, some alive—while others remain missing.

Japan Today


0

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by 01RedDX

Let's put it this way, if the kid was over 18 or if his parents had no insurance, or if he had no parents, there would likely be no lawsuit. So this kind of litigiousness seems very unfair and arbitrary.

That's very reasonable speculation. I'm not sure about suing for trauma specifically, but I can remember there was at least one instance in Canada where an adult's estate was sued by a train company after he was killed when his truck was struck by a train at a crossing. I believe the company sued his estate for damage caused to the train and costs for dealing with the derailment, since the accident was shown to be the deceased driver's fault.

[Toma]

Originally posted by spikerS
Toma's posts remind me of the song "Special Fred"

By his logic, no accidents would happen. Ever.



sorry Toma.

Fuckin conservatives. Always blaming the victim.

Accident or not. She is responsible. Therefore should suffer consequences of her actions.

If I accidentally damage someones property, I am responsible.

Of course its an accident. If it was on purpose it would be murder.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by spikerS
Dude, you are grasping at straws now to back yourself up and repeating yourself after I have demonstrated how you are wrong. I so badly want to refer you to your FB post about how you are not entitled to your opinion at this point LOL.

here, you have to read between the lines of the way the journalist WANTS you to think, about how evil the driver is, but here...

and yeah, we can talk tomorrow LOL

I'm not grasping at straws. You're making assumptions based on the wording in the news article. IE (read between the lines) You're ASSUMING.. not citing facts. You've ASSUMED you have all the facts, when you don't, and you're making statements based on those assumptions. IF all your assumptions are correct, then I might agree with you, however, until you can provide FACTS to back up your assumptions, I'm going to question them.

Another of your assumptions is that what they were doing was illegal. It's not. The Ontario TSA does not specifically prohibit motorcycles, or by extension, bicycles from riding side by side. It did about 20 years ago, but they rescinded that in 1994. I'm not contending that it was smart... but it is in fact perfectly legal. You assumed that all the bikes didn't have sufficient reflectors, based on the comment by the police that two of the three bikes didn't have reflectors. You don't know the status of the 3rd. He could have lit up like a christmas tree for all we know. But we don't, so until we do, we can't ASSUME that they were all insufficient. We also know that the kid's jackets had reflectors on them as well.

Personally, I question why she didn't slow down. She MUST have been able to see something reflective. I know from personal experience when driving down a rural road coming up on a bike, all I could see was the reflectors on the pedals. That was enough for me to hit the brakes.. something reflective acting in an odd unidentifiable pattern. I didn't know if was a cat, or bunny's humping, or a deer struggling. It wasn't until I got much closer that I could see it was someone riding a bike wearing all black. The only reflectors were on the pedals. I'm just more paranoid I guess, having crashed into an umarked gate across a rural road on a snowmobile as a kid. Never had a chance to even see it, just slammed into it, almost killed myself.

Now, as for who filed first. By reading multiple articles, I've established the the deceased family filed in December of 2012, and the driver filed in March of 2013, based on the timelines listed in the articles, and the article dates themselves. So yes, it does appear that suing the deceased is her valid legal strategy. However, it doesn't make it any less reprehensible. She could have chosen simply to defend the allegations, and let it go, but choosing to file for "hurt feelings" and counter suing for punitive damages just ... wrong. I can't argue that it's legally allowable, but that doesn't make it right.

As I said before, I understand why the parents of the deceased are pursuing it, as even though the driver was cleared, in my mind there is sufficient doubt. However, that being said, the driver is going to have to live with what she's done, regardless of if she is totally innocent or not. Two wrongs do NOT make a right. Both groups are in the moral wrong, and both cases should be thrown out immediately.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by spikerS


absolutely, you are right, I would be at fault, just because she was hard to see, she was in a marked crosswalk, and as such, yes, would have been at fault.

BUT, I would be racked with such incredible guilt for hitting that person, whether they died or not, I would be scared for life. Knowing that I hit that person, would make it very difficult for me to drive again, regardless of who is at fault.

You get over it. I've hit 2 pedestrians (not my fault as they darted out) and while it sucks, it's not a winning lotto ticket for the driver! Life is hard. Bad things can happen. You don't automatically get money.

incorrect. not always. Otherwise there would never be an accident for failing to yield, running red lights, wildlife, whatever. Your straw man argument is absurd.

It is not absurd. I specifically excluded things jumping out or moving in front of you. Name some examples where someone hitting a non-laterally moving or immobile object in the middle of a roadway is not at fault?

Every corner, every hill crest should be treated as though there's a motorhome on its side blocking the roadway, and you have to be able to stop. If you can't, you're going too fast.

Abreast is NEVER the correct way to ride, and in fact I have provided laws that even state that.

It's legal unless signage says otherwise (see Springbank road), and when in a group, it's faster and safer to pass a clump of bikes taking a whole lane it is to pass a long single chain of bikes (who are still entitled to the whole lane).

You are also grasping at straws to claim she was texting with absolutely ZERO evidence to back that up, and it complete rumor. If the police could have proven that she was, I am sure she would have been charged with distracted driving, or careless driving. In the end, she was not charged.

get your facts straight.

Lack of charge for an offense is NOT a "fact" that the offense didn't occur. You can't seem to wrap your head around that. The only "fact" is that the driver missed three large humans on bikes in the middle of a lane hard enough to kill one - go try and stop from 90km/hr - you don't need that much time. She was not watching the road or her lights were out. But to prove that in court? Lot tougher.

And, by law, even 1km/hr over speed limit is an offense which she is admitting to breaking by 10. How can she legally claim no fault when she was in violation of the law in the first place?

Are you trying to tell me that the semi driver that sustained damage to his rig because that mother jumped the guard rail is not going after her insurance company to fix his truck, or is he going to say, you know what, that mother lost her son, so I am not going to go after her insurance company to fix my truck, that would just be to rough to do to that poor mother. [/B]

No, that's physical damage. I'm saying you're opening the door to everyone that suffers any sort of "mental anguish" over an accident. If the driver is allowed to get 1.3 million for hitting a kid, what's to say the next time a passenger can't go back to work after witnessing some horrible accident? Or the 2nd car over who has a body land on his hood - oh now he's suing, and the lady on the sidewalk, now she's having bad dreams so she better sue the kid that got hit. THAT is what's absurd.

[16hypen3sp]

We can debate the ethics of this forever, but in terms of legality, I think it's pretty cut and dry. Police investigated and determined the bikes were a major contributing factor... more so than what the driver was doing.

But it's been said before... this is a counter suit. Would she have filed suit against the estate if the families had not filed suit against her first?

This is why I love Beyond. It's full of people that usually have a level head and contribute to a good debate.