Driver kills boy, sues family for 1 million dollars

Ubiquitous Duck

New member
Jan 16, 2014
472
0
0
J Tyran said:
Ubiquitous Duck said:
I understand that it would be traumatic to accidentally kill someone.

But I don't see why there is always money being attached to these experiences. It's always money..
There could be money involved, especially in countries without nationalised healthcare. The driver might have the costs associated with any counselling and psychiatric treatment as well as time off work possibly, so they would be out of pocket in having to pay for a psychologist and any anti-depressants and if they missed time off work to have recover or attend treatment all that adds up.

I will come down on the side of a driver receiving compensation to recover losses for any accident they didn't cause, not in this case as I don't have time to fact check but in principle.
I guess I was in the mindset of the UK where healthcare is widely accessible. So monetary returns seemed excessive, but I should've considered it from the law in the country applicable.

Is it considered the parents responsibility because the teenager was only 17 or is this a matter of the case going to the nearest family connected?
 

Colour Scientist

Troll the Respawn, Jeremy!
Jul 15, 2009
4,722
0
0
White Lightning said:
It's interesting that you're saying part of the blame could fall upon the dead teenager for cycling that late. I don't know if you drive but one of the first things you're taught is to always watch out for pedestrians, yes it's annoying to have some punks J-walk across the street but it's your responsibility as the operator of a large heavy and fast moving piece of metal to make sure you don't hit them. When you're speeding at night and you hit someone you have no one to blame but yourself. If she had been paying attention and driving appropriately for the time and weather this wouldn't of happened.
Who said anything about blame?
I also didn't say it was just because it was late.

I was just pointing out that arguing that she should be immediately sentenced for third-degree murder was a stupid suggestion because there're other factors at play, it's not as simple as she just killed a kid with her car for lolz.

How do you know that she wasn't paying attention?
Not all accidents are avoidable or due to negligence. Sure the person in the larger vehicle is obligated to take extra care but that doesn't make accidents automatically 100% their fault. She wasn't accused of any wrongdoing by the police, most accusations of negligence seem to be coming from the parents and they're not going to be impartial.

Like I said in my post, I'm not condoning the lawsuit and I don't know the full situation but the articles are written in a sensationalist way and it's stupid how many people are pointing fingers when they're only presented with one side of the story.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Amaror said:
Colour Scientist said:
The parents actually say that their children were cycling on a wet, dark country road at 1.30am without any reflective gear apart from some reflectors on the actual bikes, they admit that was a mistake. They don't actually argue with the claim that the boys weren't cycling safely.
Murder doesn't come into it.
It's tragic but there's nothing to suggest that it was intentional.
Now i don't know how the law is in the united states, but over here in germany people are responsible for their driving.
A car is a weapon and highly deadly, if your driving one, your responsible 100%.
If your hitting or killing a person with your driving it's YOUR FAULT. It's not the dead persons fault.
If your riding your bike not safely, then your endangering yourself.
If you drive irresponsibly then your breaking the law.
I am just baffled that i even have to explain this.
Unless my country has annexed up to 55 mi north of Toronto while I wasn't looking, this happened in Canada. Not trying to nitpick, but I think it needed to be clarified for the sake of discussion since the laws may vary quite a bit. As for your stance on the matter, I can mostly agree, except to say that using a vehicle on a roadway (even a bike) requires proper caution. Looking into the case, it appears that the driver was obeying the road laws and the bikers were flagrantly ignoring them. As you say, the kids endangered themselves by ignoring every possible safety precaution whilst violating the law. I simply cannot agree that the driver is "100%" responsible for what happened.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Ubiquitous Duck said:
J Tyran said:
Ubiquitous Duck said:
I understand that it would be traumatic to accidentally kill someone.

But I don't see why there is always money being attached to these experiences. It's always money..
There could be money involved, especially in countries without nationalised healthcare. The driver might have the costs associated with any counselling and psychiatric treatment as well as time off work possibly, so they would be out of pocket in having to pay for a psychologist and any anti-depressants and if they missed time off work to have recover or attend treatment all that adds up.

I will come down on the side of a driver receiving compensation to recover losses for any accident they didn't cause, not in this case as I don't have time to fact check but in principle.
I guess I was in the mindset of the UK where healthcare is widely accessible. So monetary returns seemed excessive, but I should've considered it from the law in the country applicable.

Is it considered the parents responsibility because the teenager was only 17 or is this a matter of the case going to the nearest family connected?
Its understandable, we grew up with healthcare available so its easy to forget other nations don't have that as you kinda become "conditioned" to it. Even here they might be some costs, prescription charges for people without exemption and any time off work etc. 17 is a funny age really, technically still a minor in some places but with enough autonomy to make their own choices (mistakes too).
 

White Lightning

New member
Feb 9, 2012
797
0
0
snekadid said:
White Lightning said:
Colour Scientist said:
erttheking said:
For the love of fuck, how can we live in a world where people can get away with this stuff? If you hit a kid and kill them, it's kinda YOUR fault isn't it. In fact, with the lawsuit she's basically confessing to hitting the kid...why are we even entertaining her? She's guilty of third degree murder! Case closed! Sentence her! Don't let her sue people!
The parents actually say that their children were cycling on a wet, dark country road at 1.30am without any reflective gear apart from some reflectors on the actual bikes, they admit that was a mistake. They don't actually argue with the claim that the boys weren't cycling safely.

Murder doesn't come into it.
It's tragic but there's nothing to suggest that it was intentional.
It's interesting that you're saying part of the blame could fall upon the dead teenager for cycling that late. I don't know if you drive but one of the first things you're taught is to always watch out for pedestrians, yes it's annoying to have some punks J-walk across the street but it's your responsibility as the operator of a large heavy and fast moving piece of metal to make sure you don't hit them. When you're speeding at night and you hit someone you have no one to blame but yourself. If she had been paying attention and driving appropriately for the time and weather this wouldn't of happened.
Ubiquitous Duck said:
I understand that it would be traumatic to accidentally kill someone.

But I don't see why there is always money being attached to these experiences. It's always money..

Also, what lawyer would ever take this case, surely its nigh impossible to bring a jury round to your side on this one?

erttheking said:
For the love of fuck, how can we live in a world where people can get away with this stuff? If you hit a kid and kill them, it's kinda YOUR fault isn't it. In fact, with the lawsuit she's basically confessing to hitting the kid...why are we even entertaining her? She's guilty of third degree murder! Case closed! Sentence her! Don't let her sue people!
I don't imagine it would be 'murder', as I don't think anyone is suggesting premeditated, purposeful killing of this teenager (required for murder).

If anything, it would be manslaughter, on the grounds of her negligence. So I guess the trial would be around, who was the most negligent. Who is to blame? Could you argue that she should've seen them and should've acted differently? (Her fault). Or did she have no chance of avoiding the incident? (Their fault).
You should take a look at the above as well. People who say they couldn't avoid the accident just aren't good drives. There is always something you could of done to prevent the accident. The only victim in this is that kid and his family, stop blaming them.
No, They broke the law. What they did was illegal even if it didn't cause an accident. Even a pedestrian walking on the side of the road is required to have some form of reflective gear on so that they don't suddenly appear in front of a moving vehicle.
You obviously either don't drive or only drive in well lit cities as anyone that's driven on unlit country roads knows that visibility begins and ends at your headlights and anything non-reflective doesn't show within a meaningful amount of time. Why do you think deer get hit so often? They aren't jumping into your car directly for the most part, they think they can make it and we just can't see them until swerving makes no difference.
I seriously suck at using these forums, how can I just quote the most recent post without have all the other quotes in it?

Anyways I work night shifts so I drive almost exclusively at night. Most of the time it's in the City but I've been out in the country enough to see your point. The reason I disagree with you is the fact she was speeding on a wet road. Regardless of where she is she should of been going slower than usual instead of speeding. I'm not saying you're wrong about low visibility but this woman should of been driving to accommodate the roads and poor visibility. That's why in this situation she is in the wrong, yeah those kids shouldn't of been been on the street but most bikes have reflective pedals and lights (don't know what else to call them but they look like lights but they aren't) installed on them. she should of seen them and stopped if she had been paying attention.
 

AuronFtw

New member
Nov 29, 2010
514
0
0
Gorrath said:
Unless my country has annexed up to 55 mi north of Toronto while I wasn't looking, this happened in Canada. Not trying to nitpick, but I think it needed to be clarified for the sake of discussion since the laws may vary quite a bit. As for your stance on the matter, I can mostly agree, except to say that using a vehicle on a roadway (even a bike) requires proper caution. Looking into the case, it appears that the driver was obeying the road laws and the bikers were flagrantly ignoring them. As you say, the kids endangered themselves by ignoring every possible safety precaution whilst violating the law. I simply cannot agree that the driver is "100%" responsible for what happened.
Agreed with this poster. A driver is not, legally or ethically, "100% responsible" for anything that happens to their car - it's fucking ridiculous that anyone could even begin to pretend that. If you drink heavily, go out driving, and hit someone, are you at fault? Yes, obviously. You chose to drink and you chose to drive - anyone you kill at that point is squarely on you.

If, however, you're driving along a highway, someone jumps off a bridge into your path and you hit them, is it 100% your fault? ...no. No, it is not. It's not even 10% your fault. The situation is remarkably similar here - kids were young and stupid, traveling by bike in a poorly lit area with little (or no) lights/reflectors and they got hit by a car. This was so obviously not the driver's fault that even the family of the victim didn't try to press charges.

So please take the 100% driver's responsibility thing and bin it. Ludicrous one-size-fits-all rules do not apply to reality. Some people are simply stupid, and they die because of it. In short; tough shit. Hopefully the other kids learn not to bike in the dark without any visibility aids at 1:30 in the morning.

That said, this driver is spewing a crock of shit. I'm sure she's "traumatized" by her vehicular manslaughter, but to sue the family? What did they have to do with it? What did the county have to do with it? This case will be thrown out of court very quickly.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
Oh my fucking god that is horrible, is my first reaction to this.

It doesn't say what the circumstances of the cyclists were (I believe you need lights at night), but no matter how 'incompetent' they were...you simply do not fucking sue a person FOR KILLING THEIR SON. Emotional trauma, get over it princess, it's not a laughing matter but you're fucking ALIVE. Especially when you are reportedly doing over the speed limit. I've heard the health system in the US gravely neglects mental health, which is a motive for wanting all that money, but that is not the victim's family's problem, and...just...you don't sue someone whose son you ran over. That is such a massive and insulting obstacle to any litigation that I can't believe anyone would consider it in this situation, no matter the trauma they've endured.

Cyclists can be dicks and go all over the road and all that, it happens commonly enough. But the gall of suing the grieving family just trumps everything about the situation.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
AuronFtw said:
That said, this driver is spewing a crock of shit. I'm sure she's "traumatized" by her vehicular manslaughter, but to sue the family? What did they have to do with it? What did the county have to do with it? This case will be thrown out of court very quickly.
I cannot confirm this but from what I've heard the only reason she is suing is because she's being sued by the family. After being found at no fault by the police, the family has decided to sue her. In response, she has sued them back, not because she wants to take them to the cleaners but because she doesn't think she should owe 900,000 dollars to the family for an accident that wasn't her fault. I imagine her lawyer advised her to do this to try and get the family to drop their own lawsuit. But again, I cannot confirm this.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Colour Scientist said:
erttheking said:
For the love of fuck, how can we live in a world where people can get away with this stuff? If you hit a kid and kill them, it's kinda YOUR fault isn't it. In fact, with the lawsuit she's basically confessing to hitting the kid...why are we even entertaining her? She's guilty of third degree murder! Case closed! Sentence her! Don't let her sue people!
The parents actually say that their children were cycling on a wet, dark country road at 1.30am without any reflective gear apart from some reflectors on the actual bikes, they admit that was a mistake. They don't actually argue with the claim that the boys weren't cycling safely.

Murder doesn't come into it.
It's tragic but there's nothing to suggest that it was intentional.
That's what third degree murder is, involuntary manslaughter. I never said that she did so intentionally. But it was mentioned that she was intoxicated right? I consider driving drunk to be a big public safety risk, and in this case it ended in someone's death. If she had been sober, maybe the kid would've still died, but being drunk impaired her ability to maneuver and was illegal anyway.

EDIT: Whoops. Looked it up, looks like I'm using an out of date term there. Disregard what I said.
 

McShizzle

New member
Jun 18, 2008
225
0
0
I seems fishy or maybe just tragic that no one was able to avoid this accident. For some perspective, a little google detective work finds the road on which the accident occured.
Straight as an arrow
Flat as a pancake
 

snekadid

Lord of the Salt
Mar 29, 2012
711
0
0
White Lightning said:
I seriously suck at using these forums, how can I just quote the most recent post without have all the other quotes in it?

Anyways I work night shifts so I drive almost exclusively at night. Most of the time it's in the City but I've been out in the country enough to see your point. The reason I disagree with you is the fact she was speeding on a wet road. Regardless of where she is she should of been going slower than usual instead of speeding. I'm not saying you're wrong about low visibility but this woman should of been driving to accommodate the roads and poor visibility. That's why in this situation she is in the wrong, yeah those kids shouldn't of been been on the street but most bikes have reflective pedals and lights (don't know what else to call them but they look like lights but they aren't) installed on them. she should of seen them and stopped if she had been paying attention.
Most is not evidence, the fact that the article is is obviously skewed towards the family states no reflective gear implies that the bikes did not have them either.

Should have is not illegal. What they did violated the law and they are then responsible for the accident. Just like someone running out from between two cars to cross the road is the guilty party then they get run over. Yes, a car is a heavy piece of machinery. Those kids and their parents showed an obvious lack of respect for that fact when they violated the law in such a way that made it very difficult for someone to react.

With reflective gear they would have been visible from more than 6 times the visible range of the headlights. Easy to avoid at the given speed.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Ubiquitous Duck said:
That's what third degree murder is, it's involuntary manslaughter. This must be a country thing where in some countries murder means premeditated, I don't know. All I know is that in the US murder means to kill another human being, whether it's intentional or not.

EDIT: Or maybe I'm just using the wrong term as a quick google search proved. Yeah, forget I said anything.
 

Ubiquitous Duck

New member
Jan 16, 2014
472
0
0
White Lightning said:
I seriously suck at using these forums, how can I just quote the most recent post without have all the other quotes in it?

Anyways I work night shifts so I drive almost exclusively at night. Most of the time it's in the City but I've been out in the country enough to see your point. The reason I disagree with you is the fact she was speeding on a wet road. Regardless of where she is she should of been going slower than usual instead of speeding. I'm not saying you're wrong about low visibility but this woman should of been driving to accommodate the roads and poor visibility. That's why in this situation she is in the wrong, yeah those kids shouldn't of been been on the street but most bikes have reflective pedals and lights (don't know what else to call them but they look like lights but they aren't) installed on them. she should of seen them and stopped if she had been paying attention.
I think there is little more you can do than manually going into the text that has been quoted into your response and just deleting the irrelevant parts. I'm new to whole forums business myself, but that's the way I've been doing it.

Then you can cut it down to the bit that you just want to respond to singularly, as I have done above.

I think 5mph over 50 would obviously be considered illegal, but not reckless. I often would drive at 55 in a 50. This doesn't make it right or legal, but I think as a general rule most people drive in and around the speed limit, not necessarily always at it or below. Again, illegal but not completely unreasonable. It would be part of the opposing case for sure though.

Personally I would've adjusted my driving to these conditions as I'd feel personally unsafe in doing it, but that doesn't make it a requirement for all people to.

There has to be some level of onus placed on the teenagers who were riding without aiding visibility of their presence.

Again, we need more details to come out to be sure though, so I wouldn't like to make a judgement on who is right or wrong.

It looks like there will be arguments for both sides to some extent, but we need more details on the reality of the situation. Needs more investigation!
 

White Lightning

New member
Feb 9, 2012
797
0
0
Colour Scientist said:
White Lightning said:
It's interesting that you're saying part of the blame could fall upon the dead teenager for cycling that late. I don't know if you drive but one of the first things you're taught is to always watch out for pedestrians, yes it's annoying to have some punks J-walk across the street but it's your responsibility as the operator of a large heavy and fast moving piece of metal to make sure you don't hit them. When you're speeding at night and you hit someone you have no one to blame but yourself. If she had been paying attention and driving appropriately for the time and weather this wouldn't of happened.
Who said anything about blame?
I also didn't say it was just because it was late.

I was just pointing out that arguing that she should be immediately sentenced for third-degree murder was a stupid suggestion because there're other factors at play, it's not as simple as she just killed a kid with her car for lolz.

How do you know that she wasn't paying attention?
Not all accidents are avoidable or due to negligence. Sure the person in the larger vehicle is obligated to take extra care but that doesn't make accidents automatically 100% their fault. She wasn't accused of any wrongdoing by the police, most accusations of negligence seem to be coming from the parents and they're not going to be impartial.

Like I said in my post, I'm not condoning the lawsuit and I don't know the full situation but the articles are written in a sensationalist way and it's stupid how many people are pointing fingers when they're only presented with one side of the story.
As I said to the other guy she failed to drive properly for the road conditions. I'd even go as far to argue the the way she was driving (speeding on a wet poorly lit road) is negligent in of itself. I agree the kids shouldn't of been on the road but still she should of been more careful. It's clear that she should be charged with manslaughter though, she killed someone without meaning too. That's the exactly what manslaughter is!
 

snekadid

Lord of the Salt
Mar 29, 2012
711
0
0
erttheking said:
Colour Scientist said:
erttheking said:
For the love of fuck, how can we live in a world where people can get away with this stuff? If you hit a kid and kill them, it's kinda YOUR fault isn't it. In fact, with the lawsuit she's basically confessing to hitting the kid...why are we even entertaining her? She's guilty of third degree murder! Case closed! Sentence her! Don't let her sue people!
The parents actually say that their children were cycling on a wet, dark country road at 1.30am without any reflective gear apart from some reflectors on the actual bikes, they admit that was a mistake. They don't actually argue with the claim that the boys weren't cycling safely.

Murder doesn't come into it.
It's tragic but there's nothing to suggest that it was intentional.
That's what third degree murder is, involuntary manslaughter. I never said that she did so intentionally. But it was mentioned that she was intoxicated right? I consider driving drunk to be a big public safety risk, and in this case it ended in someone's death. If she had been sober, maybe the kid would've still died, but being drunk impaired her ability to maneuver and was illegal anyway.
That is conjecture by the family, the authority's never brought her up on charges for it which would make their job easier so there is no actual evidence. It is far more likely that they invented that to help assuage their guilt.
 

Ubiquitous Duck

New member
Jan 16, 2014
472
0
0
erttheking said:
Ubiquitous Duck said:
That's what third degree murder is, it's involuntary manslaughter. This must be a country thing where in some countries murder means premeditated, I don't know. All I know is that in the US murder means to kill another human being, whether it's intentional or not.
Ahh righty.

Yes, in the UK, where I'm from, 'murder' is the premeditated act of killing someone.

Without that condition, it is considered manslaughter. This can then be further categorised into voluntary or involuntary, manslaughter.

Edit: In response to your edit. Consider it forgotten! Also, consider not my post. It shall also be forgotten!
 

Colour Scientist

Troll the Respawn, Jeremy!
Jul 15, 2009
4,722
0
0
erttheking said:
That's what third degree murder is, involuntary manslaughter. I never said that she did so intentionally. But it was mentioned that she was intoxicated right? I consider driving drunk to be a big public safety risk, and in this case it ended in someone's death. If she had been sober, maybe the kid would've still died, but being drunk impaired her ability to maneuver and was illegal anyway.
The report also states: "No breathalyzer was performed. Although police say no alcohol was suspected and no charges were laid.
alleges Simon was speeding and may have been intoxicated and talking on her cellphone.
There's no evidence to say that she wasn't sober.
 

Clowndoe

New member
Aug 6, 2012
395
0
0
White Lightning said:
I seriously suck at using these forums, how can I just quote the most recent post without have all the other quotes in it?
Just cut out the parts you don't want in the text editor.

Anyway, I don't think it matters who's at fault here, although it seems to me the blame ought to be split. I just can't fathom how this constitutes a reason for a suit. If someone decides to shoot themselves in-front of me, I don't believe that gives everyone in sight of it to sue the person who killed themself.
 

Guitarmasterx7

Day Pig
Mar 16, 2009
3,872
0
0
Joos said:
Humanity at its worst. I hope she dies painfully in fire.
and then the fire sues her family for emotional damages.

The chance that she's going to win this are pretty slim. This spoiled **** should be thrilled she isn't in jail for reckless homicide or manslaughter, not going back to the family that she tore apart and trying to bleed them dry financially. The family should countersue, since they're being dragged into court anyways. I think they win in terms of "emotional damages."
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
White Lightning said:
snekadid said:
White Lightning said:
Colour Scientist said:
erttheking said:
For the love of fuck, how can we live in a world where people can get away with this stuff? If you hit a kid and kill them, it's kinda YOUR fault isn't it. In fact, with the lawsuit she's basically confessing to hitting the kid...why are we even entertaining her? She's guilty of third degree murder! Case closed! Sentence her! Don't let her sue people!
The parents actually say that their children were cycling on a wet, dark country road at 1.30am without any reflective gear apart from some reflectors on the actual bikes, they admit that was a mistake. They don't actually argue with the claim that the boys weren't cycling safely.

Murder doesn't come into it.
It's tragic but there's nothing to suggest that it was intentional.
It's interesting that you're saying part of the blame could fall upon the dead teenager for cycling that late. I don't know if you drive but one of the first things you're taught is to always watch out for pedestrians, yes it's annoying to have some punks J-walk across the street but it's your responsibility as the operator of a large heavy and fast moving piece of metal to make sure you don't hit them. When you're speeding at night and you hit someone you have no one to blame but yourself. If she had been paying attention and driving appropriately for the time and weather this wouldn't of happened.
Ubiquitous Duck said:
I understand that it would be traumatic to accidentally kill someone.

But I don't see why there is always money being attached to these experiences. It's always money..

Also, what lawyer would ever take this case, surely its nigh impossible to bring a jury round to your side on this one?

erttheking said:
For the love of fuck, how can we live in a world where people can get away with this stuff? If you hit a kid and kill them, it's kinda YOUR fault isn't it. In fact, with the lawsuit she's basically confessing to hitting the kid...why are we even entertaining her? She's guilty of third degree murder! Case closed! Sentence her! Don't let her sue people!
I don't imagine it would be 'murder', as I don't think anyone is suggesting premeditated, purposeful killing of this teenager (required for murder).

If anything, it would be manslaughter, on the grounds of her negligence. So I guess the trial would be around, who was the most negligent. Who is to blame? Could you argue that she should've seen them and should've acted differently? (Her fault). Or did she have no chance of avoiding the incident? (Their fault).
You should take a look at the above as well. People who say they couldn't avoid the accident just aren't good drives. There is always something you could of done to prevent the accident. The only victim in this is that kid and his family, stop blaming them.
No, They broke the law. What they did was illegal even if it didn't cause an accident. Even a pedestrian walking on the side of the road is required to have some form of reflective gear on so that they don't suddenly appear in front of a moving vehicle.
You obviously either don't drive or only drive in well lit cities as anyone that's driven on unlit country roads knows that visibility begins and ends at your headlights and anything non-reflective doesn't show within a meaningful amount of time. Why do you think deer get hit so often? They aren't jumping into your car directly for the most part, they think they can make it and we just can't see them until swerving makes no difference.
I seriously suck at using these forums, how can I just quote the most recent post without have all the other quotes in it?

Anyways I work night shifts so I drive almost exclusively at night. Most of the time it's in the City but I've been out in the country enough to see your point. The reason I disagree with you is the fact she was speeding on a wet road. Regardless of where she is she should of been going slower than usual instead of speeding. I'm not saying you're wrong about low visibility but this woman should of been driving to accommodate the roads and poor visibility. That's why in this situation she is in the wrong, yeah those kids shouldn't of been been on the street but most bikes have reflective pedals and lights (don't know what else to call them but they look like lights but they aren't) installed on them. she should of seen them and stopped if she had been paying attention.
With fact checking this case and just going by what people have said, if the visibility was reduced because of the weather and it was late at night its perfectly feasible that a driver couldn't see them. The standard reflectors you tend to see fitted to bikes just ain't enough.

To be seen at night you want lights and at least a strip harness of reflective material, even then you can only be seen at 50-100m if conditions are bad enough and about 300m plus with good headlamps and ideal conditions. Factor in blind corners, dips in the road and roadside furniture and flora and its easy to see how you can be on top of people with no time to brake. Here is a demonstration of night visibility in perfect conditions, Even here people with just light clothing are not visible until 80-100m. Thats easily within the thinking + braking distance of most cars with a fully alert driver in dry conditions, on a totally straight road with nothing in the way. Even with the people covered in reflectors you can see how hard it is to see them, you just the reflectors.

People are also saying she was on the phone and speeding, that would have been easily provable. I don't know how far the police take the investigation over there but here in the UK they would have measured everything, took aerial photos and made 3D reconstructions and would have taken any electronics (ECU and airbag controllers etc) to test how fast she was going and how hard she braked. They would have also taken her phone records as well, here in the UK they do this any time there is a fatal accident or an accident with injuries serious enough that they might be fatal or life changing. Like I said I don't know how rigorous it might have been there but an investigation would have easily gotten to the bottom of those allegations.

A personal side rant of mine would that this is why I think SUVs and pickup trucks are stupid vehicles in the first place, people believe they are safer if you have an accident but the reality it is you are more likely to have one. They have longer braking distances and are much less stable than a people carrier or hatchback .