Driver kills boy, sues family for 1 million dollars

[Exterminas]

Biased thread title is biased.

Is it impossible for cyclists to be at fault in accidents? Probably not.

Is it impossible to suffer emotional trauma by killing a kid with your car? Hell no.

Is having your child killed (possibly a result of that kid's own behaviour) a free pass? No.

That story might be more complex than just another lol-wacky-lawsuit.

 

[White Lightning]

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.

"A South Simcoe Police report shows Simon admitted that she was driving at 90 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on the two-lane road. She claims she didn?t see the boys or any of the orange-red pedal reflectors."

That quote came from the Sun link. They had some reflective gear, I'll admit though I'm not sure if it's enough to notice on a country road. I still think she should of been driving slower than that, if she had been she would of noticed them. You're right about the kids breaking the law though, not much else to say about that.

 

[Headsprouter]

So the family nice enough to not press charges against the driver who killed their son (and injured his friends) is getting sued by the driver for 1 million.

There are no words.

EDIT: 3 people have already beaten you to quoting this post and informing me that I had misread the article (not having looked at the second). No need to tell me again.

 

[White Lightning]

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!

I see, thanks for the tip. Also you seem like a good driver so props to that. The articles say they had pedal reflectors but I doubt they were all that noticeable.

 

[HardkorSB]

stuff

OK, here's what I found out (after a 3 minute google search):

The family sued the driver (after she was cleared of any charges) in order to get money for the funeral and medical bills.
What this is is basically a counter suit and the driver will drop it if the family will drop theirs.

I think that this is more a case against the shitty life/health insurance systems in the US.
In Poland (where I was born and grew up) all costs would be paid for.
In the UK (where I live now) at least the medical bills would be paid for (I don't know exactly how it is with life insurance here).
In the US however, it seems that if something bad happens to you then you're on your own so I can sympathize with both sides here.

I will however say that the car drivers should be more careful because they're at less risk than pedestrians or cyclists.

 

[NotHankHill]

I've seen this one doing the rounds, the driver was cleared of all wrong doing by the police, those dumbass kids were riding three abreast on a main road in the middle of the night with dark clothing and only the crappy built on reflectors you get on bikes.

But despite their now deceased children's stupidity and the police outright stating she did nothing wrong the family are now suing the driver. The driver is counter suing in the hopes they drop the case. I know this is perfect bait for the crowd that like to rip their dicks off in rage fuelled hate masturbation but could you at least do your research before calling for an innocent woman's head?

Oh who am I kidding? Of course you wont.

This sounds a lot more realistic. I can't honestly fault the family of the deceased for pressing charges though, if it were my kid that was killed in a car accident and the police told me the driver is cleared of all charges, well I'd feel pretty cheated too and probably seek out some sort of justice. Would a lawsuit be it? I can't say for sure, I couldn't really make that decision unless I was actually in this situation. Seems to be what you do in the US if you want something done though, so I'm sure their options pretty much boiled down to this. It's a pretty shitty situation for everyone involved, a kid is dead and nobody wins in the end.

 

[McShizzle]

The family sued the driver (after she was cleared of any charges) in order to get money for the funeral and medical bills.
What this is is basically a counter suit and the driver will drop it if the family will drop theirs.

It's in Canada, no medical bills.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, think about how stressful it must be for him!

...I feel dirty now.

Reminds me of a "mock" radio commercial in GTA III about how anybody can sue anybody for pretty much anything.

Technically, you can.

Whether it makes it is another story.

the driver is very much the villain of the piece.

It's from Fox News. What did you expect, journalism?

Murder doesn't come into it.

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).

He then said "manslaughter," because that's what third degree murder is. In this case, "murder" and "manslaughter" are interchangable. Courts have moved away from the "murder" terminology, but it's stuck with us through police procedurals.

This, of course, only applies specifically to the states and may not in other jurisdictions. Ert being an American, however, he's using American diction. I know this isn't true of Canadia.

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.

Even Canadia, the relevant country, murder only needs to be premeditated to be first degree. There must be intent of some sort, either to kill or to do harm that could lead to death, but that's another issue and you seem to have resolved that.

 

[Samael Barghest]

Is anyone honestly surprised by this? Human greed is, I don't know, a essence of pure evil. I have seen humans betray the ones most dearest to them for money. Humans by their very nature is horribly flawed creature. And I know that there are some good (okay kind of decent) ones out there, but the amount of animals in human skin far outnumber them.

 

[tangoprime]

I think that this is more a case against the shitty life/health insurance systems in the US.
In the US however, it seems that if something bad happens to you then you're on your own so I can sympathize with both sides here.

Toronto is not in the United States. North of Toronto is not in the United States. This took place in Canada, and they have their own universal health care system. I apologize if this gets in the way of the standard US bashing.

 

[tangoprime]

So the family nice enough to not press charges against the driver who killed their son (and injured his friends) is getting sued by the driver for 1 million.

There are no words.

Actually, the family is suing the driver after the driver was cleared of wrongdoing by the police, due to the cyclists not having proper reflective gear and using poor judgement that put them at risk, and made them a danger to drivers.

This lawsuit by the driver is a counter-suit to force the family of the cyclists to drop their suit.

 

[HardkorSB]

This took place in Canada, and they have their own universal health care system. I apologize if this gets in the way of the standard US bashing.

It's in Canada, no medical bills.

Really?
In that case, I must do another 3 minute google search.

(3 minutes later)

Here's the gist of it:

"Cameron has launched a routine lawsuit against the driver, mainly for medical and funeral costs on behalf of the boys and their families. He alleges Simon was speeding and may have been intoxicated and talking on her cellphone."

If there are no medical bills to pay then why make it part of the case?
Also, the allegations have been dismissed by the police and they have pretty much stated that mostly the kids were at fault here so it's kind of a false allegations case as well.

 

[Me55enger]

In a similar vein: UK courts provided £800 in damages to a murderer on 3 life sentences for machine-gunning down 3 people in Hampshire. The damages were claimed after his rado, alarm clock and nose hair clippers were damaged when he and his stuff were being moved to a new prison.

He was being moved because he had stabbed 3 prison wardens with a broken bottle.

The Judge awarded him the £800- £500 of which was compensation for the emotional loss of photographs.

There is a certain insanity in humanity that really does require one hell of a slap.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

"A South Simcoe Police report shows Simon admitted that she was driving at 90 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on the two-lane road.

As a Canadian driver who lives in the same region, I can inform you that driving 10 km/h over the limit is standard operating procedure unless in heavy traffic conditions. I've had people up my ass for dozens of kilometres for having the gall to drive the speed limit in heavy rain. It's pretty bad on grey days with lots of rain because the most popular colour choice on cars here is various shades of grey, so they're impossible to see without daytime running lights.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

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."

The articles are bias.
The driver was cleared by the police, the family sued her,
the driver is counter suing (to get the family to drop the lawsuit).

The family made the first move, if they counter sued, they'd be counter suing a counter sue.

Here's a slightly different take on the story.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/driver-sues-estate-of-ontario-teen-she-struck-killed-1.1793813

According to the statement of claim, the lawsuit seeks $1.35 million in damages for the "great pain and suffering" Simon has endured since the incident. Simon's suit is a countersuit to one levelled against her by Majewski's family.

"An independent accident reconstruction completed by law enforcement officials found that there was nothing Ms. Simon could have done to avoid the collision," the statement said.

The stated reasoning for the counter suit can be seen as kind of silly, but this story isn't as black and white as Fox News and other sources would have you believe.


Now if she was drinking, that changes everything, but there's nothing that says for sure she was aside from a history of, which is something of course would be dug up when lawsuits are being flung around.

 

[Flatfrog]

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.

As many others have pointed out, though, this is why drivers are expected to slow down in poor conditions. Yes, they should have had lights (although in this country at least, there is definitely no legal requirement for any reflective gear - and I don't know where the poster earlier got the idea that it is a legal requirement for pedestrians to wear anything reflective!) but I don't see how the driver got away with claiming she was not at fault when she was known to be speeding. That surely should have been a slam-dunk as far as liability was concerned.

Unless she can prove that she would have killed the boy even if she'd been travelling at a more sensible speed, surely any jury should throw her suit out as frivolous (and one would have thought it could only serve to hamper her case in the original suit by the boy's family)

I do wish sometimes people could just accept that terrible shit happens.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Hm. That does muddy things a bit. I suppose I'm just gonna have to sit back and let the legal system make their choice on this one.

Suing the family is still a dick move.

 

[RicoADF]

I've seen this one doing the rounds, the driver was cleared of all wrong doing by the police, those dumbass kids were riding three abreast on a main road in the middle of the night with dark clothing and only the crappy built on reflectors you get on bikes.

But despite their now deceased children's stupidity and the police outright stating she did nothing wrong the family are now suing the driver. The driver is counter suing in the hopes they drop the case. I know this is perfect bait for the crowd that like to rip their dicks off in rage fuelled hate masturbation but could you at least do your research before calling for an innocent woman's head?

Oh who am I kidding? Of course you wont.

Thanks for providing the full story rather than a hate bait train, that actually makes far more sense. While 1 million is ridiculous I do hope the woman gets something as compensation for the parents trying to ruin her life.

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.

Actually I would have to disagree, while most of the time yes the driver is responsible and should be driving safely reality is the actions of others can be such that there's nothing any driver could do, in this example the kids were riding late at night with dark cloths on along a main road while filling up the whole lane. I don't care how good of a driver you are, it would be quite easy to not see the kids until it was far too late to prevent a collision. People need to take responsibility for their actions, this goes both ways. Pedestrians and riders must follow the road rules the same as drivers or else they can and will cause an accident, which they are responsible for.

 

[Namehere]

So the family nice enough to not press charges against the driver who killed their son (and injured his friends) is getting sued by the driver for 1 million.

There are no words.

How quaint! No they weren't 'nice enough' to 'not press charges.' The police, on the advice of the crown after reasonable investigation and consultation with the crown, decided there were no charges to file, and accordingly didn't file any. In Canada by and large charges are not pressed by private citizens, but by police in conjuncture with the Crown. The story as Faux News tells it is not a news story, but a Fox News story.

They were ridding bicycles - vehicles under the law - with inappropriate safety equipment in an irresponsible manner on a dark road, which lead to a collision with a motorized vehicle. If they'd been pedestrians the driver would automatically be at fault in Ontario. As they were on bicycles with no appropriate safety gear, it is the same as if she'd rear ended a car going down the road with all it's lights turned off - the other fellows fault. That the parents are now suing her apparently - since she violated no laws - has forced a counter suit to stave off the parents' frivolous suit. Of course you're talking about a Fox News story... Why are we doing that again?