Driver kills boy, sues family for 1 million dollars

[CaptainMarvelous]

And people on bridges above you aren't in your hazard zone when you're driving. You're focusing on roadsides, other cars, your speed, road signs etc. a person crossing a bridge 40-50above you, not so much.

While not a Hazard zone, you should still be aware of your surroundings. Not least because road-signs are at that height. Also, crossing? They'd be on the other side of the railings bro, or vaulting over.

Terminal velocity is the maximum speed an object can fall. Which for humans is anywhere between about 100-120 mph. Not 60.

Although I do have to admit, I don't know what distance you have to travel to reach that.

The hyperbole may have been a little excessive. But a person falling from a bridge at about 60mph certainly isn't unreasonable.

Ahhh, I mis-spoke, meant M/s where it's 54, my bad on that. Physics kinda excludes someone legit hitting 60 though, it'd have to be a pretty high bridge in order for their mass to make it that fast. Not impossible though, and I haven't done any maths to work it out yet.

So you catch a glimpse of someone on a bridge above you, you then proceed to slow down in the middle of a freeway (which I assume are like our motor ways).... Are you trying to cause an accident? Because that's what would happen.

When cars are traveling in excess of 70mph. You don't slow down because you see someone on a bridge. Can anyone say "hello pile up"?

You get I don't mean stamp on the brakes right? And if it'd cause a pile-up then you already have a problem with stopping distance if a legitimate traffic accident occurred. Even then, just being aware gives you a fighting chance of doing AN action which might limit the fault. Much like you don't swerve to avoid an animal suddenly being in the road, if you see it 100 metres away you do still take an action. Admittedly, on a highway your options are limited but what exactly do you see happening afterwards? Everyone driving straight over the corpse? You'd change lanes.

Maybe get some real world driving experience before weighing in on stuff like that at?

Maybe make a better argument before being an asshole, eh?

Probably shouldn't call someone an asshole, you know what the mods around here are like.

Ey, Cabbage a cabbage, man. You aren't being the politest of debaters.

Also, the arguments is perfectly fine. You don't slow down in fast moving traffic because someones on a bridge above you. You also haven't got enough time to react to someone throwing themselves from said bridge into your car. Not without causing a massive accident by swerving into another car or slamming the breaks on and causing a pile up. It's just not realistic.

That isn't what I'm suggesting though, I'm suggesting that before jumping from a bridge there is time before they leap. If you don't see them before they jump, your first sign is their nikes in your windshield then yes, I agree you can just keep going and hope the damage is minimal. But if you see a guy hanging off the bars, which even if isn't in your Hazard zone seriously you should at least be aware there IS a bridge, then you should take pre-emptive action. If you can't change lanes or there's a guy riding your ass and you can't slow down then you're kinda boned but that scenario only exists if there are other faults.

You're treating it as a last second thing, I'm treating it the same as a stopped car in the middle of the road

Good thing your high horse is only 10 feet off the ground, so you physically won't be able to hit terminal velocity.

Funny, you were the one who thought a humans terminal velocity was 60mph. Might wanna double that.

If you're gonna be snooty about people misusing terms, don't then go and give the term an inaccurate description.

And yet you got back up on it quickly... you're right though, I got the numbers wrong. Notice how I didn't keep quoting the Hard Zone? Because I'm treating you with some respect.

Like I said, glad you don't have any kind of power.

I am apparently not afforded the same courtesy

Driving that far below* the speed limit is actually an offense in of itself.

Unsure of this? Source if you please? I thought 30 was adequete if slow on anything below a 60, where it is indeed illegal to drive below a safe speed when on multi-lane highways. Seen an awful number of police cars ignore this particular crime.

Like I said, good job you don't have any sort of power.

Pretty glad you don't either, bro.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

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.

Uhh.. yes it is? If you don't even react then you weren't paying due care and attention to begin with. Because the only way they're going to be able to jump into the path of your car is if you're either a) gridlocked in which case, yeah, you aren't at fault in the same way you aren't if someone headbutts your parked car or b) not paying attention to the guy STANDING ON A BRIDGE LIKE HE'S GOING TO JUMP INTO TRAFFIC

It's not 100% your fault but it's more than 10. Just about every traffic accident I can imagine the lowest you can get it is 40-50% the driver's fault.

Do you also blame train drivers when people commit suicide by throwing themselves onto the rails?

What if someone throws themselves out from behind a tree 3 feet in front of you and you hit them? What if another car or cyclist swerves onto your side of the road accidentally and causes a head on collision? What if falling masonry hits your windscreen and causes you to crash into a parked car? What if someone reverse out of there drive without looking and t-bones you?

It's ridiculous to suggest that in every single case that you are involved in an accident in your car, you will be responsible.

Not for the train one? Because that isn't a car?

You give some good examples but as a counter argument, do you believe in those said examples that there is absolutely nothing the driver could have done to avoid any of them? That there is nothing they could have done to avoid what occurred? They are ones where I'd say they aren't mostly at blame, but I don't think they are completely blamefree in them.

 

[senordesol]

Not for the train one? Because that isn't a car?

You give some good examples but as a counter argument, do you believe in those said examples that there is absolutely nothing the driver could have done to avoid any of them? That there is nothing they could have done to avoid what occurred? They are ones where I'd say they aren't mostly at blame, but I don't think they are completely blamefree in them.

The driver may have been able to avoid the *specific* concern, but it doesn't mean that in so doing wouldn't endanger himself or anyone else.

Cars can't stop on a dime. If you're travelling at speed, it can take several seconds to stop safely even in the best conditions.

I suspect even if she wasn't speeding, she still wouldn't have been able to stop safely in time.

 

[Drizzitdude]

It's generally accepted that a collision between a car and pedestrian is drastically more likely to be fatal to the pedestrian each mph you go above 30mph. By the time you get to 40mph, it's something like 80% that the collision will kill the pedestrian.

The max speed of the road was 50mph.

So you want this woman to drive 20mph below the speed limit, just in-case there is someone on the road who didn't take the necessary precautions to make themselves visible at night.

Like I said, glad you don't have any kind of power.

Driving that far bellow the speed limit is actually an offense in of itself.

Actually the speed limit of the road was 50 kph, not mph. Which is about 31 miles per hour. She was speeding, had she been going the normal speed she would had more time to slow down and decrease her acceleration and react to what was in front of her. This case should be open and shut: The driver fucked up, she killed someone by driving irresponsibly and injured others, she should at the very least have to pay for the funeral and medical expenses of the accident she caused, instead she is trying to weasel her way out of it by counter-suing.

 

[lacktheknack]

What they don't mention: This, and more or less every other lawsuit of this type, utterly fails.

As for who does it: Mentally ill people.

 

[DANEgerous]

BITCHES BE CRAZY! I'm not saying women are crazy but bitches be losin' dey mind! What kind of fuck up do you have to be to sue the family of somebody you just murdered!?

Serial killers must be owed thousands! Can you just imagine the tv advert? "have you ever slain somebody? Did you stage "accident" that killed someone? Shoot up a school or even poison a neighbors pet? Well, you could be in for a major win fall! Here at Dewey, Cheatem and Howe we could make you rich!"

Again even iven the worst case senario for the driver THIS IS NOT MURDER... also it is windfall.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I have no idea why people are talking about this is detph; all it is, and all it could ever be, is "greedy heartless shithead doing things a greedy heartless shithead would do; eg running someone over and suing the deceased".

I'm also sure this happened on Judge Judy once.

 

[wulfy42]

From what I understand (Sorry I have not read this whole thread), the driver was not at fault in any way. The kids where riding in the road, late at night (early morning), with no lights, and where hit around a turn. There was no way for the driver to see them and she was totally and completely cleared of any fault by the police when they arrived.

Meanwhile, she had damage to her car, herself (both physically and emotionally), and still did not sue the parents. They sued her instead and I believe she countersued them in response.

If she had just straight out gone to an attorney and sued for damages, that would have been pretty cold I agree. Not totally wrong (As there where damages...and they where not her fault), but cold.

From what I understand she only sued in response to a lawsuit against her. She stayed at the scene and was not tested for alcohol...she never said anything about being on a cell phone etc, so there is no evidence that she was at fault (if she was drunk or even had any smell of alcohol on her breathe the cops would have tested her.

So, yes, a travesty of justice has occured, but it is the above article which totally mis-represents the facts and shows only the parents version of events (Even though it appears the entire fault was on their children).

Is it sad the kids (well they where basically adults, just not legally) where killed? Yes. But they where the idiots riding in the middle of the road on a dark night without lights at all. They put the drivers life at risk, hurt her, thrashed her car and now...after all that, the parents are forcing her to court as well.

In my opinion she should sue them, and win.

 

[CriminalScum]

I seriously don't even know why I read articles like this anymore. It never brings any good, just makes me think dark, sadistic thoughts and slightly worsens my overall character. Seriously though, what a ****.

 

[Muspelheim]

I have no idea why people are talking about this is detph; all it is, and all it could ever be, is "greedy heartless shithead doing things a greedy heartless shithead would do; eg running someone over and suing the deceased".

I'm also sure this happened on Judge Judy once.

Well, because it isn't. If it were that simple, there would be less reason to discuss it, certainly, but it isn't as clear cut as "greedy wanker run over children, expects the parents to cough up".

 

[Zetatrain]

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.

Are things related to psychological damage covered as well?

 

[DementedSheep]

I have no idea why people are talking about this is detph; all it is, and all it could ever be, is "greedy heartless shithead doing things a greedy heartless shithead would do; eg running someone over and suing the deceased".

I'm also sure this happened on Judge Judy once.

Read the comment bellow you. It isn't that clear cut. She is counter suing them because they are suing her despite the fact that she was cleared of fault in the accident. If she had actually just gone to sue them even if was the cyclists fault that would make her a heartless shit-head but that isn't what happened.

 

[wulfy42]

I went back and read the threads and see other people have pointed out what I did already. At least some people are paying attention.

About the whole (always being aware) and (seeing people before they jump off a bridge).

I don't know where the person who is arguing you can see people before they jump off a bridge lives, but our bridges, on our freeways.....are roads with 2 sides of traffic. The people who jump off them do not do it on the side where you could see them. It sure would be nice if they did....but they WANT to get hit by a car. I think that is extremely selfish personally because you are endangering another humans (and maybe many of them) life in the process.

Jumpers usually jump from the side where you can not see at all, until you already have passed the bridge. There is no way to even see if a person is on that side of the bridge...let alone prepare for them to jump.

What is worse, you don't have a clear view even of them falling, since you will be going through (under) the bridge right before they hit you. There is only that tiny bit of sky you see on the other side of the bridge..which would probably take a falling body like 1/10 of a second to fall through and hit you. In other words, no time at all to react.

I have very fast reflexes. I used to drive race cars when younger and I have avoided tons of accidents in my life (even after getting married and slowing down how fast I drive myself, I have still avoided accidents from other drivers). In 20+ years of driving I have never been in an accident with another vehicle.

I would never think it was impossible though, even defensivly driving like I do now. There are just way to many things outside of your control.

When driving on city streets though, I do slow down and if possible, move away, from cyclists when I pass them. I always feel nervous driving by them as if they fall etc, I might not have time to avoid them (some of our roads have VERY little room between the driving lane and cyclists with 2 lanes only....one going in each direction).

I've always thought it was insanely dangerous for people to ride bikes on roads like that, but they do it anyway. If I was riding a bike (havn't for years..but I did as a kid at least)..I would go the extra 2 blocks to ride down a larger/safer street, but you see people biking down Day Road all the time....it's crazy.

Anyway....from all accounts (except the parents I guess..and now fox news), the driver in this case was not at fault in any way. The police totally cleared her, and even did a test to replicate the accident. She was not drinking at least, and cell phone records would show if she was on her cell phone (Which means she was not, as that certainly would have been reported by now). Also, she doesn't seem like a jerk. She didn't sue them in any way initially, even though she was hurt, her car was damaged etc. I don't believe she would have lied to the police about using a cell phone or drinking in the first place. She stayed at the accident, called the police and tried to help the "kids".

The ones are fault are the kids themselves, and to a lesser degree (for the accident) the parents (because they did not stop them from being out at 1:30 am...ensure they had proper lights/safety gear etc).

The parents are totally at fault for bringing the law suit forward though.....after the police informed them the driver was not at fault.

Fox news is at fault for totally mis-representing the case...as always.

Many of the readers in this thread are at fault for believing anything they read and not researching the facts.

I'm at fault for wasting my time here.

The driver is not at fault, and is just defending herself. Personally I hope she wins something to discourage future lawsuits like this.

 

[petercortijo]

...This shit is fucking ridiculous. If i was Simon's (the self-entitled nutjob) lawyer i would have laughed in her face and walked out on her ass. I mean who the hell does she think she is, running over someone's kid ( yes he was 17 but their kid none-the-less) with her SUV and THEN suing them for such an absurd amount of money? Before i would have just wrote this off as some stupidity that won't go any where but after hearing about a special ed student who got in trouble for recording himself getting bullied after his own teachers and principal wouldn't do anything to stop the bullies... anythings possible at this point.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

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.

The problem with Natural Selection, is whenever it occurs, people's feelings get hurt. They never want to believe that they are poor parents, or that their children might be, or have been behaving, FAR less than Intelligently. They tend to fly off the rage diving board at full steam if you even suggest that they are impolite, or behave like Turds at he schoolyard; one can only imagine the difficulty of learning your kid was being foolish enough to get killed.

Seems like they are suing because the Law didn't side with them, which normally wouldn't work - but AMERICA!

http://www.legalzoom.com/lawsuits-settlements/personal-injury/top-ten-frivolous-lawsuits


/slow claps for years

 

[Laughing Man]

So let me weight this up

Women driver is doing 5mph over the speed limit at 1:30 in the morning

vs

3 stooges riding 3 abreast on an unlit road, with no lights, no safety gear, no reflective gear and only their pedal reflectors as any indication to their presence to other road users.

The parents of Larry, or was it Moe? which ever, then decided that it is all the women drivers fault that their idiot son was killed so decided to sue. She counter sues because she has rightfully been found not to be at fault.

World demonizes women driver!

Sorry but as you can tell I am on her side with this one and the main reason why I have been so acerbic with my response is because the clearly tilted story article has the last conversation between the mother and son in which they have a film like emotional farewell. At no point did the PARENT ask the SON where he was going, what time he would be home, what route he was taking, why he had no lights or safety equipment on. You know the things a parent might like to know before letting their son go for a cycle on an unlit road at god knows what o clock in the morning. Yeah so clearly it's all the fault of the women driver!

 

[Zetatrain]

It's generally accepted that a collision between a car and pedestrian is drastically more likely to be fatal to the pedestrian each mph you go above 30mph. By the time you get to 40mph, it's something like 80% that the collision will kill the pedestrian.

The max speed of the road was 50mph.

So you want this woman to drive 20mph below the speed limit, just in-case there is someone on the road who didn't take the necessary precautions to make themselves visible at night.

Like I said, glad you don't have any kind of power.

Driving that far bellow the speed limit is actually an offense in of itself.

Actually the speed limit of the road was 50 kph, not mph. Which is about 31 miles per hour. She was speeding, had she been going the normal speed she would had more time to slow down and decrease her acceleration and react to what was in front of her. This case should be open and shut: The driver fucked up, she killed someone by driving irresponsibly and injured others, she should at the very least have to pay for the funeral and medical expenses of the accident she caused, instead she is trying to weasel her way out of it by counter-suing.

Can I get a source on the speed limit? The articles list the speed limit of the road at 50 mph and 80 kph. Granted the articles are FOX and SUN so they aren't the most reliable sources.