What a couple of complete idiots. They should be charged with negligence for allowing their kid to ride an ATV near a highway.

But Jordan's parents, Michael and Lesli Keith, filed a wrongful death lawsuit, accusing Robertson of being negligent and failing to drive more carefully or sound a warning to Jordan as he drove near her.

Perhaps he should sound a warning before he carefully drives over them ;)

Wow, in "most" states ATV drivers need to be 16.

/helmet laws suck
//Misury, north-west Tennatuky

I can only hope that the court assigns them the old guys attorney's fees.

Jesus Christ.

Ahhh, hicks.

Dinki: What a couple of complete idiots. They should be charged with negligence for allowing their kid to ride an ATV near a highway.

Came to say this.

Poor kid. :\

I don't really have the intention of adding anything intelligent (similar to what these people are doing), so I'll just stick with:

ZOMGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHALOLZROFLMAOAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Gosh that's all I feel like I can do sometimes to make the pain go away...

real shaman: I can only hope that the court assigns them the old guys attorney's fees.

I guess they will. But it should be the old guy's insurance company that's picking up the bill initially. That's what insurance is for.

/ In the UK, there was an almost identical case. The dead kid's father actually got sent to jail for being dumb enough to let the kid ride the ATV on the highway.

yay for Missouri!

Sounds like a family with a plan:

1. have kids
2. let them do something stupid
3. sue to get rich

I like my wet/dry state of Washington: if it is not a car or a bike that can go the speed limit of the road, get the fark off the pavement.

Dinki: What a couple of complete idiots. They should be charged with negligence for allowing their kid to ride an ATV near a highway.

This. Manage your kids.

opiumpoopy: In the UK, there was an almost identical case.

Found it: Daily Fail article (new window)

gozar_the_destroyer: I like my wet/dry state of Washington: if it is not a car or a bike that can go the speed limit of the road, get the fark off the pavement.

Well thats not true, bike riders are constantly going under the speed limit in Seattle. They also love to break laws, like stopping at red lights, and they always think the have the right of way.

/Farking hate bike riders

This is an appropriate case for the driver to countersue for emotional distress and other damages for the kid and parents negligence.

"The parents were maliciously negligent for allowing their child to ride close to the road, thereby causing her death"

If I was on the jury, I'd award the driver damages.

If I was this guy I'd drop an A-bomb of counterclaims on them. Negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, just plain old negligence along with any other statutory or common law causes of action that are available in the jurisdiction. When you sue someone after you do something stupid you can't expect not to be called on all of the stupid things you did that lead to the reason you are suing someone.

ace in your face: gozar_the_destroyer: I like my wet/dry state of Washington: if it is not a car or a bike that can go the speed limit of the road, get the fark off the pavement.

Well thats not true, bike riders are constantly going under the speed limit in Seattle. They also love to break laws, like stopping at red lights, and they always think the have the right of way.

/Farking hate bike riders

At least they can be ticketed just like a driver. Or hit...

\Revs engine.

The worst part is that the guy is 61. If he was younger, he could get over this, but the fact that he inadvertently killed a little girl (through no fault of his own, mind you) is going to stick with him for the rest of his life.

So wait....

The article says she was driving "off the road", and then somehow she was miraculously hit by a truck driving "ON the road".

I suppose that means the old man must have intentionally swerved off the road to hit her? Of course not. She was clearly NOT driving "off the road" if she was hit by something "ON the road".

This is reminding so much of that kid in PA that was hit by a train while he was goofing around on the tracks, and when his parents sued they actually tried to make it sound as if the driver had somehow intentionally hit her son. Like the driver could just swerve around him instead of hitting him.

She was on the road, where she got hit. But hell, she's only ten and didn't know any better. Her *parents* should have known better because they're probably at least nineteen, twenty years old themselves.

SpinStopper: But Jordan's parents, Michael and Lesli Keith, filed a wrongful death lawsuit, accusing Robertson of being negligent and failing to drive more carefully or sound a warning to Jordan as he drove near her.

Perhaps he should sound a warning before he carefully drives over them ;)

I feel bad, but I laughed at that.

wow i hope these parents get nothing.

I think Jordan's parents should have to pay, not only the truck driver's legal fees, but also to repair his truck

/ then we'll talk about the truck driver's "pain & suffering", mental anguish - whatever.

opiumpoopy: opiumpoopy: In the UK, there was an almost identical case.

Found it: Daily Fail article (new window)

Yeah - BBC story here:

Link (new window)

"The father of a seven-year-old who died after the quadbike she was riding was in a head-on collision with a Range Rover on Boxing Day has been arrested.

Elizabeth Cooke and her brother Jack, 10, were riding quadbikes behind a Range Rover driven by their father when the accident happened, police said.

They were near their home in Blackmore, Essex, when Elizabeth's machine was in collision with an oncoming Range Rover."

Totally opposite result.

It's tragic that the girl died (in either case) but in both cases the parents definitely SHOULD be prosecuted for such negligence.

Sounds like these parents are in denial and trying to find another source of blame.

ace in your face: gozar_the_destroyer: I like my wet/dry state of Washington: if it is not a car or a bike that can go the speed limit of the road, get the fark off the pavement.

Well thats not true, bike riders are constantly going under the speed limit in Seattle. They also love to break laws, like stopping at red lights, and they always think the have the right of way.

/Farking hate bike riders

Uh, hay stoopid...this was a highway, not a city street.

/it's not "breaking the law" to "stop at a red light"
//it's really not
///between a bike and a car, the bike DOES have right of way

Pert: opiumpoopy: opiumpoopy: In the UK, there was an almost identical case.

Found it: Daily Fail article (new window)

Yeah - BBC story here:

Link (new window)

"The father of a seven-year-old who died after the quadbike she was riding was in a head-on collision with a Range Rover on Boxing Day has been arrested.

Elizabeth Cooke and her brother Jack, 10, were riding quadbikes behind a Range Rover driven by their father when the accident happened, police said.

They were near their home in Blackmore, Essex, when Elizabeth's machine was in collision with an oncoming Range Rover."

Totally opposite result.

It's tragic that the girl died (in either case) but in both cases the parents definitely SHOULD be prosecuted for such negligence.

Sounds like these parents are in denial and trying to find another source of blame.

And another thing...

"Elizabeth and Jack had been given quadbikes for Christmas"

Well done, farktard - your youngkids had been in possession of a MOTOR VEHICLE for an entire day before you took them out on a PUBLIC ROAD.

I mean come on, what's the worst that could happen?

When I was ten, I had almost talked one of my neighbors into letting me drive his snowmobile when my dad suddenly showed up and found out what was going on.

I though my dad was going to kill the neighbor.

My father also considered going ahead and preemptively killing me because I was obviously too stupid to live. He grudgingly settled for beating the tar out of me ;)

mrwknd: /helmet laws suck

they should make you sign waver, if you don't wear a helmet and you die all your organs are donated.

Why are kids so stupid?

Dinki: What a couple of complete idiots. They should be charged with negligence for allowing their 10 year old kid to ride an ATV near a highway.

Personally, I think this is accurate as it stands, but for all the rednecks, I'll add the following:

without their direct supervision

Darwin award winners.

mrwknd: Wow, in "most" states ATV drivers need to be 16.

Missouri ATV law:

# ATV use on highways is prohibited, except for agricultural or industrial purposes.
# No one under 16 may operate an ATV unless on a parent's land or accompanied by a parent.

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here and suggest that if they were on an unpaved road, one of the parents was following along with her, and Billy Joe Jimbob came blowing by without slowing down to pass like you should do when encountering slower traffic on a rural road... they may have a case.

A quick look in the interwebs shows that she was killed on Westmoreland Road. That particular road appears to be a small paved public road servicing rural residences on Google maps. If that's the case, then that kinda messes up the 'offroad' bit, even if she was riding in a ditch alongside the road even though the article mentions 'offroad' (The ditch is still part of the roadway in Missouri and tended by the local or state agency that also tends the roadway). If Ma and Pa didn't watch it happen, there goes number two.

/If da glove don't fit
//Vote to acquit

Ludovicus:
///between a bike and a car, the bike DOES have right of way

Uhh. Wrong. You don't believe it? Turn in front of me.

Owner of car should sue parents for damage to his vehicle.

Ludovicus: ace in your face: gozar_the_destroyer: I like my wet/dry state of Washington: if it is not a car or a bike that can go the speed limit of the road, get the fark off the pavement.

Well thats not true, bike riders are constantly going under the speed limit in Seattle. They also love to break laws, like stopping at red lights, and they always think the have the right of way.

/Farking hate bike riders

Uh, hay stoopid...this was a highway, not a city street.

/it's not "breaking the law" to "stop at a red light"
//it's really not
///between a bike and a car, the bike DOES have right of way

HEY STOOPID I was responding to comment on WASHINGTONS ROADS and that bikers have to go the speed limit. The law they love to break is the law of stopping at a red light- meaning they go through them. Bikes DO NOT have the right of way when they run stop lights/ signs. Maybe you should think before you type.

McJudo: If I was this guy I'd drop an A-bomb of counterclaims on them. Negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, just plain old negligence along with any other statutory or common law causes of action that are available in the jurisdiction. When you sue someone after you do something stupid you can't expect not to be called on all of the stupid things you did that lead to the reason you are suing someone.

also not to mention pain and suffering this guy must be going through after accidentally killing a little girl... its completely asinine that the parents would even consider blaming the truck driver. these people shouldn't be aloud to have any more kids

People railing on the parents for letting the kid ride an atv "near the highway" have obviously never lived in the sticks. "Highway" in the sticks often means

rather than

The lawsuit, however, is definitely an assload of stupid.

ace in your face: The law they love to break is the law of stopping at a red light- meaning they go through them.

It's a pain to have to stop and go when you're not letting fossil fuels do the work for you.

ace in your face: Well thats not true, bike riders are constantly going under the speed limit in Seattle. They also love to break laws, like stopping at red lights, and they always think the have the right of way.

/Farking hate bike riders

Stupid bike riders with their "stopping at red lights".

Ludovicus: ace in your face: gozar_the_destroyer: I like my wet/dry state of Washington: if it is not a car or a bike that can go the speed limit of the road, get the fark off the pavement.

Well thats not true, bike riders are constantly going under the speed limit in Seattle. They also love to break laws, like stopping at red lights, and they always think the have the right of way.

/Farking hate bike riders

Uh, hay stoopid...this was a highway, not a city street.

/it's not "breaking the law" to "stop at a red light"
//it's really not
///between a bike and a car, the bike DOES have right of way

You can ride a bike and even a moped (if you have a license for it) on unrestricted highways here (top speeds can be up to 60mph). From the article, it didn't sound like a restricted highway to me (lack of fence on the side of the road to keep animals/rednecks off and the area adjacent to off road on) Now if it was a restricted highway, they were just being stupid by being out there in the first place, never mind the poor girl.

As for the right of way for bikes; sorry, here they count the same as motorcycles when on the road. The only exception would be if they are in a bike lane in which case they are only exempt from having to go the speed limit. And right of way is based on situation and location for vehicles here. Only buses and pedestrians have right of way all of the time here. I think that Ludovicus will agree with me on this too.

Riders of both motorcycles and bikes should error on the side of caution when yielding since they are not protected like a car driver.

\rides bikes and motorcycles
\\is holding a Washington Driver's Handbook right now
\\\was just saying it would not have legal ground here to pee on

The guy driving the truck should be awarded damages(if any) to his truck. Charge the parents for neggy, case closed. Next.

ace in your face: HEY STOOPID I was responding to comment on WASHINGTONS ROADS and that bikers have to go the speed limit. The law they love to break is the law of stopping at a red light- meaning they go through them. Bikes DO NOT have the right of way when they run stop lights/ signs. Maybe you should think before you type.

Maybe you should figure out how to write coherent sentences.

BrentCT2: these people shouldn't be aloud to have any more kids

Is it okay if they do it quietly?

Driver should sue the parents for emotional distress caused by their negligence in putting him in a situation where a little girl would suicide herself on his vehicle.

He should be awarded millions in damages.

stazz: Ludovicus:
///between a bike and a car, the bike DOES have right of way

Uhh. Wrong. You don't believe it? Turn in front of me.

You mean, turning, while he is in from of you? Or, going into your opposite lane? or do you mean, at a 4 way stop, the bike goes, and you decide to clip him?

Because, if you use the old addage, "physics says I'm right.", You would be correct. I would also be correct in saying a bullet has a right of way over your head.

Either kind of highway pictured above is no place for a 10 year old on an ATV, unless you're a Darwinian kind of parent.

Ludovicus: /it's not "breaking the law" to "stop at a red light"
//it's really not
///between a bike and a car, the bike DOES have right of way

The poster didn't say that stopping at a red light was breaking the law. Perhaps you're just a syntax troll.

A bicycle is another vehicle, not a pedestrian. Common sense applies.

/ daily bike rider
// that's 5 days per week, 18 miles per day
/// any smug entitlement gets lost with how fast a car goes and how much it weighs

dogfather_jr: BrentCT2: these people shouldn't be aloud to have any more kids

Is it okay if they do it quietly?

as long as our tax dollars dont have to clean up there mess all over the side of the highway sure.....

Atypical Person Reading Fark: Either kind of highway pictured above is no place for a 10 year old on an ATV, unless you're a Darwinian kind of parent.

That was my first thought.

AppleOptionEsc: stazz: Ludovicus:
///between a bike and a car, the bike DOES have right of way

Uhh. Wrong. You don't believe it? Turn in front of me.

You mean, turning, while he is in from of you? Or, going into your opposite lane? or do you mean, at a 4 way stop, the bike goes, and you decide to clip him?

Because, if you use the old addage, "physics says I'm right.", You would be correct. I would also be correct in saying a bullet has a right of way over your head.


\I iz full now