If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Toronto Sun)   Parents of dead teens sue driver who hit them for $1.35 million for emotional distress. Wait, that's way too reasonable to be on Fark. Must be the other way around   (torontosun.com) divider line 253
    More: Asinine, pelvic fracture, two-lane road  
•       •       •

16116 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2014 at 7:05 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



253 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-26 07:07:50 AM
One of my fav. catogary. i like it very much..
 
2014-04-26 07:12:55 AM
If the judge is halfway decent, which most are so very not, he will recognize it as an obvious sign of psychopathy and have the person institutionalized.
 
2014-04-26 07:13:14 AM
I hope this woman dies a slow painful death
 
2014-04-26 07:16:58 AM
Well, that's certainly setting the bar pretty low.

I do have to wonder about the driver's attorney on this one.  I know there are guys out there that have no problem willingly defending all sorts of scumbags, and we obviously need them for the system to work, but this seems like the sort of case where an attorney might not want their name attached to it.
 
2014-04-26 07:19:44 AM
If you do that kind of damage to a vehicle, you're going a bit faster than 90km/h (~55mph in American).

The woman is obvious an idiot--PTSD after killing someone whileyou were reckless?!--but holy crap I ccan't help but feel terrible for the dead kid's family. I do hope the family counter-sues the delusional woman and gets a huge judgment for their own pain and suffering.
 
2014-04-26 07:19:46 AM
I'd be emotionally distraught as well if some kid's corpse dented my bumper and cracked my windshield
 
2014-04-26 07:22:00 AM
I know rug rats out on a dark stormy night on the road is a recipe for disaster. The little snowflakes should maybe have been in bed masturbating to video games or something.

This biatch can go Fark herself though. It will get thrown out.
 
2014-04-26 07:22:00 AM

State_College_Arsonist: Well, that's certainly setting the bar pretty low.

I do have to wonder about the driver's attorney on this one.  I know there are guys out there that have no problem willingly defending all sorts of scumbags, and we obviously need them for the system to work, but this seems like the sort of case where an attorney might not want their name attached to it.


I'm sure her solicitor's post box is filled to overflowing with hate mail--and rightly so. Not only did he take the case, but he had to have said that she had a solid case. What a piece of trash and an insult to solicitors everywhere.
 
2014-04-26 07:24:19 AM
Sick tag on vacation? This is farked up.
 
2014-04-26 07:24:49 AM
I will willingly serve the jail time of anybody that murders this pathetic piece of human garbage.
 
2014-04-26 07:25:20 AM
Ok, I'll bite and did RTFA.

The parents let the kid, for whom they are legally responsible, ride a bike without lights in the middle of the night in the middle of a road ("but he's a good kid.")  the kid was struck and killed by a driver going a reasonable speed (90 in an 80 km zone is hardly unreasonable) who was understandably traumatized by what had happened.

take away the emotional argument "bbb.b.bb.bbut the kid's dead!" out of it and she'd certainly have a point.  i mean, look at it this way - what if the kid had just put his bicycle in the middle of the road (with him somewhere nearby) which the suv hit and somehow emotionally scarred the driver such that he/she was truly too afraid to drive at night any more.  would the parents not be responsible?  of course they would.
 
2014-04-26 07:25:51 AM
May she DIAF
 
2014-04-26 07:27:24 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: Ok, I'll bite and did RTFA.

The parents let the kid, for whom they are legally responsible, ride a bike without lights in the middle of the night in the middle of a road ("but he's a good kid.")  the kid was struck and killed by a driver going a reasonable speed (90 in an 80 km zone is hardly unreasonable) who was understandably traumatized by what had happened.

take away the emotional argument "bbb.b.bb.bbut the kid's dead!" out of it and she'd certainly have a point.  i mean, look at it this way - what if the kid had just put his bicycle in the middle of the road (with him somewhere nearby) which the suv hit and somehow emotionally scarred the driver such that he/she was truly too afraid to drive at night any more.  would the parents not be responsible?  of course they would.


This is FARK, there is no place here for reasoned arguments and facts!
 
2014-04-26 07:27:41 AM

maram500: If you do that kind of damage to a vehicle, you're going a bit faster than 90km/h (~55mph in American).

The woman is obvious an idiot--PTSD after killing someone whileyou were reckless?!--but holy crap I ccan't help but feel terrible for the dead kid's family. I do hope the family counter-sues the delusional woman and gets a huge judgment for their own pain and suffering.


The family is a mess, middle kid dead from the 'accident', youngest in hospital for weeks, the oldest couldn't handle it and died from a combination of drugs and alcohol about 6 months later, and the couple is divorced...and were already suing, this bat is counter suing.  *and needs to die in a fire with her lawyer.*
 
2014-04-26 07:27:48 AM
Now the driver of the SUV, Sharlene Simon, 42, a mother of three, formerly from Innisfil, is suing the dead boy for the emotional trauma she says she has suffered. She's also suing the two other boys, as well as the dead boy's parents, and even his brother, who has since died. She's also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.

Jeez, show some compassion, guys. The poor woman was involved in a traffic accident!

/sarcastic slashy. Just in case.
 
2014-04-26 07:29:31 AM
Someone should kill her then sue her back.
 
2014-04-26 07:29:43 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: Ok, I'll bite and did RTFA.

The parents let the kid, for whom they are legally responsible, ride a bike without lights in the middle of the night in the middle of a road ("but he's a good kid.")  the kid was struck and killed by a driver going a reasonable speed (90 in an 80 km zone is hardly unreasonable) who was understandably traumatized by what had happened.

take away the emotional argument "bbb.b.bb.bbut the kid's dead!" out of it and she'd certainly have a point.  i mean, look at it this way - what if the kid had just put his bicycle in the middle of the road (with him somewhere nearby) which the suv hit and somehow emotionally scarred the driver such that he/she was truly too afraid to drive at night any more.  would the parents not be responsible?  of course they would.


I don't have kids. Can almost guarantee you don't either based on those comments. I hate children, but you do NOT sue the family of a dead kid. That's "Not being a scumbag 101"
 
2014-04-26 07:29:46 AM
I think she should win.
 
2014-04-26 07:30:52 AM
What the principal party pressing the lawsuit might look like.

rightonscv.com
 
2014-04-26 07:32:01 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: Ok, I'll bite and did RTFA.

The parents let the kid, for whom they are legally responsible, ride a bike without lights in the middle of the night in the middle of a road ("but he's a good kid.")  the kid was struck and killed by a driver going a reasonable speed (90 in an 80 km zone is hardly unreasonable) who was understandably traumatized by what had happened.

take away the emotional argument "bbb.b.bb.bbut the kid's dead!" out of it and she'd certainly have a point.  i mean, look at it this way - what if the kid had just put his bicycle in the middle of the road (with him somewhere nearby) which the suv hit and somehow emotionally scarred the driver such that he/she was truly too afraid to drive at night any more.  would the parents not be responsible?  of course they would.


There is some question about her speed, and her sobriety, and a not zero chance she was texting...  so maybe not so cut and dry there.  Bonus points for her hubby being a cop.
 
2014-04-26 07:32:20 AM
What the fark were these minors doing out at 1:30 AM, during a dark and rainy night?
 
2014-04-26 07:33:24 AM

maram500: I'm sure her solicitor's post box is filled to overflowing with hate mail--and rightly so. Not only did he take the case, but he had to have said that she had a solid case. What a piece of trash and an insult to solicitors everywhere.


This is in Canada, so hate mail is a crime.
 
2014-04-26 07:33:43 AM

sno man: Bonus points for her hubby being a cop.


We really gotta stop kissing these people's asses and the personality disorder riddled cows they breed with.
 
2014-04-26 07:34:08 AM
The impact of the collision cracked the windshield of her SUV, dented the bumper, a headlight was busted, the roof where Brandon hit was dented and scratched and a side mirror dangled by its wires.

It's not so cut and dried against the plaintiff when the gruesome facts are laid out so plainly.
 
2014-04-26 07:34:12 AM
According to the article, the parents' lawyer has filed a routine suit alleging that the driver was drunk.  The initial police report also stated that the driver's husband, a police officer, was following his wife at the time of the accident.  I'm not sure about Canada, but in the U.S., a police officer can easily get a fellow officer to overlook routine exams like a breathalyzer and then "help" that officer write the incident report.

Hopefully, in filing this lawsuit, the driver opens herself up for a complete investigation.  Is it possible, in Canada, that she could end up facing vehicular manslaughter charges if she's determined to have been drinking?  Could her husband face disciplinary charges if he was involved in some kind of coverup?
 
2014-04-26 07:34:55 AM
Simon's husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle.

A cop's wife... Suddenly I am suspicious of the whole situation.
 
2014-04-26 07:38:49 AM
Simon's lawywer declined to comment on the case, instead stating that "He had to go have sex with his hot step sister while their father watched."
 
2014-04-26 07:39:02 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: Ok, I'll bite and did RTFA.

The parents let the kid, for whom they are legally responsible, ride a bike without lights in the middle of the night in the middle of a road ("but he's a good kid.")  the kid was struck and killed by a driver going a reasonable speed (90 in an 80 km zone is hardly unreasonable) who was understandably traumatized by what had happened.

take away the emotional argument "bbb.b.bb.bbut the kid's dead!" out of it and she'd certainly have a point.  i mean, look at it this way - what if the kid had just put his bicycle in the middle of the road (with him somewhere nearby) which the suv hit and somehow emotionally scarred the driver such that he/she was truly too afraid to drive at night any more.  would the parents not be responsible?  of course they would.


You missed a few points:

1. It was wet that night. Even drivinthe posted speed limit is ill-advised, let alone going over the speed limit.

2. She was likely not completely sober. But we'all never know, because the cops--of whom her husband was one--didnt do a sobriety test at all.

3. The hypothetical situation you lay out makes ZERO FARKING SENSE.

Also, you appear to not have RTFA as you claim. But, whatever.
 
2014-04-26 07:39:43 AM
If your actions kill an innocent person and you try and get paid by the people from whose bosom you have torn them, you are a gutless, nasty pice of sh*t.  Period.
 
2014-04-26 07:40:24 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: Ok, I'll bite and did RTFA.

The parents let the kid, for whom they are legally responsible, ride a bike without lights in the middle of the night in the middle of a road ("but he's a good kid.")  the kid was struck and killed by a driver going a reasonable speed (90 in an 80 km zone is hardly unreasonable) who was understandably traumatized by what had happened.

take away the emotional argument "bbb.b.bb.bbut the kid's dead!" out of it and she'd certainly have a point.  i mean, look at it this way - what if the kid had just put his bicycle in the middle of the road (with him somewhere nearby) which the suv hit and somehow emotionally scarred the driver such that he/she was truly too afraid to drive at night any more.  would the parents not be responsible?  of course they would.


No.

Because: If a car hits three bicyclists hard enough to kill one, cripple another, and send a third flying, the driver is unequivocally at fault. She was driving over the posted speed limit, and worse she was obviously driving too fast for conditions. The kids had every legal right to be where they were.
 
2014-04-26 07:40:42 AM

Bslim: What the fark were these minors doing out at 1:30 AM, during a dark and rainy night?


Going to the store to get some snacks, jesus, is that a farking crime where you come from?
 
2014-04-26 07:42:58 AM

Mr. Right: According to the article, the parents' lawyer has filed a routine suit alleging that the driver was drunk.  The initial police report also stated that the driver's husband, a police officer, was following his wife at the time of the accident.  I'm not sure about Canada, but in the U.S., a police officer can easily get a fellow officer to overlook routine exams like a breathalyzer and then "help" that officer write the incident report.

Hopefully, in filing this lawsuit, the driver opens herself up for a complete investigation.  Is it possible, in Canada, that she could end up facing vehicular manslaughter charges if she's determined to have been drinking?  Could her husband face disciplinary charges if he was involved in some kind of coverup?


I'm not entirely sure of how it works in Canadialand, but in the US, this would spark an Internal Affairs investigation that could lead to the guy losing his job and/or being prosecuted for a charge of conspiracy.

I look forward to the follow up on this.
 
2014-04-26 07:44:35 AM
Jailarity should ensue, seriously.
 
2014-04-26 07:44:47 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: Ok, I'll bite and did RTFA.

The parents let the kid, for whom they are legally responsible, ride a bike without lights in the middle of the night in the middle of a road ("but he's a good kid.")  the kid was struck and killed by a driver going a reasonable speed (90 in an 80 km zone is hardly unreasonable) who was understandably traumatized by what had happened.

take away the emotional argument "bbb.b.bb.bbut the kid's dead!" out of it and she'd certainly have a point.  i mean, look at it this way - what if the kid had just put his bicycle in the middle of the road (with him somewhere nearby) which the suv hit and somehow emotionally scarred the driver such that he/she was truly too afraid to drive at night any more.  would the parents not be responsible?  of course they would.


Uhh, the speed limit is the speed limit.  When you violate it a judge isn't going to listen to, "But the speed limit is unreasonable!" as a defense when you have just struck and killed a cyclist.  Not to mention that a driver is supposed to slow down even below the limit when conditions, such as it being dark and rainy, warrant it.  Even without the possible intoxication or the suggestion that her speed was even higher than reported, it's not looking good for her not being reckless in some way.
 
2014-04-26 07:45:59 AM

Squilax: Bslim: What the fark were these minors doing out at 1:30 AM, during a dark and rainy night?

Going to the store to get some snacks, jesus, is that a farking crime where you come from?


In my case, yes.

From the city of St Paul's website:

Unaccompanied minors over 15 and under 18 are restricted from public places from 12:01 am to 4:00 am daily
 
2014-04-26 07:45:59 AM
it was an accident
not her fault
if anyone was at fault it was the kids.
their folks are suing her which is wrong
so she counter sues, no choice here
end of story
   if any of you that wish her dead had the misfortune to hit some kid riding his bike in the middle of the road in the middle of the night and were getting sued for it, you would do the same thing to protect yourself.
 
2014-04-26 07:46:57 AM
This woman and her lawyer need to turn in their cards. They have lost the right to live in polite society, fire their asses into the sun.
 
2014-04-26 07:47:09 AM
Wow. Add her to the list of the worlds worst humans.
 
2014-04-26 07:48:14 AM

bunner: If your actions kill an innocent person and you try and get paid by the people from whose bosom you have torn them, you are a gutless, nasty pice of sh*t.  Period.


I might have said this differently, but PTSD is indeed a terrible thing, and perhaps you could construe her possible feelings of guilt as symptoms of PTSD, it can be awfully hard to sleep at night and get through the day when you're forced to remember that you killed a kid or two, even when not drinking. But if you caused the death of someone, and then proceed to sue that person's family for emotional distress, you are an unmitigated piece of shiat and welcome to find the race of other unmitigated pieces of shiat and live among them, because you aren't, then, considered human anymore. Go forth and fark thyself into the sunset.
 
2014-04-26 07:49:15 AM
My sister was driving on a bright and clear day when a kid on a bike (and without even looking) swerved from a sidewalk right in front of her big bad SUV.  She struck him, and he ended up severely injured (broken legs, pelvis etc - fortunately he lived)  Fortunately for her there were two other drivers who witnessed the entire thing otherwise she would be screwed,

Now my point: That accident screwed her up - she never sued anybody but she's suffered from anxiety and bouts of depression ever since so PTSD is definitely a possibility with this woman.
 
2014-04-26 07:50:55 AM

Bslim: What the fark were these minors doing out at 1:30 AM, during a dark and rainy night?


What the fark was the driver doing on the same dark and rainy night ? Pretty sure the teens didnt kill anyone.
 
2014-04-26 07:52:24 AM

TomD9938: Squilax: Bslim: What the fark were these minors doing out at 1:30 AM, during a dark and rainy night?

Going to the store to get some snacks, jesus, is that a farking crime where you come from?

In my case, yes.

From the city of St Paul's website:

Unaccompanied minors over 15 and under 18 are restricted from public places from 12:01 am to 4:00 am daily


Wow. I can't even think of anything to say to that. I used to ride my bike to the corner store all the time for snacks, and that wasn't even counting all the time I actually spent riding my bike around making mischief and doing/selling drugs. Of course, that doesn't explain why the kids in TFA shouldn't have been "out at 1:30am, during a dark and rainy night".
 
2014-04-26 07:54:21 AM
It looks like the kids were actually ruled at-fault for the accident, so it's not like she intentionally ran them down and blamed them.

Claiming emotional damages from an incident on the grounds of a minor's contributory negligence for your hurt feelings is pretty clearly abuse of the intended purpose of the civil court system.  I hope whatever lawyer thought this was even remotely legit gets a dismissal on the grounds of the lawsuit being frivolous on his record (usually results in disbarment if you keep it up).
 
2014-04-26 07:54:33 AM

jimpapa: it was an accident
not her fault
if anyone was at fault it was the kids.
their folks are suing her which is wrong
so she counter sues, no choice here
end of story
   if any of you that wish her dead had the misfortune to hit some kid riding his bike in the middle of the road in the middle of the night and were getting sued for it, you would do the same thing to protect yourself.


Responding in a way that you might understand:

it wasn't an accident
she was driving over the speed limit
she shouldn't have been driving even the speed limit
her choice should have been to settle and pay the family
end of story
 
2014-04-26 07:56:25 AM

Jim_Callahan: It looks like the kids were actually ruled at-fault for the accident, so it's not like she intentionally ran them down and blamed them.

Claiming emotional damages from an incident on the grounds of a minor's contributory negligence for your hurt feelings is pretty clearly abuse of the intended purpose of the civil court system.  I hope whatever lawyer thought this was even remotely legit gets a dismissal on the grounds of the lawsuit being frivolous on his record (usually results in disbarment if you keep it up).


The kids were ruled at fault? Where did you read that? I read the article and must have missed that... (Not being sarcastic, either.)
 
2014-04-26 07:57:50 AM
I'd probably have PTSD for running someone over even if I was at fault.  Hell, probably more likely if I was at fault.  That this woman has PTSD isn't an unrealistic concern.  If the issue is her audacity sue the parents, well, they should've prepared their kid more if they were going to let the kid out and about that time of morning.
 
2014-04-26 08:00:17 AM
We need some perspective here. These kids were cycling. On the road. Nothing good ever came from cyclists. Had they lived they may have gone on to wear those daft lycra outfits.

They had it coming.
 
2014-04-26 08:01:21 AM

Nidiot: We need some perspective here. These kids were cycling. On the road. Nothing good ever came from cyclists. Had they lived they may have gone on to wear those daft lycra outfits.

They had it coming.


And now I know Jeremy Clarkson's Fark handle...neat!
 
2014-04-26 08:03:47 AM

Squilax: Bslim: What the fark were these minors doing out at 1:30 AM, during a dark and rainy night?

Going to the store to get some snacks, jesus, is that a farking crime where you come from?


In Florida we assume all teenagers getting snacks are dangerous. Were they wearing hoodies? Exponential danger if so.
 
2014-04-26 08:06:40 AM

Erisire: Squilax: Bslim: What the fark were these minors doing out at 1:30 AM, during a dark and rainy night?

Going to the store to get some snacks, jesus, is that a farking crime where you come from?

In Florida we assume all teenagers getting snacks are dangerous. Were they wearing hoodies? Exponential danger if so.


DANGER! HOODIES AT LARGE! DO NOT FEED AFTER MIDNIGHT
 
Displayed 50 of 253 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report