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.
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.
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.
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.
sno man: Bonus points for her hubby being a cop.
Bslim: What the fark were these minors doing out at 1:30 AM, during a dark and rainy night?
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?
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?
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.
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
jimpapa: it was an accidentnot her faultif anyone was at fault it was the kids.their folks are suing her which is wrongso she counter sues, no choice hereend 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.
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).
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.
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.
If you like these links, you'll love
More Farking, less working
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Oct 23 2017 22:42:15
Runtime: 0.715 sec (714 ms)