Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

16147 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2014 at 7:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



253 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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
 
2014-04-26 08:08:14 AM  
FTA:  "He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle.
Two hours later, after Brandon lay dead in hospital from multiple traumatic injuries, police knocked on the door of the Majewski's home."

How "shortly" did he drive his wife home?  Who called for medical help?  Did he drive his wife home, return to the accident site, and then call for help?  Article absolutely sucks at details.
 
2014-04-26 08:08:44 AM  

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


Was there a full moon?

/there was one she-devil out already.
 
2014-04-26 08:09:25 AM  

maram500: 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


Every part of your post is retarded.  She would have absolutely no say on how much money the parents settled for.  Her insurance company hires lawyers for that.  Other than attending discoveries (or a deposition, for the 'mericans), the woman would have little contact with these lawyers.
 
2014-04-26 08:09:45 AM  
Welcome to the 21st century, where responsibility is entirely a subjective thing, which means, subjectively speaking, I take none.
 
2014-04-26 08:10:01 AM  
If the kids were wearing spandex, she might have a case.
 
2014-04-26 08:10:18 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.


Are we sure they had no lights?

If so then yes, it really was the kid's fault to a higher % than the driver's.

She was speeding (evening though her cop husband was behind her ... probably also speeding) so some of the blame has to come back to her.

If they really were riding three abreast (illegal) at night with no lights, I can see where she would be pretty pissed at the kids and farked up over the incident.  Mind you I think this is a case where she should be suing the kids and not the parents (them being responsible 17 year olds and all.)
 
2014-04-26 08:10:39 AM  

Squilax: 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".


So you see no problem with minors running around at all ours of the night in in dangerous weather/road conditions? What could possibly go wrong?
 
2014-04-26 08:10:45 AM  

Nacc: 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.


"I ran your kid over and I'm all f*cked upabout  it.  Gimme a bunch of money you don't have."  No sale.
 
2014-04-26 08:12:23 AM  

Squilax: 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


You a teenager getting snacks in a hoodie? You're gonna have a bad time.
 
2014-04-26 08:12:28 AM  

guardian_devil: 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"


The kid was clearly at fault. Just because the family is mourning doesn't excuse his actions.
 
2014-04-26 08:13:52 AM  

van1ty: maram500: 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

Every part of your post is retarded.  She would have absolutely no say on how much money the parents settled for.  Her insurance company hires lawyers for that.  Other than attending discoveries (or a deposition, for the 'mericans), the woman would have little contact with these lawyers.


So you take umbrage with one minor detail about my post, and suddenly it is all "retarded." Boy, you must be a lot of fun at parties. (But you don't get invited to parties, do you?"
 
2014-04-26 08:14:06 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: The kid was clearly at fault. Just because the family is mourning doesn't excuse his actions.


-9872345628634875618764875618746985729847698723967/10.  Ya rly.
 
2014-04-26 08:15:52 AM  

bunner: Mid_mo_mad_man: The kid was clearly at fault. Just because the family is mourning doesn't excuse his actions.

-9872345628634875618764875618746985729847698723967/10.  Ya rly.


On the bright side, he wont be doing that again.
 
2014-04-26 08:17:32 AM  

Spanky McStupid: FTA:  "He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle.
Two hours later, after Brandon lay dead in hospital from multiple traumatic injuries, police knocked on the door of the Majewski's home."

How "shortly" did he drive his wife home?  Who called for medical help?  Did he drive his wife home, return to the accident site, and then call for help?  Article absolutely sucks at details.


I suspect that the wife had been drinking, and (as has happened in other cases) the husband drove the wife home and told her to chug a stiff drink or two. For the emotional distress, of course. Only now there is no way to prove she had anything to drink before driving.

I have zero proof of this. It's just what occurred to me when I read that.
 
2014-04-26 08:20:24 AM  

pete1729: 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.


There is that to wonder about ... but I still think that three kids riding three abreast on a country road on a storm night with no lights are just asking for trouble (if this was the case.)  I believe the article was very low on details!
 
2014-04-26 08:20:28 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.


One thing to add its not a bicycle its a motorized bicycle.

Small difference but motorized bikes can go 30km/h easy and are harder to brake (clutch handle is a brake lever)

Reeeeealy shouldn't be riding that in the rain at 1AM.

I say this as someone commuted on one for 6 months. ($4 gas per week? Awesome. Smelling like oil 24/7? Not so much)
 
2014-04-26 08:20:49 AM  

Bslim: Squilax: 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".

So you see no problem with minors running around at all ours of the night in in dangerous weather/road conditions? What could possibly go wrong?


No, I don't. While I do agree with another poster that the article sucks at details - how long was the "road", how "rainy/dangerous" were the conditions, etc. I also live in a thing called a "city" where the streets are "lit" and there are "sidewalks" or "bike lanes" for people to ride on. Kids walk/bike/skate to the store all the time. I walk/bike to the store to get snacks in the middle of the night all the time. I don't see the difference. And if the kid was as avid a cyclist as TFA says, he likely had some lights and reflectors (the article did actually mention that he did specifically have reflectors). What would you rather they do, be asleep by 10pm and up at 6am for church every day? They let people DRIVE CARS at "all [h]ours of the night" at that age, in all kinds of conditions, and that is far more dangerous than riding a bike. I don't think riding a bike to the store at 1:30 am is a crime. I will go on record as making that statement. If you're like 5, maybe you should have some supervision but if you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to go to the goddamn store for some chips, man.
 
2014-04-26 08:22:32 AM  
Wow this was in Canada? Our legal system must be rubbing off on them then because this sounds inexplicably American. In ou country the biatch would have won somehow i bet, just hope Canada has more sense. And i believe women like that need to be shot in the head. I mean I've always considered myself to be an evil bastard, but to sue a family of someone you killed due to negligence? I'm not sure satan himself would condone such a thing. She needs to die.
 
2014-04-26 08:22:52 AM  

maram500: 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.


You are easily the biggest tard, troll, or more likely, BOTH on this board.
 
2014-04-26 08:23:41 AM  

iamepic: 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.

One thing to add its not a bicycle its a motorized bicycle.

Small difference but motorized bikes can go 30km/h easy and are harder to brake (clutch handle is a brake lever)

Reeeeealy shouldn't be riding that in the rain at 1AM.

I say this as someone commuted on one for 6 months. ($4 gas per week? Awesome. Smelling like oil 24/7? Not so much)


Not snark - where did you see that? I might have skimmed the article...
 
2014-04-26 08:24:04 AM  
"spunky, handsome, 17-year-old"


Is this...... entirely appropriate?
 
2014-04-26 08:25:12 AM  

Langdon_777: pete1729: 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.

There is that to wonder about ... but I still think that three kids riding three abreast on a country road on a storm night with no lights are just asking for trouble (if this was the case.)  I believe the article was very low on details!


There is fault aplenty to go around here. Neither the kids nor the driver were blameless for the accident. That they were also negligent should be used by her insurance company as defense in the lawsuit against her. HOWEVER, she is still a nasty biatch for suing the parents of the kids who died.

She didn't see the road cones, she admits. Things that are designed to be seen.
 
2014-04-26 08:27:31 AM  

Erisire: Squilax: 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

You a teenager getting snacks in a hoodie? You're gonna have a bad time.


I always wear my "Adult White Guy" hoodie when I go out to get snacks.
 
2014-04-26 08:29:08 AM  

Bungles: "spunky, handsome, 17-year-old"


Is this...... entirely appropriate?


I have to admit, I did find this a bit... off putting. Spunky is only ok in two circumstances (which are polar opposites I might add) - about a cute, precocious young girl who is feisty and whip-smart, or for porn.
 
2014-04-26 08:32:41 AM  

Squilax: a cute, precocious young girl who is feisty


x1.fjcdn.com
 
2014-04-26 08:32:43 AM  

Squilax: Bslim: Squilax: 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".

So you see no problem with minors running around at all ours of the night in in dangerous weather/road conditions? What could possibly go wrong?

No, I don't. While I do agree with another poster that the article sucks at details - how long was the "road", how "rainy/dangerous" were the conditions, etc. I also live in a thing called a "city" where the streets are "lit" and there are "sidewalks" or "bike lanes" for people to ride on. Kids walk/bike/skate to the store all the time. I walk/bike to the store to get snacks in the middle of the night all the time. I don't see the difference. And if the kid was as avid a cyclist as TFA says, he likely had some lights and reflectors (the article did actually mention that he did specifically have reflectors). What would you rather they do, be asleep by 10pm and up at 6am for church every day? They let people DRIVE CARS at "all [h]ours of the night" at that age, in all kinds of conditions, and that is far more dangerous than riding a bike. I don't think riding a bike to the store at 1:30 am is a crime. I will go on record as making that statement. If you're like 5, maybe you should have some supervision but if you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to go to the goddamn store for some ch ...


If you have no problem then that's that. Hope you never have to bury one of your kid on account of your relaxed outlook.
 
2014-04-26 08:33:31 AM  

Squilax: iamepic: 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.

One thing to add its not a bicycle its a motorized bicycle.

Small difference but motorized bikes can go 30km/h easy and are harder to brake (clutch handle is a brake lever)

Reeeeealy shouldn't be riding that in the rain at 1AM.

I say this as someone commuted on one for 6 months. ($4 gas per week? Awesome. Smelling like oil 24/7? Not so much)

Not snark - where did you see that? I might have skimmed the article...


In the picture at least the bike has a gas tank and engine if you look closely. I saw it right away.
 
2014-04-26 08:33:48 AM  
I think she filed a lawsuit as a counter to their lawsuit - hoping the family would dismiss theirs if she dismissed hers...

Also to hide things from discovery like she had been drinking...
 
2014-04-26 08:34:07 AM  
Suing the parents is stupid; counter suing the parents makes perfect sense. From the info in TFA, the kids were out at night without proper clothing and lacking proper bike reflectors. Speed was not a contributing factor in the accident per the presented facts. The issue wasn't the driver couldn't get stopped in time, it was low visibility and biking in the middle of the road. The sobriety of the driver per the article doesn't seem to be a factor either. Seems more like a, "Well, she ran over kids on their bikes -- she must have been drunk" accusation. Same thing for the cell phone -- it seems the parents are just hoping something sticks.

While I feel for the parents, they contributed to the poor choices that lead to the accident. Allowing your teenage children to bike at 1:30am on a main road is beyond questionable. The article also doesn't attempt to present anything but the slimmest of facts and is written as an emotional "cloud the mind" piece making laying absolute fault impossible.

/by far the stupidest move here is suing the state because of the road conditions
//is the officer husband hiding evidence; also impossible to tell
 
2014-04-26 08:35:11 AM  

Bslim: Squilax: Bslim: Squilax: 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".

So you see no problem with minors running around at all ours of the night in in dangerous weather/road conditions? What could possibly go wrong?

No, I don't. While I do agree with another poster that the article sucks at details - how long was the "road", how "rainy/dangerous" were the conditions, etc. I also live in a thing called a "city" where the streets are "lit" and there are "sidewalks" or "bike lanes" for people to ride on. Kids walk/bike/skate to the store all the time. I walk/bike to the store to get snacks in the middle of the night all the time. I don't see the difference. And if the kid was as avid a cyclist as TFA says, he likely had some lights and reflectors (the article did actually mention that he did specifically have reflectors). What would you rather they do, be asleep by 10pm and up at 6am for church every day? They let people DRIVE CARS at "all [h]ours of the night" at that age, in all kinds of conditions, and that is far more dangerous than riding a bike. I don't think riding a bike to the store at 1:30 am is a crime. I will go on record as making that statement. If you're like 5, maybe you should have some supervision but if you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to go to the goddamn store fo ...


Oh, do trust me, it will never happen. One must have children for that to occur.
 
2014-04-26 08:36:01 AM  

Bungles: "spunky, handsome, 17-year-old"


Is this...... entirely appropriate?


It can be read so - if you try not to sink your mind into the gutter.
 
2014-04-26 08:36:10 AM  

Slartibartfaster: 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.


Standing her ground.
 
2014-04-26 08:37:02 AM  

Squilax: have to admit, I did find this a bit... off putting. Spunky is only ok in two circumstances (which are polar opposites I might add) - about a cute, precocious young girl who is feisty and whip-smart, or for porn


Spunky - precocious in this context I am assuming. I doubt anyone is trying to pimp a corpse.
 
2014-04-26 08:37:22 AM  

iamepic: Squilax: iamepic: 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.

One thing to add its not a bicycle its a motorized bicycle.

Small difference but motorized bikes can go 30km/h easy and are harder to brake (clutch handle is a brake lever)

Reeeeealy shouldn't be riding that in the rain at 1AM.

I say this as someone commuted on one for 6 months. ($4 gas per week? Awesome. Smelling like oil 24/7? Not so much)

Not snark - where did you see that? I might have skimmed the article...

In the picture at least the bike has a gas tank and engine if you look closely. I saw it right away.


Actually exact same engine I used to have.

I weigh 240 and could pull 45km/h on a slight decline.

Those handlebars aren't fit on there. Any other issues aside, that thing is a death trap.
 
2014-04-26 08:37:56 AM  

Fubar: Standing her ground


she wasnt standing, and it was not her ground.

// share the road folks
 
2014-04-26 08:39:10 AM  
I don't buy her story that she was only going 10kph over the limit. I've ridden my bike at night without light hundreds of times. You can see the lights(to say nothing of being able to hear it) of an oncoming vehicle for a long time before they are near unless they are driving very fast. There should have been plenty of time for three kids on bikes to move to one side of the road or the other. She hit three kids. Three. How the hell do you manage to hit three kids on bikes at once? Either she was drunk, distracted(texting, talking on phone, whatever), or driving like a maniac. Unless you argue that all three teens were so utterly clueless(or high?) that they wouldn't have known to get to one side or clear the path of a vehicle at night. I don't but it. Lots missing from this story.
 
2014-04-26 08:39:38 AM  

iamepic: Squilax: iamepic: 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.

One thing to add its not a bicycle its a motorized bicycle.

Small difference but motorized bikes can go 30km/h easy and are harder to brake (clutch handle is a brake lever)

Reeeeealy shouldn't be riding that in the rain at 1AM.

I say this as someone commuted on one for 6 months. ($4 gas per week? Awesome. Smelling like oil 24/7? Not so much)

Not snark - where did you see that? I might have skimmed the article...

In the picture at least the bike has a gas tank and engine if you look closely. I saw it right away.


But no lights.
 
2014-04-26 08:42:26 AM  

jimpapa: it was an accident


There is no such thing as an accident.  There is always a reason for a crash.  It is either mechanical or human error 100% of the time.
 
2014-04-26 08:43:22 AM  

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


Cycling, moron.
 
2014-04-26 08:43:33 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: jimpapa: it was an accident

There is no such thing as an accident.  There is always a reason for a crash.  It is either mechanical or human error 100% of the time.


This.
 
2014-04-26 08:46:38 AM  

Slartibartfaster: Squilax: have to admit, I did find this a bit... off putting. Spunky is only ok in two circumstances (which are polar opposites I might add) - about a cute, precocious young girl who is feisty and whip-smart, or for porn

Spunky - precocious in this context I am assuming. I doubt anyone is trying to pimp a corpse.


Since I gather there may be some pretty big bills to pay soon, pimping should not be totally ruled out.
 
2014-04-26 08:47:51 AM  

nytmare: iamepic: Squilax: iamepic: 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.

One thing to add its not a bicycle its a motorized bicycle.

Small difference but motorized bikes can go 30km/h easy and are harder to brake (clutch handle is a brake lever)

Reeeeealy shouldn't be riding that in the rain at 1AM.

I say this as someone commuted on one for 6 months. ($4 gas per week? Awesome. Smelling like oil 24/7? Not so much)

Not snark - where did you see that? I might have skimmed the article...

In the picture at least the bike has a gas tank and engine if you look closely. I saw it right away.

But no lights.


True enough. Maybe a flasher under seat but unlikely if he was rear ended.

I'm not usually one to blame the victim, but that probably pushes culpability a lot further to the kid.. Lights are required by law to ride at night in NS I'd assume it's the case in Ontario.

Rain makes headlights suck. Driver should have been going far slower but the kid wasn't exactly doing anything safe either. Easily would have happened at 80km/h too.
 
2014-04-26 08:52:03 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: jimpapa: it was an accident

There is no such thing as an accident.  There is always a reason for a crash.  It is either mechanical or human error 100% of the time.


You forgot Acts of God. Like sneezing.
 
2014-04-26 08:54:04 AM  

mutterfark: I don't buy her story that she was only going 10kph over the limit. I've ridden my bike at night without light hundreds of times. You can see the lights(to say nothing of being able to hear it) of an oncoming vehicle for a long time before they are near unless they are driving very fast. There should have been plenty of time for three kids on bikes to move to one side of the road or the other. She hit three kids. Three. How the hell do you manage to hit three kids on bikes at once? Either she was drunk, distracted(texting, talking on phone, whatever), or driving like a maniac. Unless you argue that all three teens were so utterly clueless(or high?) that they wouldn't have known to get to one side or clear the path of a vehicle at night. I don't but it. Lots missing from this story.


I hope your trolling because you sound like a moron. Nobody should be driving, cycling or walking on the road without a light at night. Neither you or the kids in the article. A rainy night with no lights? The kids were asking for trouble
 
2014-04-26 08:54:38 AM  

Nidiot: You forgot Acts of God. Like sneezing.


And trees falling your car.  Like no tree did here.
 
2014-04-26 08:54:56 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.


Not sure about other places in the world, but the US considers it 100% the motorist's fault when a bicyclist is struck. Reflectors, lights, visibility are even factors. If you're parked at a curb, and open your door to get out, and a bicyclist hits your door, the driver of the car is liable.
 
2014-04-26 08:55:56 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: The kids were asking for trouble


So this sow mos def needs a mil'lin and CHANGE about this sh*t.  Oh yeah!
 
2014-04-26 08:56:09 AM  
Just to clarify a few things:
1) Yes, the bike pictured was motorized; it doesn't mean all three kids were on motorized bikes, nor does it even mean that this was the bike being ridden
2) I see somebody making a statement about the kids riding in the middle of the road; I see nothing about that in the article, the statement appears to be that the kids didn't know how to use their brakes. This sounds more like them crossing the road and her hitting them, but that seems...odd... Normally when I see kids on bikes, they're not riding in a perfect side-by-side line, or even close to that, so my gut says that she hit them from behind or side-swiping them, but that wouldn't make sense with the "brakes" statement, so I'm having a hard time picturing what the hell happened here.

I don't know...at this point, there's a lot that we all don't know, so we're all going off supposition. However, I will say this: you still don't sue the kids' parents. Never. Not even a counter-suit. The parents are suing for funeral expenses, which will be covered by insurance. You let that happen and be done with it.
 
2014-04-26 08:58:02 AM  

bunner: Mid_mo_mad_man: The kids were asking for trouble

So this sow mos def needs a mil'lin and CHANGE about this sh*t.  Oh yeah!


I never said that. I'm saying the kids contributed to the events that dark and rainy night.
 
2014-04-26 08:59:57 AM  
Am I the only one who read the article?

>Brandon was struck from behind by an SUV and killed while his friend Richard McLean, 16, was seriously injured with a broken pelvis and other bones. His other pal Jake Roberts, 16, was knocked off his bike but sustained only scratches.

>struck from behind

>In a statement of claim filed with the court, Simon is claiming $1.35 million in damages due to her psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress. She blames the boys for negligence.

>She blames the boys for negligence.

>"They did not apply their brakes properly," the claim states. "They were incompetent bicyclists."

She struck them from BEHIND, and then claims THEY did not BRAKE properly.  How on Earth would THEIR failure to break have caused HER to rear-end THEM to death?  The only way you rear end someone who's not braking is if you are going faster than they are and hit them 'cause you're not paying attention or have lost control of your vehicle.
 
2014-04-26 09:01:29 AM  
If this happened in American she would probably win, not sure how bad things are up in Canada.
 
2014-04-26 09:02:15 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: jimpapa: it was an accident

There is no such thing as an accident.  There is always a reason for a crash.  It is either mechanical or human error 100% of the time.


There is such a thing as an accident, random events that are neither cause by negligence or stupidity. The problem is that every single farking dipshiat wants every stupid thing their pathetic existence is responsible for be an accident.
 
2014-04-26 09:02:22 AM  

Slartibartfaster: Bungles: "spunky, handsome, 17-year-old"


Is this...... entirely appropriate?

It can be read so - if you try not to sink your mind into the gutter.


I'm not saying it's saucy..... it just reads as an oddly crass description from a reporter who never met the boy. It would be fine in the context of someone who knew him, but to me, from a stranger, it reads like saying a dead 17 year old girl was "buxom and curvy".
 
2014-04-26 09:02:40 AM  
Somebody ought to tell the biatch just because the paper says Toronto & GTA doesn't mean its Grand Theft Auto Toronto.
 
2014-04-26 09:02:57 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: bunner: Mid_mo_mad_man: The kids were asking for trouble

So this sow mos def needs a mil'lin and CHANGE about this sh*t.  Oh yeah!

I never said that. I'm saying the kids contributed to the events that dark and rainy night.


Yeah, circumstance can often be unwieldly.  This c*nt wants money for running over a 17 year old kid.  Normally, I'd say maybe she should pull her head out of her ass when driving and her husband should get a long vacation for making sure no BAC/BAT was given.  At this point, I hope she sh*ts out her liver.
 
2014-04-26 09:03:18 AM  
Driver's hubby is a cop. He makes all the other cops look good in comparison for his role in this. So good on him.
 
2014-04-26 09:05:15 AM  
. Speed was not a contributing factor in the accident per the presented facts. The issue wasn't the driver couldn't get stopped in time, it was low visibility and biking in the middle of the road.


When visibility is low your responsibility is to slow down so you can stop in time if something unexpected is in the road.  Saying speed has nothing to do with being unable to stop in time with reduced visibility is ludicrous.
 
2014-04-26 09:05:25 AM  
Christ not that I want to lay down in front of Fark's righteousness brigade but...

The police found that contributing factors were that the kids were hard to see (dark clothing, "minimal reflectors") and that they were riding abreast instead of in a single file line.

Also, while her husband is a cop, he doesn't work on the same Force as where the accident occurred. (I know all pigs stick together at all times, welcome to Fark) However the parents already complained about the original investigation, which was handled by IA which found that the original investigation was thorough and there was no bias.

Finally although this article says that not breathalyser was done here a "roadside screening device was administered 'out of and abundance of caution and registered zero alcohol in her blood system'"

Not saying she is in the right here but the facts aren't as cut and dry as everyone would seem to want to believe.

here is a a link that covers the same ground but has a few more details (still unsympathetic to the woman's POV)

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news /blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationa l post.com/2014/04/24/christie-blatchfor d-family-of-teen-fatally-struck- by-suv-sued-by-motorist-for-her-pain-a nd-suffering&pubdate=2014-04-26

/No I don't have kids so I understand that I automatically have no right to comment on anything in this story
 
2014-04-26 09:05:32 AM  

Nidiot: Slartibartfaster: Squilax: have to admit, I did find this a bit... off putting. Spunky is only ok in two circumstances (which are polar opposites I might add) - about a cute, precocious young girl who is feisty and whip-smart, or for porn

Spunky - precocious in this context I am assuming. I doubt anyone is trying to pimp a corpse.

Since I gather there may be some pretty big bills to pay soon, pimping should not be totally ruled out.


Winner of most inappropriate LOL. Thank you.
 
2014-04-26 09:05:48 AM  
It's a pretty good rule of thumb that if you hit 3 people, it's probably your fault.
 
2014-04-26 09:06:08 AM  

cevk: She struck them from BEHIND, and then claims THEY did not BRAKE properly. How on Earth would THEIR failure to break have caused HER to rear-end THEM to death? The only way you rear end someone who's not braking is if you are going faster than they are and hit them 'cause you're not paying attention or have lost control of your vehicle.


The only scenario that would fit is if the three bikers didn't yield at an intersection and basically turned into her path of travel.
 
2014-04-26 09:06:14 AM  

Fissile: maram500: 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.

You are easily the biggest tard, troll, or more likely, BOTH on this board.


And clearly you don't understand how police departments really work.

PROTIP: Internal Affairs squads don't act like you see on TV or in films. Even the slightest suggestion of impropriety is often enough to get most departments' IA running.
 
2014-04-26 09:07:42 AM  

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

Was there a full moon?

/there was one she-devil out already.


Are you suggesting they were werewolves? In that case the hit needs to be followed with a silver bullet... quickly.
 
2014-04-26 09:10:39 AM  

cevk: Am I the only one who read the article?

>Brandon was struck from behind by an SUV and killed while his friend Richard McLean, 16, was seriously injured with a broken pelvis and other bones. His other pal Jake Roberts, 16, was knocked off his bike but sustained only scratches.

>struck from behind

>In a statement of claim filed with the court, Simon is claiming $1.35 million in damages due to her psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress. She blames the boys for negligence.

>She blames the boys for negligence.

>"They did not apply their brakes properly," the claim states. "They were incompetent bicyclists."

She struck them from BEHIND, and then claims THEY did not BRAKE properly.  How on Earth would THEIR failure to break have caused HER to rear-end THEM to death?  The only way you rear end someone who's not braking is if you are going faster than they are and hit them 'cause you're not paying attention or have lost control of your vehicle.


Or since they had no lights or reflectors she couldn't see them till it was to late and no that doesn't mean she was speeding.
 
2014-04-26 09:12:28 AM  

maram500: 3. The hypothetical situation you lay out makes ZERO FARKING SENSE.


Not saying this woman is right - she's WRONG to sue, I mean complete scumbag to sue, but the parents let their kids go out on a rainy, dark night at 2 AM in the morning without lights on their bikes. Not saying that they are to blame, but it was pretty reckless.
 
2014-04-26 09:18:30 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: cevk: Am I the only one who read the article?

>Brandon was struck from behind by an SUV and killed while his friend Richard McLean, 16, was seriously injured with a broken pelvis and other bones. His other pal Jake Roberts, 16, was knocked off his bike but sustained only scratches.

>struck from behind

>In a statement of claim filed with the court, Simon is claiming $1.35 million in damages due to her psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress. She blames the boys for negligence.

>She blames the boys for negligence.

>"They did not apply their brakes properly," the claim states. "They were incompetent bicyclists."

She struck them from BEHIND, and then claims THEY did not BRAKE properly.  How on Earth would THEIR failure to break have caused HER to rear-end THEM to death?  The only way you rear end someone who's not braking is if you are going faster than they are and hit them 'cause you're not paying attention or have lost control of your vehicle.

Or since they had no lights or reflectors she couldn't see them till it was to late and no that doesn't mean she was speeding.


She was speeding at night in the rain.  Where I come from, if you hit someone in the rear, it's your fault, because you were obviously going too fast.  Maybe if she had been driving the speed limit, or 5 or 10 mph under it, she'd have had time to a) notice them and b) react.
 
2014-04-26 09:19:39 AM  

gulogulo: maram500: 3. The hypothetical situation you lay out makes ZERO FARKING SENSE.

Not saying this woman is right - she's WRONG to sue, I mean complete scumbag to sue, but the parents let their kids go out on a rainy, dark night at 2 AM in the morning without lights on their bikes. Not saying that they are to blame, but it was pretty reckless.


I think this is a case where everyone bears at least a little fault. The kids are a small bit at fault for not being as visible as they could have been, but the driver bears a metric shiat-ton more because, among so much else, she was speeding (who knows by how much) in conditions that warranted slowing the hell down.
 
2014-04-26 09:19:49 AM  
I sure hope nobody minds if I hit proffer what I feel is a more germane aspect of this case whilst this fascinating armchair review of the possible party at fault in this MVA, but

i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-26 09:20:32 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.


/THIS. If i was that scumbag hack, i would show up to court with paper bag over my head.  There is no way i would represent this pitiful waste of dna.  I hope she diaf.
 
2014-04-26 09:20:58 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Or since they had no lights or reflectors she couldn't see them till it was to late and no that doesn't mean she was speeding.


Yes, she was speeding. According to Ontario traffic rules, it was night and bad weather, she was speeding. If you drive so fast you can not avoid hitting something from behind, even a pedestrian without reflectors, you are at fault. See underline below from Ontario handbook:

"Overdriving your headlights

You are overdriving your headlights when you go so fast that your stopping distance is farther than you can see with your headlights. This is a dangerous thing to do, because you may not give yourself enough room to make a safe stop. Reflective road signs can mislead you as well, making you believe you can see farther than you really can. This may cause you to over-drive your headlights if you are not careful (Diagram 2-57).
www.mto.gov.on.ca
 
2014-04-26 09:23:56 AM  
Cop's Wife
Witnesses say she was at bar all evening and left drunk
She was DWI
She was texting
She left the scene of the accident
The police did not perform any sobriety tests because "they didn't think it was necessary"
It was 1:30 am
She pulled the old "show up at the door with a drink in your hand" tactic
Yep, it's all the kid's fault and he should pay 1.2 million even though he is dead.

The stupid, it burns.
 
2014-04-26 09:27:16 AM  
Hey, it takes me 3 years to pay off my car.  The parents only need 9 months to crank out another kid.  I'd sue them as well.
 
2014-04-26 09:31:04 AM  

Farty McPooPants: Cop's Wife
Witnesses say she was at bar all evening and left drunk
She was DWI
She was texting
She left the scene of the accident
The police did not perform any sobriety tests because "they didn't think it was necessary"
It was 1:30 am
She pulled the old "show up at the door with a drink in your hand" tactic
Yep, it's all the kid's fault and he should pay 1.2 million even though he is dead.

The stupid, it burns.


No one should get paid. The kids and parents stupidity contributed to the events that night.
 
2014-04-26 09:36:38 AM  
I keep reading this and telling myself it is too sleazy and fantastic to be real, at least regarding the counter suit.
 
2014-04-26 09:37:08 AM  

Farty McPooPants: Cop's Wife
Witnesses say she was at bar all evening and left drunk
She was DWI
She was texting
She left the scene of the accident

The police did not perform any sobriety tests because "they didn't think it was necessary"
It was 1:30 am
She pulled the old "show up at the door with a drink in your hand" tactic
Yep, it's all the kid's fault and he should pay 1.2 million even though he is dead.

The stupid, it burns.


No, the fact that this twat isn't in a holding cell without bail instead of snuggling up to some shyster to help her sh*t on the grave of a kid she just removed from this mortal coil and drive his parents into penury absolutely melting steel burns.  I defy anybody to tell me that this wouldn't comprise a criminal case if she wasn't blowing a cop every night.  How many more litmus tests to see just how much sh* we'll eat from "the people in charge" to we need to get an F on?
 
2014-04-26 09:39:43 AM  
Can I sue this piece of shiat for causing the fury that I feel after reading of her lawsuit?

And while they're nobody's personal army, I do wish this woman would manage to attract the attention of /b/.
 
2014-04-26 09:41:11 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: No one should get paid. The kids and parents stupidity contributed to the events that night.


She agrees she was traveling at 90 kmh. That's requires a minimum stopping distance of at least 90m given conditions (see Ontario traffic rule book above). Low beam headlights extend 45m. Her minimum stopping distance exceeded by a factor of 2 her range of visibility. Physics explain the events of that night, so the driver is at fault.
 
2014-04-26 09:42:02 AM  
Having read this yesterday (as well as submitting this with a far less clever headline) I've had some time to think about this, and think the family should have sued the police department rather than the lady, in which her lawsuit is in fact a countersuit. From a legal standpoint, this was ruled similar to a blind man whose dog lead him in front of a car. The accident was unavoidable and neither party is at fault.

This is BS! The kids had reflective material on their bikes, so unless her headlights were screwed or she needs glasses, she should have been able to see them. Then there is the fact that no breathalyzer was given, despite allegations that she had been coming home from drinking, and her husband is a cop... and the whole thing looks like a botched investigation at best or a flat out conspiracy at worst.

/was going to try and be clever, but figured that the ludicrousness of the article was enough
 
2014-04-26 09:43:17 AM  

spiral_fishcake: 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.

Not sure about other places in the world, but the US considers it 100% the motorist's fault when a bicyclist is struck. Reflectors, lights, visibility are even factors. If you're parked at a curb, and open your door to get out, and a bicyclist hits your door, the driver of the car is liable.


Not always. I had an accident with a cyclist who came out of a one way side street from the wrong way. The cops said the fault was the cyclist's, a 14 y.o. kid. I felt really bad even though the kid was alright. I certainly would never have dreamed of suing him or his family, or the city for having one way streets.
 
2014-04-26 09:46:28 AM  

Electrify: From a legal standpoint, this was ruled similar to a blind man whose dog lead him in front of a car.


No doubt by the dumbest sonofab*tch on earth who ever put on a black gobe and sat in a high chair.
 
2014-04-26 09:47:15 AM  
robe  I need sleep
 
2014-04-26 09:47:40 AM  

cevk: Am I the only one who read the article?

>Brandon was struck from behind by an SUV and killed while his friend Richard McLean, 16, was seriously injured with a broken pelvis and other bones. His other pal Jake Roberts, 16, was knocked off his bike but sustained only scratches.

>struck from behind

>In a statement of claim filed with the court, Simon is claiming $1.35 million in damages due to her psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress. She blames the boys for negligence.

>She blames the boys for negligence.

>"They did not apply their brakes properly," the claim states. "They were incompetent bicyclists."

She struck them from BEHIND, and then claims THEY did not BRAKE properly.  How on Earth would THEIR failure to break have caused HER to rear-end THEM to death?  The only way you rear end someone who's not braking is if you are going faster than they are and hit them 'cause you're not paying attention or have lost control of your vehicle.


I think she meant that they braked too fast. Still bullshiat.
 
2014-04-26 09:52:24 AM  

Mirandized: Not always. I had an accident with a cyclist who came out of a one way side street from the wrong way. The cops said the fault was the cyclist's, a 14 y.o. kid. I felt really bad even though the kid was alright. I certainly would never have dreamed of suing him or his family, or the city for having one way streets.


CSB
It has happened to me. A kid on a bicycle going the wrong way on a one way street ran into the car in which I was a passenger. Daytime, no bad weather. After an immediate trip to the police station for myself and the driver, lots of questions under oath, the police decided it was the kid's fault.
/CSB

This woman was not taken in for questioning. Just saying, it stinks. The family needs a more aggressive attorney and they need to get whatever the Ontario equivalent of the DA office involved.
 
2014-04-26 09:52:35 AM  

Boudyro: The kids had every legal right to be where they were.


At 1:30AM? Maybe not. What's curfew and what's the age cut off?
 
2014-04-26 09:54:39 AM  
Is it me, or has this year been filled with tales of "legal system" shenangians that stink so far to high heaven that Jesus is probably weeping on his sandals?

Incestuous infant rapers, people killing people with their cars, guys beating heir wife like a rented mule.

The lot of them off Scot free.

I seem to recall a common thread in the stories, wait, it's coming back to me.
 
2014-04-26 09:54:41 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


Really? Wow.
 
2014-04-26 09:56:31 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.


Was he on the shoulder of the road or in the middle?  Was she on a cell phone or drunk and why did she flee the scene of a fatal accident?  Even if it was mostly on the kid, what kind of sick fark sues the parents of the kid they just killed?  We don't want or need people like that in society.
 
2014-04-26 09:56:39 AM  

Mike_1962: 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

Really? Wow.


Good to know 7 and 14 year olds are exempted.
 
2014-04-26 09:58:22 AM  

bunner: Is it me, or has this year been filled with tales of "legal system" shenangians that stink so far to high heaven that Jesus is probably weeping on his sandals?

Incestuous infant rapers, people killing people with their cars, guys beating heir wife like a rented mule.

The lot of them off Scot free.

I seem to recall a common thread in the stories, wait, it's coming back to me.



dims.vetstreet.com
 
2014-04-26 09:59:52 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.


Don't be an idiot. The fact that she's being sued is a routine insurance action, nothing more. She, on the other hand is bringing her own suit, not counter-suit. If the action against her succeeds (it will, it's just a formality) her insurance company pays the liability. If her suit succeeds, the families are on the hook, not the auto insurance guys. Not a counter-suit.
 
2014-04-26 10:00:03 AM  

God--: I hope this woman dies a slow painful death


As in REALLY slow. And REALLY painful.
 
2014-04-26 10:00:29 AM  

maram500: 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.


No, that's how it should work in the US.  How it would work is the Blue Wall of Silence would kick in, and even if IA did come snooping around, the cops would do everything they can to protect their own.  At worst, the officer involved might end up suspended with pay for a brief period -- and that only because somebody died.
 
2014-04-26 10:06:27 AM  

pippi longstocking: Someone should kill her then sue her back.


Seems reasonable.
 
2014-04-26 10:10:32 AM  

Electrify: Having read this yesterday (as well as submitting this with a far less clever headline) I've had some time to think about this, and think the family should have sued the police department rather than the lady, in which her lawsuit is in fact a countersuit. From a legal standpoint, this was ruled similar to a blind man whose dog lead him in front of a car. The accident was unavoidable and neither party is at fault.

This is BS! The kids had reflective material on their bikes, so unless her headlights were screwed or she needs glasses, she should have been able to see them. Then there is the fact that no breathalyzer was given, despite allegations that she had been coming home from drinking, and her husband is a cop... and the whole thing looks like a botched investigation at best or a flat out conspiracy at worst.

/was going to try and be clever, but figured that the ludicrousness of the article was enough


I have to disagree with that statement, as that one reflector from the rear is crap.  It is easy to not have it mounted right or let clothing hang low over it.  You are basing your survival on a 4 square inch reflector, it would make much better sense to mount a light there that will take away several factors.  It may be annoying to see a strobing light on the back of a bike, but you see it.  Pretty much, all the normal reflectors have out lived their purpose, since they were designed at a time that all cars traveled typically 35-45 mph, and we didn't have so many other light distractions along roads.

I'm not really against this woman, because if it was determined the boys were at fault, she has the right to sue.  Especially for damage to her vehicle, as for extra money, her courts will decide.  Now if she was charged with the accident, I would be hard set against her.
 
2014-04-26 10:12:37 AM  

lack of warmth: I'm not really against this woman, because if it was determined the boys were at fault, she has the right to sue.  Especially for damage to her vehicle, as for extra money, her courts will decide.  Now if she was charged with the accident, I would be hard set against her.


I am.  She's a dime store c*nt with a drinking probelem. And a ghoul.  And a pig.  Good thing her husband is a cop so there WERE no charges, eh?
 
2014-04-26 10:16:08 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.


She was going ten over in wet, dark conditions. She rear-ended individuals legally traveling on the road and killed them. She is completely legally responsible for the accident and the death of the kid. No. She doesn't have a point.
 
2014-04-26 10:16:14 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: cevk: Am I the only one who read the article?

>Brandon was struck from behind by an SUV and killed while his friend Richard McLean, 16, was seriously injured with a broken pelvis and other bones. His other pal Jake Roberts, 16, was knocked off his bike but sustained only scratches.

>struck from behind

>In a statement of claim filed with the court, Simon is claiming $1.35 million in damages due to her psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress. She blames the boys for negligence.

>She blames the boys for negligence.

>"They did not apply their brakes properly," the claim states. "They were incompetent bicyclists."

She struck them from BEHIND, and then claims THEY did not BRAKE properly.  How on Earth would THEIR failure to break have caused HER to rear-end THEM to death?  The only way you rear end someone who's not braking is if you are going faster than they are and hit them 'cause you're not paying attention or have lost control of your vehicle.

Or since they had no lights or reflectors she couldn't see them till it was to late and no that doesn't mean she was speeding.


She admitted to speeding. Read the article before bloviating.
 
2014-04-26 10:16:23 AM  

Mike_1962: 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

Really? Wow.


I dont think it's that unusual.  Chicago's curfew law looks to be even more strict.

Pulled from a HuffPo article:

Unsupervised minors ages 12 to 16 will continue to adhere to the existing curfew requiring that they be indoors by 10 p.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. on weekends.
 
2014-04-26 10:16:44 AM  

HighlanderRPI: 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!


If you think this was either a reasoned argument or one based on facts, you're delusional.
 
2014-04-26 10:17:59 AM  

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


Legally riding their bikes.
 
2014-04-26 10:18:53 AM  

Farty McPooPants: Cop's Wife
Witnesses say she was at bar all evening and left drunk
She was DWI
She was texting
She left the scene of the accident
The police did not perform any sobriety tests because "they didn't think it was necessary"
It was 1:30 am
She pulled the old "show up at the door with a drink in your hand" tactic
Yep, it's all the kid's fault and he should pay 1.2 million even though he is dead.

The stupid, it burns.


Wow.  If this is true she is a true scumbag.
 
2014-04-26 10:19:55 AM  

TomD9938: I dont think it's that unusual.  Chicago's curfew law looks to be even more strict.

Pulled from a HuffPo article:

Unsupervised minors ages 12 to 16 will continue to adhere to the existing curfew requiring that they be indoors by 10 p.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. on weekends.


Chicago?   Doesn't that mean "unless the minor resisted and stated they would 'pop a cap in mama's ass' in which case curfew is inapplicable"?
 
2014-04-26 10:21:10 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.


I hope you don't have a driver's license. It was 100% her fault. If she can't stop her vehicle from hitting a vehicle legally using the road in front of her, she is by definition out of control.
 
2014-04-26 10:21:50 AM  

balloot: Farty McPooPants: Cop's Wife
Witnesses say she was at bar all evening and left drunk
She was DWI
She was texting
She left the scene of the accident
The police did not perform any sobriety tests because "they didn't think it was necessary"
It was 1:30 am
She pulled the old "show up at the door with a drink in your hand" tactic
Yep, it's all the kid's fault and he should pay 1.2 million even though he is dead.

The stupid, it burns.

Wow.  If this is true she is a true scumbag.


Birds of a feather.
 
2014-04-26 10:22:48 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: mutterfark: I don't buy her story that she was only going 10kph over the limit. I've ridden my bike at night without light hundreds of times. You can see the lights(to say nothing of being able to hear it) of an oncoming vehicle for a long time before they are near unless they are driving very fast. There should have been plenty of time for three kids on bikes to move to one side of the road or the other. She hit three kids. Three. How the hell do you manage to hit three kids on bikes at once? Either she was drunk, distracted(texting, talking on phone, whatever), or driving like a maniac. Unless you argue that all three teens were so utterly clueless(or high?) that they wouldn't have known to get to one side or clear the path of a vehicle at night. I don't but it. Lots missing from this story.

I hope your trolling because you sound like a moron. Nobody should be driving, cycling or walking on the road without a light at night. Neither you or the kids in the article. A rainy night with no lights? The kids were asking for trouble


I'm not trolling. When I was younger I often rode or walked at night. Seldom with any lights. It was my job to see them and make sure I wasn't hit. My point was that unless the teens were impaired, they should easily have had time to avoid the vehicle based on being able to hear it coming, and seeing the headlights. I didn't see exactly where on Innisfil Beech Rd. the teens were struck mentioned in the article, but Google streeview shows a very straight road sometimes narrow, sometimes lit with streetlights. The shoulders looked to be gravel. I have a hard time understanding how at least one of the teens would not have been able to get off the road unless the woman was driving down the center, weaving, or travelling much to fast for conditions. As I said, more info would be helpful. IMHO they shouldn't have been out at all that late, let alone without taking adequate steps to be visible, but none of that, again IMHO, justifies the suit.

/and yes when I was younger, I was absolutely a moron ;p
 
2014-04-26 10:23:15 AM  

abhorrent1: Boudyro: The kids had every legal right to be where they were.

At 1:30AM? Maybe not. What's curfew and what's the age cut off?


Seriously? Curfew? WTF are you on about?
 
2014-04-26 10:23:30 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: guardian_devil: 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"

The kid was clearly at fault. Just because the family is mourning doesn't excuse his actions.


I'm assuming you're being sarcastic?
 
2014-04-26 10:26:05 AM  
Same thing happened locally. Drunk driver crossed lanes, head on collided with a car with two teens in it. Passenger went through the window, died. Drunk sued the dead kids family fro some convoluted bullshiat about him being partially culpable for the victim's car going too fast (it wasn't). No idea how it came out, but I hope the judge told the bailiff to just shoot the drunk there and then.
 
2014-04-26 10:26:09 AM  

bunner: TomD9938: I dont think it's that unusual.  Chicago's curfew law looks to be even more strict.

Pulled from a HuffPo article:

Unsupervised minors ages 12 to 16 will continue to adhere to the existing curfew requiring that they be indoors by 10 p.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. on weekends.

Chicago?   Doesn't that mean "unless the minor resisted and stated they would 'pop a cap in mama's ass' in which case curfew is inapplicable"?


Yeah, I'm guessing that's one ordinance that isn't followed very closely.
 
2014-04-26 10:28:12 AM  
I don't know much about Canuck law. Will these lawsuits be tried in front of a jury?
Cases like this woman's don't tend to fare well in front of juries.
 
2014-04-26 10:32:42 AM  

TomD9938: Mike_1962: 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

Really? Wow.

I dont think it's that unusual.  Chicago's curfew law looks to be even more strict.

Pulled from a HuffPo article:

Unsupervised minors ages 12 to 16 will continue to adhere to the existing curfew requiring that they be indoors by 10 p.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. on weekends.


Well, maybe I can understand that in a metro environment, but it sure as hell isn't the norm in Canada, and this is far from an urban environment. Don't get me wrong, it's just that so far as I'm aware, in this country, such a curfew is far from normal, something used in times of crisis to protect kids, not to restrict them for the sake of restricting them.
 
2014-04-26 10:34:39 AM  
Our society IS goin' down the sh*tter pipe, folks, in case you care and mostly what we do is try and assignate blame or shrug a lot and then eat Doritos and watch our circuses.  So, essentially, True America™ is on schedule.  "BUT THIS IS CANADA!"  Yeah, America lite.  The western world has a banker's dick in it's ass, a thug's gun in it's mouth and a pack of corporations and lawyers saying "Not my problem, pay me."  Impressive.  If only there were some precedent that we could cite to ascertain the point at which the slippery slope sluices down into a vat of sh*t.
 
2014-04-26 10:40:12 AM  

jso2897: I don't know much about Canuck law. Will these lawsuits be tried in front of a jury?
Cases like this woman's don't tend to fare well in front of juries.


Possible, but unlikely. Canada does have juries for some civil actions. I doubt her suit will see a court convened, or if it does, it'll be brief...
 
2014-04-26 10:44:13 AM  
"I know they should not have been out there that late," his father said. "But they are good kids."

Being 'good' does not illuminate them when they bike at 1:30am. Did they happen to have any reflective gear at all? Did they even know that reflective gear is a thing?
 
2014-04-26 10:44:29 AM  

Mirandized: spiral_fishcake: 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.

Not sure about other places in the world, but the US considers it 100% the motorist's fault when a bicyclist is struck. Reflectors, lights, visibility are even factors. If you're parked at a curb, and open your door to get out, and a bicyclist hits your door, the driver of the car is liable.

Not always. I had an accident with a cyclist who came out of a one way side street from the wrong way. The cops said the fault was the cyclist's, a 14 y.o. kid. I felt really bad even though the kid was alright. I certainly would never have dreamed of suing him or his family, or the city for having one way streets.


I had no idea one-way streets applied to bicycle riders. There is one in my (very small) town and I wouldn't think twice about riding thru it the 'wrong' way.
 
2014-04-26 10:46:34 AM  

guardian_devil: I hate children, but you do NOT sue the family of a dead kid.


Having children does not make you immune to being held responsible for your mistakes. We know you think it entitles you to that, but it doesn't. So calm down.
 
2014-04-26 10:48:24 AM  

bunner: Our society IS goin' down the sh*tter pipe, folks, in case you care and mostly what we do is try and assignate blame or shrug a lot and then eat Doritos and watch our circuses.  So, essentially, True America™ is on schedule.  "BUT THIS IS CANADA!"  Yeah, America lite.  The western world has a banker's dick in it's ass, a thug's gun in it's mouth and a pack of corporations and lawyers saying "Not my problem, pay me."  Impressive.  If only there were some precedent that we could cite to ascertain the point at which the slippery slope sluices down into a vat of sh*t.


Well I'm not so sure pointing to perceived historical precedents without including some statistical models helps much. Without a model (yes that means some math) historical precedents can always be misinterpreted.

It's Saturday and you may some free time, try giving Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century a read. We are pretty much in the vat already.
 
2014-04-26 10:51:48 AM  

bunner: Our society IS goin' down the sh*tter pipe, folks, in case you care and mostly what we do is try and assignate blame or shrug a lot and then eat Doritos and watch our circuses.  So, essentially, True America™ is on schedule.  "BUT THIS IS CANADA!"  Yeah, America lite.  The western world has a banker's dick in it's ass, a thug's gun in it's mouth and a pack of corporations and lawyers saying "Not my problem, pay me."  Impressive.  If only there were some precedent that we could cite to ascertain the point at which the slippery slope sluices down into a vat of sh*t.


To a degree, I agree with you, but consider this. I've noticed that over the last, oh, say fifteen years, the amount of 'news' we can read has increased almost exponentially. Prior to the prevalence of internet aavailability, many of these saame things happened; we just didn't know about them. Our perceptions have changed. Society may not be so much worse then it ever was, but now we are more aware. We are in the process of (hopefully) having our attitudes, judgements and worldview catch up with the scope of our technology. Twenty years ago, this woman might be vilified by the community she lives in. Today, she stands a good chance of being viewed with contempt anywhere she goes in Canada. And grumpy cat says 'Good.'
 
2014-04-26 10:52:51 AM  

Delay: Well I'm not so sure pointing to perceived historical precedents without including some statistical models helps much. Without a model (yes that means some math) historical precedents can always be misinterpreted.


Frankly, IMO, economic modeling and economics as a '"science" have, so far, helped get us precisely here.  I don't need an aggregated statistically likely model +/- 3% graph to see which slimy pricks are cleaning out the break room refrigerator.  Math is very useful.  So is corrective surgery for rectal cranial inversion.  And boy howdy, we need a lot of that.
 
2014-04-26 10:54:17 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'm going with the argument:
It should be legal to hit bicyclists.
 
2014-04-26 10:55:58 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Having children does not make you immune to being held responsible for your mistakes


No, it doesn't.
On the other hand, being a cop's wife apparently does. :D
 
2014-04-26 11:05:59 AM  

Mike_1962: Prior to the prevalence of internet aavailability, many of these saame things happened; we just didn't know about them


That's the assumption.  And if it's the case, maybe all this dang ol' internets should urge us to take a mop to this sh*t when we're not beating it like it did something wrong to some .jpg's of a coed with a baseball bat up her flue.

Mike_1962: Society may not be so much worse then it ever was, but now we are more aware


The modern world is nothing more than electricity.  Shut off the grid and it's 1620.  Society is largely places where money is. Civilized society is when we don't accpet people doing egregious sh*t to get it.  I wonder what the Walton family is doing for lunch.

Mike_1962: We are in the process of (hopefully) having our attitudes, judgements and worldview catch up with the scope of our technology.


And the people who own, distribute and spin the content for that technology are turning it into a pay per view microscope that they look through and we pay for.  If medicine and civil law hasn't taught us that the people with something you need will milk you dry, regardless of the needs or conditions in play, we've already stopped paying attention.

Mike_1962: Twenty years ago, this woman might be vilified by the community she lives in. Today, she stands a good chance of being viewed with contempt anywhere she goes in Canada.


All the way to the bank with her victims blood on the money and a husband with a license to shoot people who piss her off.  I'm certain she'll be all weepy and self loathing getting a back rub on a beach in the Caymans.  This isn't a tech problem or an information problem.  This is a morality problem.  We wiped our asses with it when the "people who matter" told us back in the '80s that, if we wink and nod, we'd get a seat at the big boy table.   People are largely ill read, mud thick and greedy and IMHO, t'was not ALWAYS thus.  Not like this.  This isn't incidents.  This is Jacob's Ladder.
 
2014-04-26 11:11:10 AM  
www.sarniavw.ca
 
2014-04-26 11:15:09 AM  
Three teenaged boys at 1:30 AM have a sudden craving for hot dogs which necessitates bicycle riding during a rainstorm. Conclusion: Marijuana.

Meanwhile a woman is driving home faster than the speed limit while monitored by her husband in a second vehicle. Conclusion: Alcohol.

Nobody deserves money.
 
2014-04-26 11:16:06 AM  

bunner: Delay: Well I'm not so sure pointing to perceived historical precedents without including some statistical models helps much. Without a model (yes that means some math) historical precedents can always be misinterpreted.

Frankly, IMO, economic modeling and economics as a '"science" have, so far, helped get us precisely here.  I don't need an aggregated statistically likely model +/- 3% graph to see which slimy pricks are cleaning out the break room refrigerator.  Math is very useful.  So is corrective surgery for rectal cranial inversion.  And boy howdy, we need a lot of that.


Bear with me, I'm a scientist. Physics shows the cop's wife is entirely at fault. She was driving too fast to avoid hitting something beyond her vision at night, and possibly drunk. Both of those statements could be supported enough to stand up to legal review. With a good attorney the dead kid's family should be OK, although the poor kid is gone forever. Physics also shows how any driver can avoid hitting something from behind on a dark road.

Similar scientific analysis shows objectively we are in the vat of shiat. It also shows how to get out, and we need to do that.
 
2014-04-26 11:16:30 AM  

Darth Macho: Conclusion: Marijuana.


Or, like, maybe wanted a hot dog.
 
2014-04-26 11:18:49 AM  
so much fail on both sides, irreconcilable.  Just kill them all and let fsm sort it out
 
2014-04-26 11:21:21 AM  

jnapier: [www.sarniavw.ca image 63x85]


is that the horrid coont from TFA?
 
2014-04-26 11:22:36 AM  

Delay: Similar scientific analysis shows objectively we are in the vat of shiat. It also shows how to get out, and we need to do that.


Agreed.  But,sadly, scientists aren't usually get match and petrol fed the f*ck up enough to shake the etch a sketch, nor rich enough to draw a new pic on it.  We have to get past the notion that any given professional faction or discipline has some sort of unimpeachable societal precedence over another.  I've shot the sh*t with mulitmillionaires, rock legends, cabbies, barmaids, barflies, one of the most brilliant coders on the north American continent, ( a client AAMOF ), Johns Hopkins post doc cell biologists, housewives, homeless drunks, burger flippers, economists, thieves and cabbies.  A surprising amount of them were not fools but most of them were too busy chasing money around to do anything outside of their given occupation.  Convenient, or what?
 
2014-04-26 11:22:38 AM  

Mike_1962: abhorrent1: Boudyro: The kids had every legal right to be where they were.

At 1:30AM? Maybe not. What's curfew and what's the age cut off?

Seriously? Curfew? WTF are you on about?


Seriously? WTF don't you understand?
He said they had a legal right to be where they were. If there's a 10-11pm curfew, and they're underage and out at 1am, then no, they don't have a legal right to be out. They're breaking the law by being out at that time.
 
2014-04-26 11:23:38 AM  
There's a dangerous new trend among teens called 'bike riding'. Just recentley a young boy died of a result of bike riding. Tune in at 11 to learn facts that every parrent needs to know about this alarming new trend.
 
2014-04-26 11:23:53 AM  

John Buck 41: jnapier: [www.sarniavw.ca image 63x85]

is that the horrid coont from TFA?


Yeah.  She's a desk monkey for the parts dept. at some VW dealer.
 
2014-04-26 11:24:23 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: "I know they should not have been out there that late," his father said. "But they are good kids."

Being 'good' does not illuminate them when they bike at 1:30am. Did they happen to have any reflective gear at all? Did they even know that reflective gear is a thing?


I think they've been punished enough for that mistake, don't you?

/teenagers do something stupid, film at 11
 
2014-04-26 11:26:02 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 would humbly suggest it was her lawyer's idea. There's a reason they call them ambulance chasers.
 
2014-04-26 11:27:34 AM  

SeaMan Stainz: There's a dangerous new trend among teens called 'bike riding'. Just recentley a young boy died of a result of bike riding. Tune in at 11 to learn facts that every parrent needs to know about this alarming new trend.


"Dear?"

"Yeah, mom"

"I want you to wear this bubble wrap when you go out."

"Why?"

"Because there's people who are allowed to kill you with impunity because they're rich or powerful and if they feel too upset about killing you, we could lose our house."

 "Are you sh*ttin' me, ma?"

"Sorry, dear.  No."

"I don't wanna go outside anymore."
 
2014-04-26 11:30:48 AM  

bunner: Farty McPooPants: Cop's Wife
Witnesses say she was at bar all evening and left drunk
She was DWI
She was texting
She left the scene of the accident
The police did not perform any sobriety tests because "they didn't think it was necessary"
It was 1:30 am
She pulled the old "show up at the door with a drink in your hand" tactic
Yep, it's all the kid's fault and he should pay 1.2 million even though he is dead.

The stupid, it burns.

No, the fact that this twat isn't in a holding cell without bail instead of snuggling up to some shyster to help her sh*t on the grave of a kid she just removed from this mortal coil and drive his parents into penury absolutely melting steel burns.  I defy anybody to tell me that this wouldn't comprise a criminal case if she wasn't blowing a cop every night.  How many more litmus tests to see just how much sh* we'll eat from "the people in charge" to we need to get an F on?


FWIW, I'm pretty sure you can't get an F on a litmus test.

It'd be a pH.
 
2014-04-26 11:33:22 AM  

vicioushobbit: FWIW, I'm pretty sure you can't get an F on a litmus test.

It'd be a pH.


Stop unmixing my metaphors!  :  )
 
2014-04-26 11:34:38 AM  

bunner: John Buck 41: jnapier: [www.sarniavw.ca image 63x85]

is that the horrid coont from TFA?

Yeah.  She's a desk monkey for the parts dept. at some VW dealer.


She also has the look of a woman who does as she's told and drinks a lot to forget that she does.  Most cops wives do.
 
2014-04-26 11:35:18 AM  

maram500: 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.


Nowhere near a guarantee.  Drew Peterson got away with murder twice before finally getting a magnifying glass put on him.  This cop knew his wife was totally hammered, and was obviously following her  home, whisked her away when she nailed the kids, and hid the truth.  I hope he dies as slowly as she does.  Penniless.  In the cold.
 
2014-04-26 11:53:25 AM  
She's also suing the two other boys, as well as the dead boy's parents, and even his brother, who has since died.

WTF

The spunky, handsome, 17-year-old bike enthusiast was out with his two buddies on Oct. 28, 2012 when they hopped on their bicycles to go for hot dogs on a drizzly, dark night around 1:30 a.m.

WTF

"They're kids!" he gasps. "And they have a right to make mistakes ..

WTF

The dogs began to bark. It was late.

WTF
 
2014-04-26 11:54:44 AM  

bunner: scientists aren't usually going to get


I am knackered.  Sleep.  I can't even try to excoriate these pillars of the community anymore.  It's like kicking a a clinical moron.  Aufweidersehen.
 
2014-04-26 11:59:56 AM  

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


Not murdering someone? Not covering up their spouse's murder? Not being called to the scene of the accident and covering for the criminal because they your ingroup?
 
2014-04-26 12:01:05 PM  
Matthew Broderick rides again!
 
2014-04-26 12:20:17 PM  

John Buck 41: I had no idea one-way streets applied to bicycle riders. There is one in my (very small) town and I wouldn't think twice about riding thru it the 'wrong' way.


I would imagine they apply to anyone who is riding in the street, whatever the vehicle. I must admit IANAL.
 
2014-04-26 12:21:31 PM  
Surprised she isn't suing the manufacturer or dealer that sold her the SUV. My ex and I used to argue frequently over how many kids couples should be allowed to have. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say less than 1. And her husband, a cop, was following behind her as well. Going over 90 KPH in a 80 KPH zone?
 I have a sister in law who hubby is a retired cop, and she acts all coonty when she drives like a nut, and then gets pulled over.
I hope this broad gets her "come uppance" soon, and not in a nice way. Mowing kids down in the rain is reprehensible, no matter which way you slice it.
 
2014-04-26 12:26:21 PM  

State_College_Arsonist: but this seems like the sort of case where an attorney might not want their name attached to it.



img.fark.net
 
2014-04-26 12:27:48 PM  

maram500: 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!


I'm so glad I was not the only one who read that post in Clarkson's voice...
 
2014-04-26 12:41:56 PM  

Squilax: Bslim: Squilax: 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".

So you see no problem with minors running around at all ours of the night in in dangerous weather/road conditions? What could possibly go wrong?

No, I don't. While I do agree with another poster that the article sucks at details - how long was the "road", how "rainy/dangerous" were the conditions, etc. I also live in a thing called a "city" where the streets are "lit" and there are "sidewalks" or "bike lanes" for people to ride on. Kids walk/bike/skate to the store all the time. I walk/bike to the store to get snacks in the middle of the night all the time. I don't see the difference. And if the kid was as avid a cyclist as TFA says, he likely had some lights and reflectors (the article did actually mention that he did specifically have reflectors). What would you rather they do, be asleep by 10pm and up at 6am for church every day? They let people DRIVE CARS at "all [h]ours of the night" at that age, in all kinds of conditions, and that is far more dangerous than riding a bike. I don't think riding a bike to the store at 1:30 am is a crime. I will go on record as making that statement. If you're like 5, maybe you should have some supervision but if you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to go to the goddamn store for some ch ...


Interesting. I'm picturing a rural road with no lights and no shoulder. The margin for error is non-existent. The reflectors on bikes, even lights on bikes, are hard to see at night. In the article the father says the reflectors should be good. They are not.

As a former rural teenager the prudent practice while out at night was to pull over to the side (probably stopping and getting off the road) when you see headlights. At night, as a driver, you're hugging the center line because (usually) on-coming traffic can be seen by headlights whereas cows, deer, pedestrians wearing dark clothing, new potholes, and whatnot can't. Gives one a smoosh more dodging and stopping room.

In a well lit city environment running over teens on bikes is less of an accident and more negligence.

80 to 90 kph is 50 to 55 mph so it's not like she was drag racing. I have some sympathy for the driver based on the facts so far. Obviously I have sympathy for the parents too.
 
2014-04-26 12:45:57 PM  
I saw this pop up on Imgur earlier in the week.

I've been waiting for it to hit FARK just so I could make it clear that Sharlene Simon, 42 of Alcona, Ontario hit and killed Brandon Majewski with her SUV while drunk and it is being covered up by her husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer.

/prove me wrong
//In case you missed it, Sharlene Simon, 42 of Alcona, Ontario hit and killed Brandon Majewski with her SUV while drunk and it is being covered up by her husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer.
 
2014-04-26 12:47:28 PM  

sno man: 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.


Actually, it's the "kill the b*tch" crowd acting like this is cut and dried. He was just pointing out that the best evidence is that the kid bore some significant responsibility for the accident. So maybe it's really not as cut and dried as the "kill the b*tch" crowd acts like it is.

This article, which was about as biased against the plaintiff as it could possibly be, offered literally no evidence whatsoever that she was intoxicated, had been to a bar, was texting, or in any way contributorily negligent except by going 90 kph in an 80 kph zone. That's about 56 mph in a 50 mph zone.

It's even possible her speed infraction was immaterial in the cause of the accident. If she can demonstrate that given conditions, she would still have struck the teen even driving at or below the speed limit, then logically, the speed infraction matters less if it matters at all.

And I have little doubt that her claims to emotional trauma are real. The only question is whether that emotional trauma is mostly her fault or mostly someone else's fault.
 
2014-04-26 01:02:43 PM  
FTFA:
"In a statement of claim filed with the court, Simon is claiming $1.35 million in damages due to her psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress. "

So, $1.35 million is going to make her mental anguish all better? Right. Why can't farktons of therapy and crazy pills do the job? Oh wait, she's just out for money is all. She's a farking coont.

/again, she's a farking coont
//so is her lawyer
///
 
2014-04-26 01:03:53 PM  

Baz744: The only question is whether that emotional trauma is mostly her fault or mostly someone else's fault.


Or if suing the everloving shiat out of a grieving family is the best way to deal with it.
 
2014-04-26 02:32:33 PM  
Anyone defending this biatch is almost as worthless a POS as she is.
 
2014-04-26 02:36:31 PM  

Squilax: 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".


Would it matter if it was, say, 9 or 10 pm?  It would still be dark out.

If it's dark and rainy, you should slow down.
 
2014-04-26 02:41:30 PM  

HighlanderRPI: 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!


Shame he didn't make any. The driver of the car has lights, it was raining and she failed to yield. That and she was going 90 KM in a residential road in poor driving conditions. She should be thank full she didn't do this in the states. That would have been man slaughter.
 
2014-04-26 02:54:01 PM  
Is this actually the woman bringing the suit or the woman's car insurer because they don't want to pay for the damage?

How can failing to apply their brakes properly even be part of the suit if they were hit from behind from a vehicle doing 90 klicks?

This article is pure outrage bait.
 
2014-04-26 03:06:21 PM  
I doubt that the corpse is going to show up in court.  But I'm hoping it does.
 
2014-04-26 03:12:58 PM  

Baz744: sno man: 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.

Actually, it's the "kill the b*tch" crowd acting like this is cut and dried. He was just pointing out that the best evidence is that the kid bore some significant responsibility for the accident. So maybe it's really not as cut and dried as the "kill the b*tch" crowd acts like it is.

This article, which was about as biased against the plaintiff as it could possibly be, offered literally no evidence whatsoever that she was intoxicated, had been to a bar, was texting, or in any way contributorily negligent except by going 90 kph in an 80 kph zone. That's about 56 mph in a 50 mph zone.

It's even possible her speed infraction was immaterial in the cause of the accident. If she can demonstrate that given conditions, she would still have struck the teen even driving at or below the speed limit, then logically, the speed infraction matters less if it matters at all.

And I have little doubt that her claims to emotional trauma are real. The only question is whether that emotional trauma is mos ...


I have it on some Canadian authority that the Toronto Sun is sort of like Fox News. Sensational and a bit quick and loose with the facts.
 
2014-04-26 03:13:52 PM  
The circumstances surrounding the actual crash make me feel slightly LESS anger toward this woman. Those kids shouldn't have been out there that night. PERIOD.
Of course, suing them is f*cking absurd and morbid and disgusting, and she should eat a bullet for doing this, but my initial reaction to the headline was actually worse.

It sounds like the police may have been involved in a cover-up. THAT is what is most troubling to me aside from the actual crash.
 
2014-04-26 03:16:04 PM  
yeah, three kids riding side by side on bikes with no lights in the middle of the night.

it's all someone else's fault one of em is dead.
 
2014-04-26 03:16:04 PM  
I finally realized it's best I never win the big lottery.  Because with a hundred million dollars at my disposal, I would be hiring thugs to beat the snot out of people like this c00nt.
 
2014-04-26 03:20:08 PM  

The_Hound: FTFA:
"In a statement of claim filed with the court, Simon is claiming $1.35 million in damages due to her psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress. "

So, $1.35 million is going to make her mental anguish all better? Right. Why can't farktons of therapy and crazy pills do the job? Oh wait, she's just out for money is all. She's a farking coont.

/again, she's a farking coont
//so is her lawyer
///


I'm not defending her, but it's a counter suit. The parents sued first, after the law did not find her negligent. Money won't bring their child back either.
 
2014-04-26 03:22:39 PM  

puffy999: The circumstances surrounding the actual crash make me feel slightly LESS anger toward this woman. Those kids shouldn't have been out there that night. PERIOD.
Of course, suing them is f*cking absurd and morbid and disgusting, and she should eat a bullet for doing this, but my initial reaction to the headline was actually worse.

It sounds like the police may have been involved in a cover-up. THAT is what is most troubling to me aside from the actual crash.


Not just any road, a road posted 50 mph. In the rain. At night. Without lights. Without helmets.  Right or wrong, she's countersuing..she did not initiate the lawsuit. It's sort of a common defense strategy to a lawsuit, I think.
 
2014-04-26 03:38:23 PM  
gulogulo

I forgot to point out the posted speed limit part. This is a strike against both parties, to me. I agree the kids shouldn't have been on that road that night, even if they had lights, flashers, and reflective gear. It also sounds like the woman was speeding, perhaps at a higher rate than suggested by the police.

I just wanted to throw in my two cents... a) posted speed limits are usually artificially low for one reason or another, BUT b) local conditions at a specific location (ie: weather, sight distance problems, narrowness, etc) exist in many corridors that result in posted speed limits that are way too high for a section of roadway. I mean, people wouldn't travel 50 MPH around an L-shaped curve, would they?
 
2014-04-26 03:47:41 PM  

lack of warmth: Electrify: Having read this yesterday (as well as submitting this with a far less clever headline) I've had some time to think about this, and think the family should have sued the police department rather than the lady, in which her lawsuit is in fact a countersuit. From a legal standpoint, this was ruled similar to a blind man whose dog lead him in front of a car. The accident was unavoidable and neither party is at fault.

This is BS! The kids had reflective material on their bikes, so unless her headlights were screwed or she needs glasses, she should have been able to see them. Then there is the fact that no breathalyzer was given, despite allegations that she had been coming home from drinking, and her husband is a cop... and the whole thing looks like a botched investigation at best or a flat out conspiracy at worst.

/was going to try and be clever, but figured that the ludicrousness of the article was enough

I have to disagree with that statement, as that one reflector from the rear is crap.  It is easy to not have it mounted right or let clothing hang low over it.  You are basing your survival on a 4 square inch reflector, it would make much better sense to mount a light there that will take away several factors.  It may be annoying to see a strobing light on the back of a bike, but you see it.  Pretty much, all the normal reflectors have out lived their purpose, since they were designed at a time that all cars traveled typically 35-45 mph, and we didn't have so many other light distractions along roads.

I'm not really against this woman, because if it was determined the boys were at fault, she has the right to sue.  Especially for damage to her vehicle, as for extra money, her courts will decide.  Now if she was charged with the accident, I would be hard set against her.


The light is also required by law.
 
2014-04-26 03:57:00 PM  
Before this lady is crucified here in the "court of Reddit opinion," let's consider all sides. Playing devil's advocate, put yourself in her shoes.
You're driving home one evening on a dark road. You're sober, you're paying attention to the road, you're not texting or even adjusting the radio. You might have edged a bit above the speed limit hurrying home, but doesn't everyone? The road is clear and you're the only one around.
Suddenly you see a flash of bicycles immediately in front of your headlights and slam on brakes a split second before feeling the horrible bump and crunch. Someone is screaming. You're stunned for a moment in complete disbelief - where could they have come from? You never took your eyes off the road! How could you not see them?
You push it from your mind and jump from the car to help. One kid is running up from a ditch, screaming his friends' names as he runs to the nearest. That boy is howling in agony, severely injured but alive. As you approach, both start swearing at you, calling you names and telling you to get away, to call the cops. You saw another bike go flying over your car, so you run back to a shadowy figure on the road behind, dialing 911 as you go.
Dear god. That kid is torn to pieces. You've never seen a human being in that shape before and you have no idea what to do. How do you aid him? Do you touch him? You try talking to him while you look for an uninjured place to lay a hand for comfort. Maybe you try to hold his hand and keep it together even as you want to panic, retch, run, scream. How the fark did this happen?
You're pretty traumatized during the questioning, but sometime the next day you're allowed to go home. Nothing in the world looks the same though. The boy you tried to talk to is dead, another might not make it. It's weird to see the sun shining and cars driving by like nothing happened as your spouse drives you home. He calls a psychiatrist as soon as you've settled into a chair, staring out a window, replaying everything that happened. Your mind relentlessly questioning why didn't you see the boys. Telling you this was your fault. If only you hadn't left so late. If only you'd had your high beams on. If only...something.
Your story makes the local news and you see the memorial, the grieving family. You wish you could do something for them. Go to the funeral, send flowers, tell them you're sorry. But they don't want to hear from you. To them, you're their son's killer. You understand, so you sit home, unable to eat or even talk. In fact, by the time the police return to talk about the investigation, you're suffering from PTSD as surely as any war veteran.
The cops tell you that the two survivors and evidence have painted a clear picture. The boys were wearing dark clothing on bikes with hardly any reflectors. They road three abreast and did not move to the shoulder even though they surely saw and heard you coming long before you could have seen them. It was a tragedy, but it wasn't your fault. It could have been anyone. Nobody would have been able to see them and stop in time. There will be no charges.
It's little comfort to you, though. Survivor guilt eats at your mind as you go through the motions of daily life. Nothing will ever be the same after seeing what you saw that night. You haven't driven since and never want to again. Just riding in a car makes you panicky and distraught. You can't go back to work. You can't resume your normal activities. Happiness ended that night, and you're just going through the motions now, no matter who was at fault.
But for the sake of your sanity and your family, you try. The psychiatrist is helping a bit. You're holding up as best you can. Your attorney tells you that the families aren't happy with the investigation results; their child is gone and they want someone to be held responsible. You try to be understanding. They're grieving and want more answers. You cooperate and wait for the second investigation to be finalized.
Then your friend or your son or someone else says, hey...I gotta tell you something before you hear it elsewhere. That's when you learn that the parents are spreading rumors. They say you were drunk or texting. They're telling everyone and it's spreading like wildfire. People stare and whisper at the grocery store. Maybe someone even yelled "murderer!" as you picked up your mail. Prank calls start, maybe some anonymous mail or ugly posts online show up. You tell the police and shut down the avenues people have to harass you, alienating yourself from your extended family and friends as you do.
Then it hits: you're being served with a massive lawsuit, formalizing those allegations. They want to take everything from you and from your family, to leave you bankrupt if they can. The panic attack hits like a freight train as you digest the news. You break down completely and terrifyingly. Maybe it is your fault. You deserve this. Why weren't you the one who died? You've killed a child, you've ruined your family.
Those around you are outraged. They know you didn't text and weren't drunk. You don't deserve this. They want you to heal and move on. You're so emotionally wrecked, you can barely even speak with your own attorney. But your husband is standing strong and tells him to fight it. You've already lost thousands in missed work, paying doctors and psychiatrists and lawyers for something that wasn't even your fault. It's not right, and someone is going to fight for you in this.
The attorney tells you that the best course is to offset their demands with a counter-suit for all the suffering the accident has caused you. You are also a victim here, but instead of letting you heal, these people have dragged matters out, ruined your reputation, unraveled your mental and emotional progress and now threaten you with financial ruin, all for an accident that the police already determined wasn't your fault.
But even this gets taken out of context by the family's lawyers who want to torture you further. They feed a story about how you're suing the victims you killed, as if that's all anyone needs to know. On Reddit, they've rushed to judge you a psychopath, a worthless piece of garbage.
But really, you just wish it had been you who died that night. You don't want this lawsuit, but you do want this nightmare to end. It won't though. The nightmare of running over three kids will replay in your mind for the rest of your life.
 
2014-04-26 04:30:25 PM  

John Buck 41: I had no idea one-way streets applied to bicycle riders. There is one in my (very small) town and I wouldn't think twice about riding thru it the 'wrong' way.


Bikes obey basically the same laws vehicles do.

vicioushobbit: FWIW, I'm pretty sure you can't get an F on a litmus test.

It'd be a pH.


pH is limited to 14.  The highest you can get is an E.
 
2014-04-26 04:34:46 PM  
You should have thought about them being "kids" before letting them out in the middle of a rainy night on a bike without reflectors.
 
2014-04-26 04:40:37 PM  

OgreMagi: I finally realized it's best I never win the big lottery.  Because with a hundred million dollars at my disposal, I would be hiring thugs to beat the snot out of people like this c00nt.


And THAT is why you are favorited.
 
2014-04-26 04:54:13 PM  

Loren: pH is limited to 14.  The highest you can get is an E.


heh.
 
2014-04-26 04:56:16 PM  

TonyJabroni: Before this lady is crucified here


Nice try. To hell with her.
 
2014-04-26 05:00:49 PM  

NutWrench: She's also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.


You can do that!?

//Living in Michigan, this is relevant to my interests!
 
2014-04-26 05:01:48 PM  

Loren: John Buck 41: I had no idea one-way streets applied to bicycle riders. There is one in my (very small) town and I wouldn't think twice about riding thru it the 'wrong' way.

Bikes obey basically the same laws vehicles do.


Bolded what may be a key word. Just for kicks I'm calling the local PD tomorrow and get their input.
 
2014-04-26 05:35:35 PM  

John Buck 41: Loren: John Buck 41: I had no idea one-way streets applied to bicycle riders. There is one in my (very small) town and I wouldn't think twice about riding thru it the 'wrong' way.

Bikes obey basically the same laws vehicles do.

Bolded what may be a key word. Just for kicks I'm calling the local PD tomorrow and get their input.


Seriously, you didn't know this? Bikes are considered vehicles in the U.S. and are required to obey all traffic signs and laws.  Yes, even using hand signals.  Are you trolling?
 
2014-04-26 05:42:23 PM  

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?


read it in Napolean Dynamites voice
 
2014-04-26 05:52:53 PM  

TonyJabroni: Before this lady is crucified here in the "court of Reddit opinion," let's consider all sides. Playing devil's advocate, put yourself in her shoes.


You missed the part about her husband following behind her.  Sorry, I don't buy it.

1/10
 
2014-04-26 05:53:43 PM  

gulogulo: John Buck 41: Loren: John Buck 41: I had no idea one-way streets applied to bicycle riders. There is one in my (very small) town and I wouldn't think twice about riding thru it the 'wrong' way.

Bikes obey basically the same laws vehicles do.

Bolded what may be a key word. Just for kicks I'm calling the local PD tomorrow and get their input.

Seriously, you didn't know this? Bikes are considered vehicles in the U.S. and are required to obey all traffic signs and laws.  Yes, even using hand signals.  Are you trolling?


Jesus Christ, no I am not trolling.
 
2014-04-26 05:54:34 PM  

Darth Macho: Three teenaged boys at 1:30 AM have a sudden craving for hot dogs which necessitates bicycle riding during a rainstorm. Conclusion: Marijuana.

Meanwhile a woman is driving home faster than the speed limit while monitored by her husband in a second vehicle. Conclusion: Alcohol.

Nobody deserves money.


If the conclusion was alcohol why didnt he drive her in his car_?
 
2014-04-26 06:02:09 PM  

John Buck 41: gulogulo: John Buck 41: Loren: John Buck 41: I had no idea one-way streets applied to bicycle riders. There is one in my (very small) town and I wouldn't think twice about riding thru it the 'wrong' way.

Bikes obey basically the same laws vehicles do.

Bolded what may be a key word. Just for kicks I'm calling the local PD tomorrow and get their input.

Seriously, you didn't know this? Bikes are considered vehicles in the U.S. and are required to obey all traffic signs and laws.  Yes, even using hand signals.  Are you trolling?

Jesus Christ, no I am not trolling.


It just seemed like you were so very doubtful of something that I thought was common knowledge among people that bike roads. It's the biggest complaint most people have about cyclists - their failure to yield to traffic laws as is required by law. Sorry for calling you a troll.
 
2014-04-26 06:16:35 PM  

nosearchimi: If the conclusion was alcohol why didnt he drive her in his car_?


It's pretty common for a husband/wife to meet someplace wehre they both have to drive to get there.  Perhaps they get off work and meet at a restaurant for dinner, so they both drive there.

When they leave, are they supposed to leave one car in the parking lot to make you happy?  Or do they do the normal thing and each one drives home?

She may have been drunk.  I've seen absolutely nothing to make me think that there is evidence either way.  But the assumption that "Her husband was following her, so she must have been drunk" is silly.  If they have both cars there and are leaving at the same time, one is likely to be following the other, alcohol or no alcohol.  If they only have one car there, then I'm sure that he didn't take a cab home to get his car so he could follow her.  Your argument simply makes no sense.
 
2014-04-26 06:18:48 PM  

naris: NutWrench: She's also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.

You can do that!?

//Living in Michigan, this is relevant to my interests!


MI knows the roads are crap. They don't care and car damage is never paid for. They're too busy filling the potholes with tar.
 
2014-04-26 06:28:56 PM  
The report also states: "No breathalyzer was performed. Although police say no alcohol was suspected and no charges were laid.

WTFFFFFFFFF. No basic routine procedure for a fatality, like breathalyzers and at the very least, recklessly negligent homicide? Manslaughter? What, is her dad the state judge?

I hope the karma truck finds that biatch and she gets caught in the brush guard.
 
2014-04-26 08:06:13 PM  
It was a horrible accident, the kids shouldn't have been out that late.

1:30AM pitch black bike rides...okay...parents of the year!
 
2014-04-26 08:20:32 PM  

lack of warmth: Electrify: Having read this yesterday (as well as submitting this with a far less clever headline) I've had some time to think about this, and think the family should have sued the police department rather than the lady, in which her lawsuit is in fact a countersuit. From a legal standpoint, this was ruled similar to a blind man whose dog lead him in front of a car. The accident was unavoidable and neither party is at fault.

This is BS! The kids had reflective material on their bikes, so unless her headlights were screwed or she needs glasses, she should have been able to see them. Then there is the fact that no breathalyzer was given, despite allegations that she had been coming home from drinking, and her husband is a cop... and the whole thing looks like a botched investigation at best or a flat out conspiracy at worst.

/was going to try and be clever, but figured that the ludicrousness of the article was enough

I have to disagree with that statement, as that one reflector from the rear is crap.  It is easy to not have it mounted right or let clothing hang low over it.  You are basing your survival on a 4 square inch reflector, it would make much better sense to mount a light there that will take away several factors.  It may be annoying to see a strobing light on the back of a bike, but you see it.   Pretty much, all the normal reflectors have out lived their purpose, since they were designed at a time that all cars traveled typically 35-45 mph, and we didn't have so many other light distractions along roads.

I'm not really against this woman, because if it was determined the boys were at fault, she has the right to sue.  Especially for damage to her vehicle, as for extra money, her courts will decide.  Now if she was charged with the accident, I would be hard set against her.


Good thing that the speed limit was 50 mph, and that being a rural road there would not have been any other light distractions to contend with.
 
2014-04-26 08:40:20 PM  
I think she might have a case - and then the other parents can sue her for more emotional damage.

Rinse and repeat.
 
2014-04-26 09:11:53 PM  

gulogulo: John Buck 41: gulogulo: John Buck 41: Loren: John Buck 41: I had no idea one-way streets applied to bicycle riders. There is one in my (very small) town and I wouldn't think twice about riding thru it the 'wrong' way.

Bikes obey basically the same laws vehicles do.

Bolded what may be a key word. Just for kicks I'm calling the local PD tomorrow and get their input.

Seriously, you didn't know this? Bikes are considered vehicles in the U.S. and are required to obey all traffic signs and laws.  Yes, even using hand signals.  Are you trolling?

Jesus Christ, no I am not trolling.

It just seemed like you were so very doubtful of something that I thought was common knowledge among people that bike roads. It's the biggest complaint most people have about cyclists - their failure to yield to traffic laws as is required by law. Sorry for calling you a troll.


No problem. I know about the hand signals and whatnot, just find it hard to believe that a biker (at least in this town) would get ticketed, especially for the (very short, like 70 feet) one-way road I referenced earlier.
 
2014-04-26 09:21:55 PM  

bunner: 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.


I suspect being married to a cop is really entitling.
 
2014-04-26 09:32:20 PM  

Frederick: bunner: 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.

I suspect being married to a cop is really entitling.


Once you get past the walking on egg shells 24/7 part.
 
2014-04-26 09:39:12 PM  

Nidiot: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: jimpapa:

You forgot Acts of God. Like sneezing.


And tornadoes because of the gays
 
2014-04-26 09:41:47 PM  
I'm suing the driver for emotional suffering from having to read this article. It is only minor emotional suffering, so I'm just asking for $17.
 
2014-04-26 09:42:41 PM  
In the mid '90s, my brother rode his bike to his middle school every day through a quiet residential area. He had to be on the road for one tiny stretch where there weren't sidewalks, in front of a small convenience store we used to buy candy from. Some horrible excuse for a human being was late for work and careened around a corner shortly before that, going 55 in a school zone, and hit him hard. My brother actually wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the convenience store manager, who saw it and immediately called 911. She had to pause to stick her head out the door because the woman tried to back off his body and drive off. He had to be life flighted out of there.

He will never be the same. He had to be pieced back together in areas, and he suffered a LOT of brain damage. He will always live with his parents, and is lucky to get jobs bagging groceries.

My parents took her to court, just for medical fees, That's it. They had enough tragedy, they didn't want to fight, they just wanted her insurance to help with the medical bills.

Her bottom-feeding lawyer got into records he shouldn't have been able to get into and argued it wasn't the woman's fault at all, because my brother had Asperger's (high functioning), and therefore could have no knowledge of the correct hand signals for biking, and the judge AGREED with that.

Then she turned around and sued us for harassment and distress and legal bills, and she won that too, partially because of the previous judge's decision, and the fact that my parents had to go pro se because they couldn't afford a lawyer due to having to take care of a critically ill pre-teen that she'd hit.

People like that woman and the one in this article... Dante didn't have the imagination to create a circle that they deserve.
 
2014-04-26 10:14:05 PM  

57Academics: In the mid '90s, my brother rode his bike to his middle school every day through a quiet residential area. He had to be on the road for one tiny stretch where there weren't sidewalks, in front of a small convenience store we used to buy candy from. Some horrible excuse for a human being was late for work and careened around a corner shortly before that, going 55 in a school zone, and hit him hard. My brother actually wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the convenience store manager, who saw it and immediately called 911. She had to pause to stick her head out the door because the woman tried to back off his body and drive off. He had to be life flighted out of there.

He will never be the same. He had to be pieced back together in areas, and he suffered a LOT of brain damage. He will always live with his parents, and is lucky to get jobs bagging groceries.

My parents took her to court, just for medical fees, That's it. They had enough tragedy, they didn't want to fight, they just wanted her insurance to help with the medical bills.

Her bottom-feeding lawyer got into records he shouldn't have been able to get into and argued it wasn't the woman's fault at all, because my brother had Asperger's (high functioning), and therefore could have no knowledge of the correct hand signals for biking, and the judge AGREED with that.

Then she turned around and sued us for harassment and distress and legal bills, and she won that too, partially because of the previous judge's decision, and the fact that my parents had to go pro se because they couldn't afford a lawyer due to having to take care of a critically ill pre-teen that she'd hit.

People like that woman and the one in this article... Dante didn't have the imagination to create a circle that they deserve.


Holy crap. I'm sorry for you, your parents, and your brother.

Horrid biatches. Both of them.
 
2014-04-26 10:20:01 PM  

bunner: Frederick: bunner: 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.

I suspect being married to a cop is really entitling.

Once you get past the walking on egg shells 24/7 part.


Because of the high rate of domestic abuse?
 
2014-04-26 10:22:14 PM  

Frederick: bunner: Frederick: bunner: 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.

I suspect being married to a cop is really entitling.

Once you get past the walking on egg shells 24/7 part.

Because of the high rate of domestic abuse?


yeah.
 
2014-04-27 02:49:02 AM  
You can sue the families of someone you killed? Imagine if dictators start doing that.
PS, I hope this biatch has a crippling stroke, one that makes sure she never moves or is able to hold ever own drool ever again, but leaves her completely lucid.
 
2014-04-27 03:17:11 AM  
Was she listening to Eddie Rabbit?
 
2014-04-27 07:01:28 AM  
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/25/driver_who_struck_teen_sui n g_dead_youth.html
Bit more information in this one.
"A year ago, the Majewski family filed a separate claim against Simon, her husband and the County of Simcoe. "
Not just the insurance company trying to get money - the dead kids parents were also trying to get rich.

"That claim, which is still winding its way through the legal system, alleges Simon was negligent: travelling at excessive speeds, failing to keep a proper lookout and operating while intoxicated and on the phone. "
There are a lot of claims there. As has been speculated already, it looks like they are throwing everything they can in the suit, and hoping they can make something stick.

"Majewski was killed and McLean seriously injured after being struck riding in one lane of the two-lane stretch which was dimly lit on a drizzly, damp night. "

From another article:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Driver+fatal+collision+wi th +cyclists+suing+dead+teen/9772606/story.html
"They were returning to their homes about 1:30 a.m. on Oct. 28, 2012, riding abreast along the two-lane paved rural road, when they were hit from behind by Simon's black SUV. "

"A collision-reconstruction team from the South Simcoe Police Service investigated the crash; their 26-page report found that the "lack of visibility" of the cyclists "was the largest contributing factor," and that on a dark overcast night, "the driver of the Kia did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to make an evasive reaction."

"A roadside screening device was administered "out of an abundance for caution," the report said, and registered "zero alcohol content in her blood system."

"Majewski, Mlynczyk, their new partners and their children are also suing the Simons and Simcoe County for a total of $900,000. Their suit alleges Sharlene Simon was speeding, under the influence or texting at the time of the accident, and that Jules Simon allowed her to drive the SUV when "he knew or ought to have known" she was in no condition to do so."


So here we have a family, who just lost their son over an unfortunate, preventable situation. They decided that since they know better than the police, and tests that were done they would sue the obviously drunk, or distracted driver, because there is no other way someone could miss 3 bikes in the middle of the road on a dark night. Come one people. Use your brains here.  The family is spreading rumors about this person that is sure to affect her personal life, while ruining her reputation, and suing her as well.

In some countries, it is up to the parent to watch their children. In those countries, parents are held liable for the acts of their children. The US is not one of those countries.Canada, do you really want to join us in this? Or do you believe in responsible parenting? I have a child, and will have another soon enough. I'll be damned if I am going to let my child go riding off in the middle of the night like that. My parents wouldn't have it, and I won't either. It is time parents opted to do their job rather than expect society to do it for them.

Oh - and for the people with the physics degrees that seem to have come up with a single stopping distance that applies to everything: Go fark yourselves. Don't peddle that crap around here. Hopefully MOST people here know better. The stopping distance varies depending on MANY factors. There is no one-size-fits-all answer here. The mass of her vehicle - loaded as it was, the brake types, break wear, composition, tire type, tire wear, temperature, condition of the shocks, angle of the road, force applied, ABS, etc ALL affect stopping distance. There is no general distance you can apply here.
 
2014-04-27 09:09:12 AM  

Waldojim42: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/25/driver_who_struck_teen_sui n g_dead_youth.html
Bit more information in this one.
"A year ago, the Majewski family filed a separate claim against Simon, her husband and the County of Simcoe. "
Not just the insurance company trying to get money - the dead kids parents were also trying to get rich.

"That claim, which is still winding its way through the legal system, alleges Simon was negligent: travelling at excessive speeds, failing to keep a proper lookout and operating while intoxicated and on the phone. "
There are a lot of claims there. As has been speculated already, it looks like they are throwing everything they can in the suit, and hoping they can make something stick.

"Majewski was killed and McLean seriously injured after being struck riding in one lane of the two-lane stretch which was dimly lit on a drizzly, damp night. "

From another article:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Driver+fatal+collision+wi th +cyclists+suing+dead+teen/9772606/story.html
"They were returning to their homes about 1:30 a.m. on Oct. 28, 2012, riding abreast along the two-lane paved rural road, when they were hit from behind by Simon's black SUV. "

"A collision-reconstruction team from the South Simcoe Police Service investigated the crash; their 26-page report found that the "lack of visibility" of the cyclists "was the largest contributing factor," and that on a dark overcast night, "the driver of the Kia did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to make an evasive reaction."

"A roadside screening device was administered "out of an abundance for caution," the report said, and registered "zero alcohol content in her blood system."

"Majewski, Mlynczyk, their new partners and their children are also suing the Simons and Simcoe County for a total of $900,000. Their suit alleges Sharlene Simon was speeding, under the influence or texting at the time of the accident, and that Jules Simon allowed her to drive the SU ...


When one of the responding cops is the suspects husband, and they elect not to do a field sobriety test... I think the family has a point... (she admits) she was speeding on a dark, wet, road at 130 in the morning... I'd put my money on her being drunk too.
 
2014-04-27 01:13:36 PM  

John Buck 41: 57Academics: In the mid '90s, my brother rode his bike to his middle school every day through a quiet residential area. He had to be on the road for one tiny stretch where there weren't sidewalks, in front of a small convenience store we used to buy candy from. Some horrible excuse for a human being was late for work and careened around a corner shortly before that, going 55 in a school zone, and hit him hard. My brother actually wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the convenience store manager, who saw it and immediately called 911. She had to pause to stick her head out the door because the woman tried to back off his body and drive off. He had to be life flighted out of there.

He will never be the same. He had to be pieced back together in areas, and he suffered a LOT of brain damage. He will always live with his parents, and is lucky to get jobs bagging groceries.

My parents took her to court, just for medical fees, That's it. They had enough tragedy, they didn't want to fight, they just wanted her insurance to help with the medical bills.

Her bottom-feeding lawyer got into records he shouldn't have been able to get into and argued it wasn't the woman's fault at all, because my brother had Asperger's (high functioning), and therefore could have no knowledge of the correct hand signals for biking, and the judge AGREED with that.

Then she turned around and sued us for harassment and distress and legal bills, and she won that too, partially because of the previous judge's decision, and the fact that my parents had to go pro se because they couldn't afford a lawyer due to having to take care of a critically ill pre-teen that she'd hit.

People like that woman and the one in this article... Dante didn't have the imagination to create a circle that they deserve.

Holy crap. I'm sorry for you, your parents, and your brother.

Horrid biatches. Both of them.


I have to cry foul.  In the mid 90s Aspergers was just barely defined in the DSM.  It only became common diagnosis with  http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/72242.The_Complete_Guide_to_Asperg e r_s_Syndrome in 2000

https://suite.io/melissa-hincha-ownby/hzc2t5    relevant, but dated, your brother must have been one of the first people diagnosed.
 
2014-04-27 03:12:04 PM  

lack of warmth: Electrify: Having read this yesterday (as well as submitting this with a far less clever headline) I've had some time to think about this, and think the family should have sued the police department rather than the lady, in which her lawsuit is in fact a countersuit. From a legal standpoint, this was ruled similar to a blind man whose dog lead him in front of a car. The accident was unavoidable and neither party is at fault.

This is BS! The kids had reflective material on their bikes, so unless her headlights were screwed or she needs glasses, she should have been able to see them. Then there is the fact that no breathalyzer was given, despite allegations that she had been coming home from drinking, and her husband is a cop... and the whole thing looks like a botched investigation at best or a flat out conspiracy at worst.

/was going to try and be clever, but figured that the ludicrousness of the article was enough

I have to disagree with that statement, as that one reflector from the rear is crap.  It is easy to not have it mounted right or let clothing hang low over it.  You are basing your survival on a 4 square inch reflector, it would make much better sense to mount a light there that will take away several factors.  It may be annoying to see a strobing light on the back of a bike, but you see it.  Pretty much, all the normal reflectors have out lived their purpose, since they were designed at a time that all cars traveled typically 35-45 mph, and we didn't have so many other light distractions along roads.

I'm not really against this woman, because if it was determined the boys were at fault, she has the right to sue.  Especially for damage to her vehicle, as for extra money, her courts will decide.  Now if she was charged with the accident, I would be hard set against her.


Lack of warmth? Fitting name you farking psycho. Try to care more about people than objects.
 
2014-04-27 03:17:01 PM  

abhorrent1: Mike_1962: abhorrent1: Boudyro: The kids had every legal right to be where they were.

At 1:30AM? Maybe not. What's curfew and what's the age cut off?

Seriously? Curfew? WTF are you on about?

Seriously? WTF don't you understand?
He said they had a legal right to be where they were. If there's a 10-11pm curfew, and they're underage and out at 1am, then no, they don't have a legal right to be out. They're breaking the law by being out at that time.


Hey moron he said WTF because we are a free country that doesn't arbitrarily curfew...Unlike America Apparently.

They TOTALLY have EVERY right to be where they were.
 
2014-04-27 03:46:25 PM  

Woohoo_02: abhorrent1: Mike_1962: abhorrent1: Boudyro: The kids had every legal right to be where they were.

At 1:30AM? Maybe not. What's curfew and what's the age cut off?

Seriously? Curfew? WTF are you on about?

Seriously? WTF don't you understand?
He said they had a legal right to be where they were. If there's a 10-11pm curfew, and they're underage and out at 1am, then no, they don't have a legal right to be out. They're breaking the law by being out at that time.

Hey moron he said WTF because we are a free country that doesn't arbitrarily curfew...Unlike America Apparently.

They TOTALLY have EVERY right to be where they were.


Does it accidentally curfew?
 
2014-04-27 06:48:48 PM  
Hopefully somebody shoots this biatch as soon as possible.  The sooner this coont is dead, the better off this world will be.
 
Displayed 253 of 253 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report