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  
•       •       •

16173 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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 253 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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