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
    More: Asinine, pelvic fracture, two-lane road  
•       •       •

16174 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2014 at 7:05 AM (2 years 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 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.
 
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 »
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