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  
•       •       •

16151 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

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

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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