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  
•       •       •

16166 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 01:02:43 PM  
FTFA:
"In a statement of claim filed with the court, Simon is claiming $1.35 million in damages due to her psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress. "

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

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

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


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

Squilax: TomD9938: Squilax: Bslim: What the fark were these minors doing out at 1:30 AM, during a dark and rainy night?

Going to the store to get some snacks, jesus, is that a farking crime where you come from?

In my case, yes.

From the city of St Paul's website:

Unaccompanied minors over 15 and under 18 are restricted from public places from 12:01 am to 4:00 am daily

Wow. I can't even think of anything to say to that. I used to ride my bike to the corner store all the time for snacks, and that wasn't even counting all the time I actually spent riding my bike around making mischief and doing/selling drugs. Of course, that doesn't explain why the kids in TFA shouldn't have been "out at 1:30am, during a dark and rainy night".


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

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

HighlanderRPI: Bomb Head Mohammed: Ok, I'll bite and did RTFA.

The parents let the kid, for whom they are legally responsible, ride a bike without lights in the middle of the night in the middle of a road ("but he's a good kid.")  the kid was struck and killed by a driver going a reasonable speed (90 in an 80 km zone is hardly unreasonable) who was understandably traumatized by what had happened.

take away the emotional argument "bbb.b.bb.bbut the kid's dead!" out of it and she'd certainly have a point.  i mean, look at it this way - what if the kid had just put his bicycle in the middle of the road (with him somewhere nearby) which the suv hit and somehow emotionally scarred the driver such that he/she was truly too afraid to drive at night any more.  would the parents not be responsible?  of course they would.

This is FARK, there is no place here for reasoned arguments and facts!


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

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

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

Baz744: sno man: Bomb Head Mohammed: Ok, I'll bite and did RTFA.

The parents let the kid, for whom they are legally responsible, ride a bike without lights in the middle of the night in the middle of a road ("but he's a good kid.")  the kid was struck and killed by a driver going a reasonable speed (90 in an 80 km zone is hardly unreasonable) who was understandably traumatized by what had happened.

take away the emotional argument "bbb.b.bb.bbut the kid's dead!" out of it and she'd certainly have a point.  i mean, look at it this way - what if the kid had just put his bicycle in the middle of the road (with him somewhere nearby) which the suv hit and somehow emotionally scarred the driver such that he/she was truly too afraid to drive at night any more.  would the parents not be responsible?  of course they would.

There is some question about her speed, and her sobriety, and a not zero chance she was texting...  so maybe not so cut and dry there.  Bonus points for her hubby being a cop.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Bikes obey basically the same laws vehicles do.

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

It'd be a pH.


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

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


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

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


heh.
 
2014-04-26 04:56:16 PM  

TonyJabroni: Before this lady is crucified here


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

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


You can do that!?

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

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

Bikes obey basically the same laws vehicles do.


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

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

Bikes obey basically the same laws vehicles do.

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


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

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

Going to the store to get some snacks, jesus, is that a farking crime where you come from?


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

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


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

1/10
 
2014-04-26 05:53:43 PM  

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

Bikes obey basically the same laws vehicles do.

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

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


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

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

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

Nobody deserves money.


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

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

Bikes obey basically the same laws vehicles do.

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

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

Jesus Christ, no I am not trolling.


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

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


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

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

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

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

You can do that!?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Bikes obey basically the same laws vehicles do.

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

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

Jesus Christ, no I am not trolling.

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


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

bunner: sno man: Bonus points for her hubby being a cop.

We really gotta stop kissing these people's asses and the personality disorder riddled cows they breed with.


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

Frederick: bunner: sno man: Bonus points for her hubby being a cop.

We really gotta stop kissing these people's asses and the personality disorder riddled cows they breed with.

I suspect being married to a cop is really entitling.


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

Nidiot: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: jimpapa:

You forgot Acts of God. Like sneezing.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

bunner: Frederick: bunner: sno man: Bonus points for her hubby being a cop.

We really gotta stop kissing these people's asses and the personality disorder riddled cows they breed with.

I suspect being married to a cop is really entitling.

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


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

Frederick: bunner: Frederick: bunner: sno man: Bonus points for her hubby being a cop.

We really gotta stop kissing these people's asses and the personality disorder riddled cows they breed with.

I suspect being married to a cop is really entitling.

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

Because of the high rate of domestic abuse?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horrid biatches. Both of them.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Lack of warmth? Fitting name you farking psycho. Try to care more about people than objects.
 
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