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 88
    More: Asinine, pelvic fracture, two-lane road  
•       •       •

16116 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2014 at 7:05 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-26 08:59:57 AM
7 votes:
Am I the only one who read the article?

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

>struck from behind

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

>She blames the boys for negligence.

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

She struck them from BEHIND, and then claims THEY did not BRAKE properly.  How on Earth would THEIR failure to break have caused HER to rear-end THEM to death?  The only way you rear end someone who's not braking is if you are going faster than they are and hit them 'cause you're not paying attention or have lost control of your vehicle.
2014-04-26 07:25:20 AM
6 votes:
Ok, I'll bite and did RTFA.

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

take away the emotional argument "bbb.b.bb.bbut the kid's dead!" out of it and she'd certainly have a point.  i mean, look at it this way - what if the kid had just put his bicycle in the middle of the road (with him somewhere nearby) which the suv hit and somehow emotionally scarred the driver such that he/she was truly too afraid to drive at night any more.  would the parents not be responsible?  of course they would.
2014-04-26 09:23:56 AM
4 votes:
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 08:08:14 AM
4 votes:
FTA:  "He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle.
Two hours later, after Brandon lay dead in hospital from multiple traumatic injuries, police knocked on the door of the Majewski's home."

How "shortly" did he drive his wife home?  Who called for medical help?  Did he drive his wife home, return to the accident site, and then call for help?  Article absolutely sucks at details.
2014-04-26 07:34:55 AM
4 votes:
Simon's husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle.

A cop's wife... Suddenly I am suspicious of the whole situation.
2014-04-26 07:32:01 AM
4 votes:

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

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

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


There is some question about her speed, and her sobriety, and a not zero chance she was texting...  so maybe not so cut and dry there.  Bonus points for her hubby being a cop.
2014-04-26 09:42:41 PM
3 votes:
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 09:41:11 AM
3 votes:

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 09:19:49 AM
3 votes:
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 08:39:10 AM
3 votes:
I don't buy her story that she was only going 10kph over the limit. I've ridden my bike at night without light hundreds of times. You can see the lights(to say nothing of being able to hear it) of an oncoming vehicle for a long time before they are near unless they are driving very fast. There should have been plenty of time for three kids on bikes to move to one side of the road or the other. She hit three kids. Three. How the hell do you manage to hit three kids on bikes at once? Either she was drunk, distracted(texting, talking on phone, whatever), or driving like a maniac. Unless you argue that all three teens were so utterly clueless(or high?) that they wouldn't have known to get to one side or clear the path of a vehicle at night. I don't but it. Lots missing from this story.
2014-04-26 07:45:59 AM
3 votes:
it was an accident
not her fault
if anyone was at fault it was the kids.
their folks are suing her which is wrong
so she counter sues, no choice here
end of story
   if any of you that wish her dead had the misfortune to hit some kid riding his bike in the middle of the road in the middle of the night and were getting sued for it, you would do the same thing to protect yourself.
2014-04-26 07:39:02 AM
3 votes:

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

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

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


You missed a few points:

1. It was wet that night. Even drivinthe posted speed limit is ill-advised, let alone going over the speed limit.

2. She was likely not completely sober. But we'all never know, because the cops--of whom her husband was one--didnt do a sobriety test at all.

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

Also, you appear to not have RTFA as you claim. But, whatever.
2014-04-26 07:29:43 AM
3 votes:

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

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

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


I don't have kids. Can almost guarantee you don't either based on those comments. I hate children, but you do NOT sue the family of a dead kid. That's "Not being a scumbag 101"
2014-04-26 07:24:49 AM
3 votes:
I will willingly serve the jail time of anybody that murders this pathetic piece of human garbage.
2014-04-26 03:57:00 PM
2 votes:
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 02:54:01 PM
2 votes:
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 11:59:56 AM
2 votes:

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 09:20:58 AM
2 votes:

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 09:06:08 AM
2 votes:

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

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

/by far the stupidest move here is suing the state because of the road conditions
//is the officer husband hiding evidence; also impossible to tell
2014-04-26 08:20:49 AM
2 votes:

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

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

In my case, yes.

From the city of St Paul's website:

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

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

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


No, I don't. While I do agree with another poster that the article sucks at details - how long was the "road", how "rainy/dangerous" were the conditions, etc. I also live in a thing called a "city" where the streets are "lit" and there are "sidewalks" or "bike lanes" for people to ride on. Kids walk/bike/skate to the store all the time. I walk/bike to the store to get snacks in the middle of the night all the time. I don't see the difference. And if the kid was as avid a cyclist as TFA says, he likely had some lights and reflectors (the article did actually mention that he did specifically have reflectors). What would you rather they do, be asleep by 10pm and up at 6am for church every day? They let people DRIVE CARS at "all [h]ours of the night" at that age, in all kinds of conditions, and that is far more dangerous than riding a bike. I don't think riding a bike to the store at 1:30 am is a crime. I will go on record as making that statement. If you're like 5, maybe you should have some supervision but if you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to go to the goddamn store for some chips, man.
2014-04-26 08:10:45 AM
2 votes:

Nacc: bunner: If your actions kill an innocent person and you try and get paid by the people from whose bosom you have torn them, you are a gutless, nasty pice of sh*t.  Period.

I might have said this differently, but PTSD is indeed a terrible thing, and perhaps you could construe her possible feelings of guilt as symptoms of PTSD, it can be awfully hard to sleep at night and get through the day when you're forced to remember that you killed a kid or two, even when not drinking. But if you caused the death of someone, and then proceed to sue that person's family for emotional distress, you are an unmitigated piece of shiat and welcome to find the race of other unmitigated pieces of shiat and live among them, because you aren't, then, considered human anymore. Go forth and fark thyself into the sunset.


"I ran your kid over and I'm all f*cked upabout  it.  Gimme a bunch of money you don't have."  No sale.
2014-04-26 07:48:14 AM
2 votes:

bunner: If your actions kill an innocent person and you try and get paid by the people from whose bosom you have torn them, you are a gutless, nasty pice of sh*t.  Period.


I might have said this differently, but PTSD is indeed a terrible thing, and perhaps you could construe her possible feelings of guilt as symptoms of PTSD, it can be awfully hard to sleep at night and get through the day when you're forced to remember that you killed a kid or two, even when not drinking. But if you caused the death of someone, and then proceed to sue that person's family for emotional distress, you are an unmitigated piece of shiat and welcome to find the race of other unmitigated pieces of shiat and live among them, because you aren't, then, considered human anymore. Go forth and fark thyself into the sunset.
2014-04-26 07:45:59 AM
2 votes:

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

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


In my case, yes.

From the city of St Paul's website:

Unaccompanied minors over 15 and under 18 are restricted from public places from 12:01 am to 4:00 am daily
2014-04-26 07:40:42 AM
2 votes:

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


Going to the store to get some snacks, jesus, is that a farking crime where you come from?
2014-04-26 07:40:24 AM
2 votes:

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

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

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


No.

Because: If a car hits three bicyclists hard enough to kill one, cripple another, and send a third flying, the driver is unequivocally at fault. She was driving over the posted speed limit, and worse she was obviously driving too fast for conditions. The kids had every legal right to be where they were.
2014-04-26 07:39:43 AM
2 votes:
If your actions kill an innocent person and you try and get paid by the people from whose bosom you have torn them, you are a gutless, nasty pice of sh*t.  Period.
2014-04-26 07:34:12 AM
2 votes:
According to the article, the parents' lawyer has filed a routine suit alleging that the driver was drunk.  The initial police report also stated that the driver's husband, a police officer, was following his wife at the time of the accident.  I'm not sure about Canada, but in the U.S., a police officer can easily get a fellow officer to overlook routine exams like a breathalyzer and then "help" that officer write the incident report.

Hopefully, in filing this lawsuit, the driver opens herself up for a complete investigation.  Is it possible, in Canada, that she could end up facing vehicular manslaughter charges if she's determined to have been drinking?  Could her husband face disciplinary charges if he was involved in some kind of coverup?
2014-04-26 07:32:20 AM
2 votes:
What the fark were these minors doing out at 1:30 AM, during a dark and rainy night?
2014-04-26 07:27:24 AM
2 votes:

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

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

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


This is FARK, there is no place here for reasoned arguments and facts!
2014-04-26 07:19:44 AM
2 votes:
If you do that kind of damage to a vehicle, you're going a bit faster than 90km/h (~55mph in American).

The woman is obvious an idiot--PTSD after killing someone whileyou were reckless?!--but holy crap I ccan't help but feel terrible for the dead kid's family. I do hope the family counter-sues the delusional woman and gets a huge judgment for their own pain and suffering.
2014-04-26 07:16:58 AM
2 votes:
Well, that's certainly setting the bar pretty low.

I do have to wonder about the driver's attorney on this one.  I know there are guys out there that have no problem willingly defending all sorts of scumbags, and we obviously need them for the system to work, but this seems like the sort of case where an attorney might not want their name attached to it.
2014-04-26 07:13:14 AM
2 votes:
I hope this woman dies a slow painful death
2014-04-27 09:09:12 AM
1 votes:

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 07:01:28 AM
1 votes:
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.
2014-04-26 10:14:05 PM
1 votes:

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 09:21:55 PM
1 votes:

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 06:28:56 PM
1 votes:
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 04:56:16 PM
1 votes:

TonyJabroni: Before this lady is crucified here


Nice try. To hell with her.
2014-04-26 03:16:04 PM
1 votes:
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 02:41:30 PM
1 votes:

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 01:03:53 PM
1 votes:

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 12:41:56 PM
1 votes:

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 12:21:31 PM
1 votes:
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 11:35:18 AM
1 votes:

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 11:27:34 AM
1 votes:

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 11:23:38 AM
1 votes:
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 11:16:30 AM
1 votes:

Darth Macho: Conclusion: Marijuana.


Or, like, maybe wanted a hot dog.
2014-04-26 11:15:09 AM
1 votes:
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 10:55:58 AM
1 votes:

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 10:54:17 AM
1 votes:

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 10:51:48 AM
1 votes:

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 10:26:05 AM
1 votes:
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 10:22:48 AM
1 votes:

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 10:21:10 AM
1 votes:

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 10:16:44 AM
1 votes:

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 10:16:08 AM
1 votes:

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 10:12:37 AM
1 votes:

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 09:59:52 AM
1 votes:

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 09:52:24 AM
1 votes:

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 09:42:02 AM
1 votes:
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 09:37:08 AM
1 votes:

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 09:31:04 AM
1 votes:

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 09:19:39 AM
1 votes:

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 09:18:30 AM
1 votes:

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 09:10:39 AM
1 votes:

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 09:05:48 AM
1 votes:
It's a pretty good rule of thumb that if you hit 3 people, it's probably your fault.
2014-04-26 09:05:15 AM
1 votes:
. 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 09:02:57 AM
1 votes:

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 08:43:22 AM
1 votes:

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


Cycling, moron.
2014-04-26 08:42:26 AM
1 votes:

jimpapa: it was an accident


There is no such thing as an accident.  There is always a reason for a crash.  It is either mechanical or human error 100% of the time.
2014-04-26 08:27:31 AM
1 votes:

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

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

In Florida we assume all teenagers getting snacks are dangerous. Were they wearing hoodies? Exponential danger if so.

DANGER! HOODIES AT LARGE! DO NOT FEED AFTER MIDNIGHT

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


I always wear my "Adult White Guy" hoodie when I go out to get snacks.
2014-04-26 08:24:04 AM
1 votes:
"spunky, handsome, 17-year-old"


Is this...... entirely appropriate?
2014-04-26 08:22:52 AM
1 votes:

maram500: I'm not entirely sure of how it works in Canadialand, but in the US, this would spark an Internal Affairs investigation that could lead to the guy losing his job and/or being prosecuted for a charge of conspiracy.


You are easily the biggest tard, troll, or more likely, BOTH on this board.
2014-04-26 08:20:24 AM
1 votes:

pete1729: Simon's husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle.

A cop's wife... Suddenly I am suspicious of the whole situation.


There is that to wonder about ... but I still think that three kids riding three abreast on a country road on a storm night with no lights are just asking for trouble (if this was the case.)  I believe the article was very low on details!
2014-04-26 08:03:47 AM
1 votes:

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

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


In Florida we assume all teenagers getting snacks are dangerous. Were they wearing hoodies? Exponential danger if so.
2014-04-26 07:57:50 AM
1 votes:
I'd probably have PTSD for running someone over even if I was at fault.  Hell, probably more likely if I was at fault.  That this woman has PTSD isn't an unrealistic concern.  If the issue is her audacity sue the parents, well, they should've prepared their kid more if they were going to let the kid out and about that time of morning.
2014-04-26 07:56:25 AM
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: It looks like the kids were actually ruled at-fault for the accident, so it's not like she intentionally ran them down and blamed them.

Claiming emotional damages from an incident on the grounds of a minor's contributory negligence for your hurt feelings is pretty clearly abuse of the intended purpose of the civil court system.  I hope whatever lawyer thought this was even remotely legit gets a dismissal on the grounds of the lawsuit being frivolous on his record (usually results in disbarment if you keep it up).


The kids were ruled at fault? Where did you read that? I read the article and must have missed that... (Not being sarcastic, either.)
2014-04-26 07:54:33 AM
1 votes:

jimpapa: it was an accident
not her fault
if anyone was at fault it was the kids.
their folks are suing her which is wrong
so she counter sues, no choice here
end of story
   if any of you that wish her dead had the misfortune to hit some kid riding his bike in the middle of the road in the middle of the night and were getting sued for it, you would do the same thing to protect yourself.


Responding in a way that you might understand:

it wasn't an accident
she was driving over the speed limit
she shouldn't have been driving even the speed limit
her choice should have been to settle and pay the family
end of story
2014-04-26 07:49:15 AM
1 votes:
My sister was driving on a bright and clear day when a kid on a bike (and without even looking) swerved from a sidewalk right in front of her big bad SUV.  She struck him, and he ended up severely injured (broken legs, pelvis etc - fortunately he lived)  Fortunately for her there were two other drivers who witnessed the entire thing otherwise she would be screwed,

Now my point: That accident screwed her up - she never sued anybody but she's suffered from anxiety and bouts of depression ever since so PTSD is definitely a possibility with this woman.
2014-04-26 07:46:57 AM
1 votes:
This woman and her lawyer need to turn in their cards. They have lost the right to live in polite society, fire their asses into the sun.
2014-04-26 07:44:47 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Uhh, the speed limit is the speed limit.  When you violate it a judge isn't going to listen to, "But the speed limit is unreasonable!" as a defense when you have just struck and killed a cyclist.  Not to mention that a driver is supposed to slow down even below the limit when conditions, such as it being dark and rainy, warrant it.  Even without the possible intoxication or the suggestion that her speed was even higher than reported, it's not looking good for her not being reckless in some way.
2014-04-26 07:42:58 AM
1 votes:

Mr. Right: According to the article, the parents' lawyer has filed a routine suit alleging that the driver was drunk.  The initial police report also stated that the driver's husband, a police officer, was following his wife at the time of the accident.  I'm not sure about Canada, but in the U.S., a police officer can easily get a fellow officer to overlook routine exams like a breathalyzer and then "help" that officer write the incident report.

Hopefully, in filing this lawsuit, the driver opens herself up for a complete investigation.  Is it possible, in Canada, that she could end up facing vehicular manslaughter charges if she's determined to have been drinking?  Could her husband face disciplinary charges if he was involved in some kind of coverup?


I'm not entirely sure of how it works in Canadialand, but in the US, this would spark an Internal Affairs investigation that could lead to the guy losing his job and/or being prosecuted for a charge of conspiracy.

I look forward to the follow up on this.
2014-04-26 07:33:43 AM
1 votes:

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


We really gotta stop kissing these people's asses and the personality disorder riddled cows they breed with.
2014-04-26 07:29:46 AM
1 votes:
I think she should win.
2014-04-26 07:27:41 AM
1 votes:

maram500: If you do that kind of damage to a vehicle, you're going a bit faster than 90km/h (~55mph in American).

The woman is obvious an idiot--PTSD after killing someone whileyou were reckless?!--but holy crap I ccan't help but feel terrible for the dead kid's family. I do hope the family counter-sues the delusional woman and gets a huge judgment for their own pain and suffering.


The family is a mess, middle kid dead from the 'accident', youngest in hospital for weeks, the oldest couldn't handle it and died from a combination of drugs and alcohol about 6 months later, and the couple is divorced...and were already suing, this bat is counter suing.  *and needs to die in a fire with her lawyer.*
2014-04-26 07:24:19 AM
1 votes:
Sick tag on vacation? This is farked up.
2014-04-26 07:22:00 AM
1 votes:

State_College_Arsonist: Well, that's certainly setting the bar pretty low.

I do have to wonder about the driver's attorney on this one.  I know there are guys out there that have no problem willingly defending all sorts of scumbags, and we obviously need them for the system to work, but this seems like the sort of case where an attorney might not want their name attached to it.


I'm sure her solicitor's post box is filled to overflowing with hate mail--and rightly so. Not only did he take the case, but he had to have said that she had a solid case. What a piece of trash and an insult to solicitors everywhere.
 
Displayed 88 of 88 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report