Driver kills boy, sues family for 1 million dollars

[Dragonlayer]

I'm amazed no-one on the driver's legal team thought this over and decided: "Yeah, this is going to have Mrs Simon firmly embedded in the public consciousness as the new Hitler, maybe we should try something else."

 

[Slitzkin]

I'm going to sue this woman for suing that family.

 

[Reaper195]

Seems like they are suing because the Law didn't side with them, which normally wouldn't work - but AMERICA

/slow claps for years

Fuck, the US's legal system is absolutely bollocks. I hope the moment this makes it to a court (The fact that it'd get there is bullshit) the judge tells her to fuck off and demands money from her for the family, court costs, and a kick up the arse.

I encourage people to read this cracked article [http://www.cracked.com/article_19150_6-famous-frivolous-lawsuit-stories-that-are-total-b.s..html] about all the famous "only in America" lawsuits. Unsurprisingly, they're all complete bullshit and some of the fun ones people still like to pass around come from chain emails. When it comes to sources for news, cracked>foxnews

This particular lawsuit happened in Canada, so if by America, you mean (North) America, you'd be right, but if you're talking about the U.S, you got the wrong country this time.

A'ight, fair enough. I may have missed the actual location and just kind of assumed it was the US.

 

[Crispee]

Based on a quick read, it seems everybody involved was responsible for the accident, the driver shouldn't have been speeding on a dark road and the cyclists shouldn't have been near a dark road with dark clothes and no reflective things.

Saying that though, both parties have suffered emotional trauma and it's no use for them trying to claim either of them is more distraught in the form of trying to get money.

I dunno, I'm just being objective, or is the legal system the wrong place for that?

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I've seen this one doing the rounds, the driver was cleared of all wrong doing by the police, those dumbass kids were riding three abreast on a main road in the middle of the night with dark clothing and only the crappy built on reflectors you get on bikes.

But despite their now deceased children's stupidity and the police outright stating she did nothing wrong the family are now suing the driver. The driver is counter suing in the hopes they drop the case. I know this is perfect bait for the crowd that like to rip their dicks off in rage fuelled hate masturbation but could you at least do your research before calling for an innocent woman's head?

Oh who am I kidding? Of course you wont.

What you've said seems more likely the case. As soon as i noticed 'FOX' on the link, it all fell into place. Tabloid news is the real antagonist. All these other posts are reactions that FOX relies upon to thrive.

 

[lord canti]

I like how everyone is siding with the woman driver. Yes she wasn't at fault and I always think it's stupid when family sue over someones death, but all the people talking about natural selection I'd love for you to say that if someone you know get killed in an other wise easily avoidable accident.

And what would be the point of that, exactly? Obviously we'd be upset and want to lash out if someone we cared about got hurt -regardless of circumstances. That doesn't really prove anything though.

Both parties are in the wrong here and yes when something like this happens emotions run high, My problem is with the natural selection BS people are spouting out. Young people do stupid things all the time hell humans in general do stupid things all the time.

But there are degrees of stupid.

There's 'Maybe going faster than I should' stupid and 'Let's ride in the middle of a darkened road with no lights or safety equipment' stupid.

Somehow I feel the tone of this conversation would change if the 'victims' in this case were in a black car, no lights, and travelling 15mph when they got hit.

Upon rereading the post I somehow managed to miss that these kids were 17 years old so they should have damn well known better. I still stand by what I said though as stupid as the decision the made was they still don't deserve to be made fun of after death. Now if they were planking or playing chicken with the car then I would be more inclined to agree with you.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

That's what third degree murder is, it's involuntary manslaughter. This must be a country thing where in some countries murder means premeditated, I don't know. All I know is that in the US murder means to kill another human being, whether it's intentional or not.

EDIT: Or maybe I'm just using the wrong term as a quick google search proved. Yeah, forget I said anything.

I can tell you haven't read the article. This took place in Canada, not the US. The biggest difference is that in Canada the pedestrian doesn't have the right of way like in the US. Also, she was counter suing to get the family to drop their lawsuit against her.

Yeah, already had that realization and I had to explain it to quite a few other people. This is why I like to keep my mouth shut on things like this.

 

[Jeremy Meadows]

And people in power wonder why pretty much no one has faith in their legal systems anymore. It's a fucking joke.

 

[Nielas]

Snip

That's what third degree murder is, it's involuntary manslaughter. This must be a country thing where in some countries murder means premeditated, I don't know. All I know is that in the US murder means to kill another human being, whether it's intentional or not.

EDIT: Or maybe I'm just using the wrong term as a quick google search proved. Yeah, forget I said anything.

I can tell you haven't read the article. This took place in Canada, not the US. The biggest difference is that in Canada the pedestrian doesn't have the right of way like in the US. Also, she was counter suing to get the family to drop their lawsuit against her.

Also they were not pedestrians. They were riding bicycles which are classified as vehicles and need to follow stricter rules while on the road.

 

[AuronFtw]

This forum never fails to prove its inability to look for more information beyond the first link thrown at them.

1) The police investigated the situation and cleared the driver of wrong-doing.
2) The claim that she was intoxicated was pure conjecture with no actual evidence.
3) The kids were biking on an unlit road at 1:30 AM with no reflectors.
4) The parents, having failed to get her charged with any crime, then proceeded to sue her in civil court. Her suit is a counter-suit against the parents to protect herself.

Yeah sorry, but she's not as morally reprehensible as you want to make her out to be.

I pointed this out on the first page of discussion and 5 pages later people still haven't caught on. They're either really thick or mysteriously selective readers, missing both the factual background in the news stories and the posts in this thread from people who have read those facts.

Can't let anything get in the way of their pseudo-righteous crusade, I guess. Fuck the man! Young people do stupid things, and no matter how stupid they are, they shouldn't be held accountable! A person taking the standard legal steps to protect themselves from lawsuits is obviously a bloodsucking villain attempting only to rub salt into the wound! That driver was going a reasonable speed over a totally flat road and was found not accountable by the police, but FUCK THAT she was technically speeding! All her fault! Also something something women drivers, am i rite bros?

How am I doing so far?

 

[sageoftruth]

Only in (North) America.

It happened in Canada.
I guess that still qualifies as North America. Of course lumping the two together will cause plenty of Canada rage. Lol.

 

[Queen Michael]

This is not going to work. There's no way she'll be able to win this lawsuit. No judge, jury or whatever would ever agree that she should get a million for killing a kid.

 

[suitepee7]

Not that this could be excusable in any situation but the articles do only express the side of the grieving parents.

They state that the driver was intoxicated and on her phone even thought that was never tested or proven and they aren't written in a particularly neutral manor, the driver is very much the villain of the piece.
While I understand why they're going for that angle, it doesn't present any information on behalf of the driver, only snippets of her claim, all the while discussing how the parents think that she wants to make a profit from killing their child. It's definitely trying to provoke a specific reaction in the reader and completely demonise the driver.


I'm not defending the lawsuit by any means, I just think it's worth noting that this is an incredibly one-sided story.

she admits that she hit and killed the boy, thats manslaughter... no matter the circumstances, it is still manslaughter, and she should face criminal charges for it. although foxnews, so naturally it is going to be one-sided and i agree it doesn't show the details of the incident, but she did admit to driving the vehicle that killed him.

the real question that this article begs is how the fuck she wasn't charged in the first place, when she admits it...

edit: for clarification's sake, i am not fully aware of the manslaughter laws in Canada. In the U.K. this would come under manslaughter for negligence due to speeding down a dark rural road. Canadian law may have differences in its gross negligence charges

 

[Excludos]

Not that this could be excusable in any situation but the articles do only express the side of the grieving parents.

They state that the driver was intoxicated and on her phone even thought that was never tested or proven and they aren't written in a particularly neutral manor, the driver is very much the villain of the piece.
While I understand why they're going for that angle, it doesn't present any information on behalf of the driver, only snippets of her claim, all the while discussing how the parents think that she wants to make a profit from killing their child. It's definitely trying to provoke a specific reaction in the reader and completely demonise the driver.


I'm not defending the lawsuit by any means, I just think it's worth noting that this is an incredibly one-sided story.

she admits that she hit and killed the boy, thats manslaughter... no matter the circumstances, it is still manslaughter, and she should face criminal charges for it. although foxnews, so naturally it is going to be one-sided and i agree it doesn't show the details of the incident, but she did admit to driving the vehicle that killed him.

the real question that this article begs is how the fuck she wasn't charged in the first place, when she admits it...

edit: for clarification's sake, i am not fully aware of the manslaughter laws in Canada. In the U.K. this would come under manslaughter for negligence due to speeding down a dark rural road. Canadian law may have differences in its gross negligence charges

Because cycling after dark (1.30am) in the middle of the road without reflective gear is akin to suicide. The police came to the conclusion that the driver wasn't at fault, and treated it as an accident.

Then the family decided to sue her anyways. She counterclaimed, and now everyone is treating her like zombiehitler.

I wish journalism this bad was punishable in some way. If you're this bad at your job, you shouldn't have it.

edit: There probably wasn't any evidence of speeding, or else there would be a case against her indeed.

 

[suitepee7]

-snip-

Because cycling after dark (1.30am) in the middle of the road without reflective gear is akin to suicide. The police came to the conclusion that the driver wasn't at fault, and treated it as an accident.

Then the family decided to sue her anyways. She counterclaimed, and now everyone is treating her like zombiehitler.

I wish journalism this bad was punishable in some way. If you're this bad at your job, you shouldn't have it.

edit: There probably wasn't any evidence of speeding, or else there would be a case against her indeed.

in the article, it said she admitted to speeding, hence my confusion as to why the police were so quick to drop charges. i get that the boys were reckless on the road and it would have been her main defense, but i was surprised that with her admission it wasn't even taken to court.

as for the rest of it, knowing the full story does significantly improve her image, and it should really be noted that she isn't suing, she's countering the lawsuit. unfortunately this is probably good journalism in the eyes of fox news...

 

[Muspelheim]

This is not going to work. There's no way she'll be able to win this lawsuit. No judge, jury or whatever would ever agree that she should get a million for killing a kid.

I doubt that is the objective of the suit, though. It's all a part of an unpleasant court battle, no doubt instigated by law firms.

It's a tragic accident being exploited for profit, in brief, but not by the person the tabloids points our attention to.

Tragic really is the word for this, come to think of it. The accident is tragic, the exploitation of it in court is tragic and the utterly abyssmal journalism on the matter is tragic.