She is literally the world person in the world.
You would not end up with a cold case though.CriticalMiss said:
Driver kills boy, sues family for 1 million dollars
- Thread starter chinangel
- Start date
Recommended Videos
isn't the speed limit the... well, limit?TheKasp said:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_188029.pdf
i'm not gonna be a hypocrite and say i never speed, but i wouldn't expect the law to be lenient if i accidentally hit several people and i said 'but i was only 5mph over the limit'.
The law has to recognize 'degrees of wrong doing', and what could have 'reasonably' been done to avoid the incident.suitepee7 said:
Basically, what's apparent here (based on what the accident simulation found) was that there was no way she could have reasonably avoided an accident EVEN IF she was going the correct speed (i.e.: the speeding, while technically wrong, was not a factor in the accident). If she was screaming down the road at 20 over, you could accuse her of being reckless; but at 5kph, you might argue it wasn't exactly safe; but ultimately had nothing to do with whether she'd be able to decelerate in time.
On the other hand, if the cyclists were obeying the rules of the road and in compliance with visible safety equipment, the accident may have been avoided. In effect, it'd have been functionally the same as a car driving in the wrong lane at night with no lights. The conditions they were creating were just so hazardous that there was nothing a responsible driver could have reasonably done.
The police determined that the extra speed was not really a factor in the accident and given the conditions the result would have been the same if she drove the speed limit. Breaking the speed limit by 5 km/h is not in itself a serious enough crime to warrant prosecution.suitepee7 said:
I am sure that a civil suit would assign some culpability to her but the amount of contributory negligence by the victims was staggering.
You know what would stop all these knee-jerk/taking at face value/not reading the thread comments?
If the OP would update their post with the new information.
Just a thought.
Don't mind me.
I'll see myself out.
If the OP would update their post with the new information.
Just a thought.
Don't mind me.
I'll see myself out.
The OP didn't read the new information, either.captainsavvy said:
I'd say this thread was a Fire and Forget. It's certainly in the spirit of things in this case.
That wasn't mentioned in either of the articles.Carsus Tyrell said:
You expect people to not only fully read and comprehend the source, but actually do independent research?
How optimistic are you?
I'm not going to argue about whether the kids should have been there or not and whether they should have had reflective gear, but even if this was no fault of her own, the lawsuit just seems like an act of greed. How does she think that suing a grieving family is going to help her or anyone else recover from the mental damage? especially when it's the family that's most likely suffering more than her - she hasn't lost anyone she knows.
Hope she realizes that the familly is most likely going through more pain than her and withdraws.
Hope she realizes that the familly is most likely going through more pain than her and withdraws.
senordesol said:
Nielas said:
yeah, i was trying to find a different video that had a little girl explaining she had an 80% chance of living if hit at 30mph, and 80% chance of dying if hit at 40mph, illustrating the chances speed can make to life or death, not specifically the chance of being hit.TheKasp said:
but i digress, that explains it pretty well, thanks! didn't know that about Canadian speeding laws, like i said, in the U.K. they're pretty black and white about the whole speeding situation (country roads have a higher speed limit, but still a hard limit IIRC).
if the 5mph difference wouldn't have changed anything, and considering they were riding on a country road at night without lights etc, then it is totally reasonable that the police would not take the matter to court. really shows how lacking certain news reports are if it takes this long to determine something even resembling a rational explanation...
consider my initial views on the matter void, it was an unfortunate accident - albeit one that could have prevented with a little more thought from the boys' side - that has had a pretty nasty aftermath for everybody involved.
She only made counter suit in response to the family's lawsuit (hence the word "counter") and agreed to drop it if the family drops their lawsuit. This seems like less of a money grab and more of an act of self defense.chocolate pickles said:
I would ask the grieving family how suing another family into oblivion is gonna help anyone.chocolate pickles said:
And hopefully the grieving family realizes how pointless their own lawsuit is and drops it. If they do that then problem solved.chocolate pickles said:
She drove over the speed limit at a dark wet night and the police didn't find her negligent?
Isn't it normal in driving schools in other countries to teach that in a situation with low visibility and wet surface you should drive under the speed limit?
Sheesh...
Isn't it normal in driving schools in other countries to teach that in a situation with low visibility and wet surface you should drive under the speed limit?
Sheesh...
They didn't find her negligent because they determined that, due to the greater negligence of the cyclists, it wouldn't have mattered.Ushiromiya Battler said:
Yes you're reading the article correctly, but you're still getting a false picture because of the lies through omissions.Rex Dark said:
The driver was cleared of any wrong doing because the teens were cycling in unsafe manner with no reflection gear, at 10 am, and with the road conditions at the time. Idependant accident investigation also concluded the driver could have done to avoid the accident. As a result the driver was not charged and cleared of any wrong doing.
Not satisfied with the results the families of the teens attempted to sue the driver. As result the driver placed a counter sue to get the families to drop their lawsuit to avoid a large legal proceedings that would have cost the driver money even if not found at fault.
Jesus. I understand that killing another person, even accidentally, will be difficult but does that justify suing the family of the persons you killed?
I read the guy above me, and I'm getting a better picture of the situation, and I would argue that it was the kids fault as much as the drives, but I feel that counter-suing a family who just lost their child $1 Million is not the best of places to start.
I read the guy above me, and I'm getting a better picture of the situation, and I would argue that it was the kids fault as much as the drives, but I feel that counter-suing a family who just lost their child $1 Million is not the best of places to start.