Driver kills boy, sues family for 1 million dollars

[Ushiromiya Battler]

snip

[snip

Wet ground, you do know braking on wet ground increases breaking distance right?
And that's my whole problem with this case.
No one that knows anything about driving would think it's a great idea to drive over the speed limit in low visibility on wet ground.
I'm not saying the kids weren't irresponsible, but if she had driven like a responsible human being she might not have hit the kids at all.
Because she would have driven under the speed limit and most likely managed to brake before hitting them.
Or, hit them and not killed anyone.

If the police did in fact account for this, sure nothing she could have done, but until that is proven, she'll be irresponsible in my eyes.

Captcha: Ding A Ling
wat

EDIT:

snip

I'm looking at a friend in the passenger seat and smashes into a cyclist in front of me. The cyclist didn't look to see if a car was coming before I smashed into him.
He's accountable and so am I.
Because we both did something we shouldn't.
If one person is more negligible than another that doesn't suddenly mean that the other person have no fault.
They are both at fault.

 

[senordesol]

I'm looking at a friend in the passenger seat and smashes into a cyclist in front of me. The cyclist didn't look to see if a car was coming before I smashed into him.
He's accountable and so am I.
Because we both did something we shouldn't.
If one person is more negligible than another that doesn't suddenly mean that the other person have no fault.
They are both at fault.

Not necessarily. If there's nothing you could have safely done to avoid the cyclist even if you were looking at the road; you're not at fault.

 

[Gauntlets28]

For the love of fuck, how can we live in a world where people can get away with this stuff? If you hit a kid and kill them, it's kinda YOUR fault isn't it. In fact, with the lawsuit she's basically confessing to hitting the kid...why are we even entertaining her? She's guilty of third degree murder! Case closed! Sentence her! Don't let her sue people!

The parents actually say that their children were cycling on a wet, dark country road at 1.30am without any reflective gear apart from some reflectors on the actual bikes, they admit that was a mistake. They don't actually argue with the claim that the boys weren't cycling safely.

Murder doesn't come into it.
It's tragic but there's nothing to suggest that it was intentional.

Yeah, I get what you mean. Those kids were insane to be out that late, but on the other hand, I read that she too was going quite far over the speed limit on a wet road at night. Apparently it was an 80km/h zone, but she was doing 90, so she can still be gotten for bad driving cos that would've lessened the reactions like crazy.

 

[TakerFoxx]

Yeah, I get what you mean. Those kids were insane to be out that late, but on the other hand, I read that she too was going quite far over the speed limit on a wet road at night. Apparently it was an 80km/h zone, but she was doing 90, so she can still be gotten for bad driving cos that would've lessened the reactions like crazy.

From what I understand, she was going 85 in an 80 zone. I don't think reducing her speed by five mph would have made much of a difference insofar as reactions were concerned.

 

[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."

So they should not advise her to countersuit when the family sued her for a similiar amount?

Well, considering the response of comment boards in general (admittingly not an ideal way of gauging public opinion), maybe they shouldn't; I mean, there was no way this would ever have been seen as a fair or rational response to events. I'm no expert on how suing works but even if it was successful, would it have been worth it for Mrs Simon to be forever known as "That evil heartless woman who killed teenagers and then sued their family for causing *her* distress!"?

 

[Zetatrain]

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."

So they should not advise her to countersuit when the family sued her for a similiar amount?

Well, considering the response of comment boards in general (admittingly not an ideal way of gauging public opinion), maybe they shouldn't; I mean, there was no way this would ever have been seen as a fair or rational response to events. I'm no expert on how suing works but even if it was successful, would it have been worth it for Mrs Simon to be forever known as "That evil heartless woman who killed teenagers and then sued their family for causing *her* distress!"?

Well considering she could end up being sued into oblivion if the family wins the lawsuit I'd say it could be worth it. Based on on what I've read it seems that her primary reason for counter suing is to get the other family to drop their suit. This way she doesn't run the risk of losing a civil lawsuit and having to pay out nearly one million dollars.

Now you may say, "But the police cleared her of any wrong doing so surely she doesn't have to worry about losing the lawsuit and therefore shouldn't have to scare the suing family into backing down".

Well to be honest I can understand someone not wanting to entrust their fate to the courts. I mean the law does screw up here and there, and unlike regular trials civil courts don't require "beyond reasonable doubt" (at least I don't think so).

But I agree, her public image is never going to come out of this intact especially with the way the media is portraying it.

 

[chocolate pickles]

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.

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.

How does she think that suing a grieving family is going to help her or anyone else recover from the mental damage?

I would ask the grieving family how suing another family into oblivion is gonna help anyone.

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 family is most likely going through more pain than her and withdraws.

And hopefully the grieving family realizes how pointless their own lawsuit is and drops it. If they do that then problem solved.

Not trying to deny what you've said, but do you mind providing a link for this info? i went through the two sources again to check, and only found mention of a counter lawsuit in the comments in the second link.

 

[senordesol]

Yeah, I get what you mean. Those kids were insane to be out that late, but on the other hand, I read that she too was going quite far over the speed limit on a wet road at night. Apparently it was an 80km/h zone, but she was doing 90, so she can still be gotten for bad driving cos that would've lessened the reactions like crazy.

From what I understand, she was going 85 in an 80 zone. I don't think reducing her speed by five mph would have made much of a difference insofar as reactions were concerned.

As I understand it, it was 5kph over, so I think that translates to just over 3mph...fairly negligible.

 

[Serum211]

As I understand it, it was 5kph over, so I think that translates to just over 3mph...fairly negligible.

Just small correction: She was doing 5 m/ph over the speed limit, or 10 k/ph, according to other people in this thread. Still kinda negligible.

Ok, I get the part where she is counter-suing the family. But I still haven't gotten to know just how much the family is suing her for, because the article only mentions that they sued her for medical bills (in Canada, really?) and funeral expenses, which I don't think could equate to 1.3 MILLION (insert dr. Evil voice here) dollars. Also, why is she suing the other boys families, and the county as well? Seems like she is making a mad cash grab will trying to make the family back off.

Also, everyone involved in this entire affair is being highly disrespectful to the dead kid. EVERYONE!

 

[madwarper]

But I still haven't gotten to know just how much the family is suing her for, because the article only mentions that they sued her for medical bills (in Canada, really?) and funeral expenses, which I don't think could equate to 1.3 MILLION (insert dr. Evil voice here) dollars.

Ever hear of the OJ Simpson? You know, the "Trail of the Century"?

The athlete/actor was accused of killing his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Despite the fact that the verdict of the murder trial was not guilty, "the jury in the civil trial awarded Brown and Simpson's children, Sydney and Justin, $12.6 million from their father as recipients of their mother's estate. The victims' families were awarded $33.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages.[footnote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Civil_trial[/footnote]"

And, if the woman in this case is so unfortunate to have her civil trail full of [*insert unflattering adjective here*] people, as in the fair amount of posters in this very thread that would have lynched her without the preponderance of evidence any of wrong doing, then $1 million she's suing for would be just a pittance to what could be ruled against her.

 

[Serum211]

But I still haven't gotten to know just how much the family is suing her for, because the article only mentions that they sued her for medical bills (in Canada, really?) and funeral expenses, which I don't think could equate to 1.3 MILLION (insert dr. Evil voice here) dollars.

Ever hear of the OJ Simpson? You know, the "Trail of the Century"?

The athlete/actor was accused of killing his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Despite the fact that the verdict of the murder trial was not guilty, "the jury in the civil trial awarded Brown and Simpson's children, Sydney and Justin, $12.6 million from their father as recipients of their mother's estate. The victims' families were awarded $33.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages.[footnote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Civil_trial[/footnote]"

I'll just come out the gate and say this: While I have heard of the case, I don't know the full details (just for clearance, I'm from Sweden/born 95 so I was 2 when it happened and never had care after it happened, because O.J. Simpson isn't a important person for a kid growing up in Sweden). And could you please explain how the accusation of murder against a rich athlete/well know movie star (gotta love the Naked Gun movies) relates over to a road accident between a 17 year old boy and a mother of three, because I seriously doubt that should go over 1.3 million dollars. Or am I just thick for thinking that? Because that's not impossible when it comes to me.

 

[madwarper]

I'll just come out the gate and say this: While I have heard of the case, I don't know the full details (just for clearance, I'm from Sweden/born 95). And could you please explain how the accusation of murder against a rich athlete/well know movie star (gotta love the Naked Gun movies) relates over to a road accident between a 17 year old boy and a mother of three, because I seriously doubt that should go over 1.3 million dollars. Or am I just thick for thinking that? Because that's not impossible when it comes to me.

My point is that even though the police of cleared the woman of any criminal culpability, there's nothing preventing the family from suing her and potentially getting awarded millions. Well, expect for common sense, but I'm afraid that seems to be in short supply nowadays.

Plus, even tough a lawsuit may be frivolous, as I believe the family of the boys is, that does not mean that it will be immediately thrown out of court. See the Great American Pants Suit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung].

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

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...

They do. They also tell you to go with the flow of traffic to avoid being an obstruction. Since everyone drives at least 10 km/h over the limit with the only exceptions being in truly bad weather, school zones, traffic or construction, you get used to driving that fast. I've discovered that driving the limit in the heart of Toronto makes you a problem because everyone's going faster than you. That is unless you're in gridlock or in summer (read construction) season.

I may as well take up my soapbox and rail against what I don't like; SUV's. Why are they so friggin popular? They're massive gas-guzzling top-heavy beasts with crap braking distance. No one needs the off-road capabilities of one, most of which have been removed from them anyways. If she was in a car, she would have stopped shorter. Likely not enough to avoid hitting them but maybe slow enough to avoid killing them.

 

[madwarper]

Why are they so friggin popular? They're massive

You've answered your own question.

You mean I can run my errands, go grocery shopping and pick-up the all kids in the car-pool, all at the same time without having to make several trips?

 

[TakerFoxx]

You've answered your own question.

You mean I can run my errands, go grocery shopping and pick-up the all kids in the car-pool, all at the same time without having to make several trips?

Yeah, but good look finding a parking space.

=affectionately pats hood of 94 Toyota pickup=

 

[sXeth]

As I understand it, it was 5kph over, so I think that translates to just over 3mph...fairly negligible.

Just small correction: She was doing 5 m/ph over the speed limit, or 10 k/ph, according to other people in this thread. Still kinda negligible.

Ok, I get the part where she is counter-suing the family. But I still haven't gotten to know just how much the family is suing her for, because the article only mentions that they sued her for medical bills (in Canada, really?) and funeral expenses, which I don't think could equate to 1.3 MILLION (insert dr. Evil voice here) dollars. Also, why is she suing the other boys families, and the county as well? Seems like she is making a mad cash grab will trying to make the family back off.

Also, everyone involved in this entire affair is being highly disrespectful to the dead kid. EVERYONE!

No articles seem to be mentioning details on what they sued her for (possibly cause that was back in december, or just sensationlism at its finest). I'd assume medical expenses is probably psychological counseling which waffles in and out on our healthcare covering it (usually out). Both suits targeted the county cause the road was missing lights and poorly maintained.

Anyhow, the whole thing sounds like one or both lawyers is just trying to flail for their own paycheque. Her ridiculously overblown medical/counseling countersuit, or the original suit against her which was basically accusing her of every possible fault from speeding, drunk driving, texting, to outright arranging a police conspiracy to cover up her role, without any proof of any of it (other then the speeding, which really is par for the course on country roads here)

For all that she was speeding, she wasn't the only car on the road (her husband was apparently behind her, as were several other people), and you could equally argue that the cyclists weren't paying any attention to not realize cars were coming.

The whole thing seems like a tragedy of generally equal fault, that lawyers have gone lawyering into to take advantage of, and then media has turned into a ludicrous spectacle.

 

[Zetatrain]

After going over both articles again I'm a bit confused about a couple things.

1)Is there any mention of who filed the lawsuit first and who is counter suing. Some people, including me, claim the driver is counter suing but neither articles use the term "counter suit" nor state that she is doing this in response to the Majewski's lawsuit.

In fact the article by the SUN it mentions

"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."

If i'm not mistaken "statement of claim" is made by the the plaintiff or rather the one who sues first. If she was counter suing shouldn't it be a "statement of counter claim"

2)The FOX article mentions that the Majewski's lawyer is representing them in a "separate lawsuit".

The word "separate" has me confused here because it seems to imply that the two claims made made against each other aren't part of the same case/trial. Usually when you have two sides suing each other over the same incident there is a lawsuit and a counter suit. If they just used the word "lawsuit" by itself I'd just assume they where using lawsuit and counter suit interchangeably. So is FOX just using incorrect terminology in their article or am i missing something here?

Does anyone have any sources that clearly shows who's the plaintiff (suing) and who's the defendant (counter suing)?

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Why are they so friggin popular? They're massive

You've answered your own question.

You mean I can run my errands, go grocery shopping and pick-up the all kids in the car-pool, all at the same time without having to make several trips?

Neither me nor my parents ever had any problems in a mid-sized sedan, though I have a preference for station wagons. The way SUVs are used they are nothing more than a station wagon on stilts.

 

[senordesol]

As I understand it, it was 5kph over, so I think that translates to just over 3mph...fairly negligible.

Just small correction: She was doing 5 m/ph over the speed limit, or 10 k/ph, according to other people in this thread. Still kinda negligible.

Ok, I get the part where she is counter-suing the family. But I still haven't gotten to know just how much the family is suing her for, because the article only mentions that they sued her for medical bills (in Canada, really?) and funeral expenses, which I don't think could equate to 1.3 MILLION (insert dr. Evil voice here) dollars. Also, why is she suing the other boys families, and the county as well? Seems like she is making a mad cash grab will trying to make the family back off.

Also, everyone involved in this entire affair is being highly disrespectful to the dead kid. EVERYONE!

That's how the law works. When you file suit, you file again *everyone* who may be shown to have remotely anything to do with your grievance.