Driver kills boy, sues family for 1 million dollars

[Kyuubi Fanatic]

This is soooooo wrong. I really can't help but hate humanity sometimes.

 

[Zetatrain]

Alright I'm confused as all hell now

According to these posts Simons (the driver) is counter suing
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/driver-sues-estate-of-ontario-teen-she-struck-killed-1.1793813

According to the statement of claim, the lawsuit seeks $1.35 million in damages for the "great pain and suffering" Simon has endured since the incident. Simon's suit is a countersuit to one levelled against her by Majewski's family.

In that suit, Majewski's family is seeking a total of $900,000 in damages for the "emotional trauma and shock" of their son's death. In that suit, Simon, Simon's husband -- the owner of the car-- and the County of Simcoe are named as defendants.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/04/28/driver-who-killed-cyclist-sues-the-dead-teens-parents/

As for Simon?s countersuit, Lloyd Alter at Treehugger wrote that it ?may just be a smart legal tactic.?

But these seem to imply the opposite
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/25/driver_who_struck_teen_suing_dead_youth.html

Simon?s husband, mother and three children are also named as plaintiffs in the case and, combined, are seeking more than $1 million.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/27/sharlene-simon-brandon-majewski_n_5224094.html

Majewski's family is countersuing the driver for $900,000. Derek Majewski claims Simon was speeding, under the influence or texting at the time of the accident.

I'm not sure if this is a case of one side misusing legal terms, being misinformed, or flat out lying.

 

[thedarkfreak]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/27/sharlene-simon-brandon-majewski_n_5224094.html

Majewski's family is countersuing the driver for $900,000. Derek Majewski claims Simon was speeding, under the influence or texting at the time of the accident.

I'm not sure if this is a case of one side misusing legal terms, being misinformed, or flat out lying.

It does look like it's getting all confused in the media, but I'm tempted to believe Simon here, simply because of Derek Majewski's claim in that last article. "He was speeding, or under the influence, or texting." He's not making an accusation, he's throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks. He's coming up with anything to try to claim Simon was distracted. The police already ruled it wasn't Simon's fault, which is why he's free right now. After an accident like this, the FIRST thing the police would have done is get a BAC test on scene and check the guy's phone records. They came up with nothing.

This just seems like a family in grief lashing out at a target for that grief, however wrongfully. What happened was horrible, but even the police's investigation shows that he wasn't at fault.

 

[Battenberg]

I don't get why people are defending this as if it's justified in some way. This woman is suing a dead teenager, plain and simple. She isn't trying to get justice because this case couldn't possibly punish the boy who apparently wronged her so terribly, all that could possibly come of this case is financial gain for herself. The fact that she's basically blanket suing anyone she can just supports the idea that this a purely selfish and greedy attempt tomake her own life better off the back of an unfortunate accident (albeit an accident caused by negligent/ foolish behaviour by both parties).

Frankly I'm amazed that she even found legal representation, win or lose her lawyers's career and reputation will likely be tarnished forever.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

I don't get why people are defending this as if it's justified in some way. This woman is suing a dead teenager, plain and simple. She isn't trying to get justice because this case couldn't possibly punish the boy who apparently wronged her so terribly, all that could possibly come of this case is financial gain for herself. The fact that she's basically blanket suing anyone she can just supports the idea that this a purely selfish and greedy attempt tomake her own life better off the back of an unfortunate accident (albeit an accident caused by negligent/ foolish behaviour by both parties).

Frankly I'm amazed that she even found legal representation, win or lose her lawyers's career and reputation will likely be tarnished forever.

Read the posts above yours and you'll get why. She's counter-suing the family who are suing her.

 

[Bat Vader]

I don't get why people are defending this as if it's justified in some way. This woman is suing a dead teenager, plain and simple. She isn't trying to get justice because this case couldn't possibly punish the boy who apparently wronged her so terribly, all that could possibly come of this case is financial gain for herself. The fact that she's basically blanket suing anyone she can just supports the idea that this a purely selfish and greedy attempt tomake her own life better off the back of an unfortunate accident (albeit an accident caused by negligent/ foolish behaviour by both parties).

Frankly I'm amazed that she even found legal representation, win or lose her lawyers's career and reputation will likely be tarnished forever.

Read the posts above yours and you'll get why. She's counter-suing the family who are suing her.

That makes me curious though. If the family was to drop the suit do you think she would drop hers or do you think she would try and still sue them? Just curious is all.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

I don't get why people are defending this as if it's justified in some way. This woman is suing a dead teenager, plain and simple. She isn't trying to get justice because this case couldn't possibly punish the boy who apparently wronged her so terribly, all that could possibly come of this case is financial gain for herself. The fact that she's basically blanket suing anyone she can just supports the idea that this a purely selfish and greedy attempt tomake her own life better off the back of an unfortunate accident (albeit an accident caused by negligent/ foolish behaviour by both parties).

Frankly I'm amazed that she even found legal representation, win or lose her lawyers's career and reputation will likely be tarnished forever.

Read the posts above yours and you'll get why. She's counter-suing the family who are suing her.

That makes me curious though. If the family was to drop the suit do you think she would drop hers or do you think she would try and still sue them? Just curious is all.

I don't see any reason why she would continue. If she was successful, she'd be earning all the vitriol shown here. As it is, she's attempting to protect her family against harm.

 

[WarpZone]

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.

Eh, just wait and see how many people keep doing it after you've gone and pointed that out...

Unless of course they're sounding off about the original article instead of reading all the replies.

 

[DjinnFor]

Now the driver of the SUV, Sharlene Simon, 42, a mother of three, formerly from Innisfil, is suing the dead boy for the emotional trauma she says she has suffered. She?s also suing the two other boys, as well as the dead boy?s parents, and even his brother, who has since died. She?s also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.

Her excuse is that her feelings were hurt. This is why the subculture of the left that is obsessed with glorifying feelings over facts pisses me right the fuck off: you end up with people actually believing it.

I haven't read the comments yet, but watch someone defend this on the grounds that "killing someone accidentally can be a traumatic experience for someone" or whatever.

 

[Namehere]

Now the driver of the SUV, Sharlene Simon, 42, a mother of three, formerly from Innisfil, is suing the dead boy for the emotional trauma she says she has suffered. She?s also suing the two other boys, as well as the dead boy?s parents, and even his brother, who has since died. She?s also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.

Her excuse is that her feelings were hurt. This is why the subculture of the left that is obsessed with glorifying feelings over facts pisses me right the fuck off: you end up with people actually believing it.

I haven't read the comments yet, but watch someone defend this on the grounds that "killing someone accidentally can be a traumatic experience for someone" or whatever.

Dude, that is funny. Define irony? Huh? Huh? We're being emotional when you are freaking out without even understanding the whole story. That's funny dude. That is ironic. If you'd read the comments you'd know this was a civil legal battle taking place. But you didn't, you just ran with your gut impulse, with a feeling. Feeling fuzzy yet? Man that was so funny.

 

[TakerFoxx]

Her excuse is that her feelings were hurt. This is why the subculture of the left that is obsessed with glorifying feelings over facts pisses me right the fuck off: you end up with people actually believing it.

I haven't read the comments yet, but watch someone defend this on the grounds that "killing someone accidentally can be a traumatic experience for someone" or whatever.

Yeah, gonna agree with the dude above me. This is some hardcore irony right here, because if you had bothered to read the comments and gotten the full story instead of jumping straight to an emotional response, you would have learned that the police determined that because the boys were biking three abreast in dark clothing insufficient reflectors on their bikes down a dark road with a high speed limit, the woman was not at fault and cleared her of all charges. However, the family of the boys sued her anyway for an amount she could not pay, and was advised to launch a counter-suit so as to defend herself, a counter-suit that would be dropped the moment the family dropped their own suit.

 

[Muspelheim]

Now the driver of the SUV, Sharlene Simon, 42, a mother of three, formerly from Innisfil, is suing the dead boy for the emotional trauma she says she has suffered. She?s also suing the two other boys, as well as the dead boy?s parents, and even his brother, who has since died. She?s also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.

Her excuse is that her feelings were hurt. This is why the subculture of the left that is obsessed with glorifying feelings over facts pisses me right the fuck off: you end up with people actually believing it.

I haven't read the comments yet, but watch someone defend this on the grounds that "killing someone accidentally can be a traumatic experience for someone" or whatever.

Reading the comments before lining up another shot at dem libruls would've likely been in your favour...

 

[DjinnFor]

Dude, that is funny. Define irony? Huh? Huh? We're being emotional when you are freaking out without even understanding the whole story. That's funny dude. That is ironic. If you'd read the comments you'd know this was a civil legal battle taking place. But you didn't, you just ran with your gut impulse, with a feeling. Feeling fuzzy yet? Man that was so funny.

I was well aware of the whole context, having read about this issue long before this thread showed up. The fact that she's countersuing doesn't make her countersuit any less baseless than before.

Both her and her lawyer are retarded for even thinking "waaah waaaaaaaaaaaah my emotional trauma waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah" should fly in a civil court. But it apparently does these days, since lawyers are now advising clients to sue on those grounds.

Reading the comments before lining up another shot at dem libruls would've likely been in your favour...

Yeah, let's sit here and read 8 pages of comments. Because my time is completely worthless to me. I'll take all the shots I want at "dem libruls" if the responses I got were any judge of the kinds of people I was talking about. I don't even know why you're trying to defend them at this point.

 

[Muspelheim]

Dude, that is funny. Define irony? Huh? Huh? We're being emotional when you are freaking out without even understanding the whole story. That's funny dude. That is ironic. If you'd read the comments you'd know this was a civil legal battle taking place. But you didn't, you just ran with your gut impulse, with a feeling. Feeling fuzzy yet? Man that was so funny.

I was well aware of the whole context, having read about this issue long before this thread showed up. The fact that she's countersuing doesn't make her countersuit any less baseless than before.

Both her and her lawyer are retarded for even thinking "waaah waaaaaaaaaaaah my emotional trauma waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah" should fly in a civil court. But it apparently does these days, since lawyers are now advising clients to sue on those grounds.

Reading the comments before lining up another shot at dem libruls would've likely been in your favour...

Yeah, let's sit here and read 8 pages of comments. Because my time is completely worthless to me. I'll take all the shots I want at "dem libruls" if the responses I got were any judge of the kinds of people I was talking about. I don't even know why you're trying to defend them at this point.

Yes, it's eight pages of comments, it won't rob many minutes of your life. The reason I brought it up was because I felt the jab was very misinformed, as it was essentially marked with a "tl:dr", and the result of just reading the headline and going from there.

However, it wasn't, and your opinion of the matter is certainly educated, at least. I don't agree, but it's not built on the implications the title provides, which I thought it was. Sorry for that.

As for the defending of people, well... I just find it terribly irritating when a poor show of character is somehow a reflection of political alignment, that letting unconstructive feeling overwriting the better decision is something the left is responsible for. I wouldn't have minded, though, if I knew the opinion on the matter was informed, so egg on me face once again. It just looked like another case of tabloid-esque, ill-informed moaning, as if political meanings had anything to do with the matter at hand. You know what I mean, someone using an entirely disconnected event to snipe some people they don't like.

(Of course, every single side there is and ever was are doing it, but that's a given)

However, again, it wasn't quite the case. I don't quite agree with your reasoning, but reasoned you have, so my call-out was misinformed.

To connect it to the topic slightly, I don't think she's actually expecting even a hope to win an actual case, and neither are her lawyers. But they've concluded it's the only way to have a chance in court of not losing too painfully. In a perfect world, both cases would be dropped, but since they aren't, it's all there is to do.

 

[Wizardly-K9]

This sounds like a hoax. I can understand if the family was rich, but they seem to be your average middle class. What could she possibly gain by sueing them for 1 million, besides bad publicity.

It seems very setupish.

 

[tangoprime]

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.

Now i don't know how the law is in the united states, but over here in germany people are responsible for their driving.
A car is a weapon and highly deadly, if your driving one, your responsible 100%.
If your hitting or killing a person with your driving it's YOUR FAULT. It's not the dead persons fault.
If your riding your bike not safely, then your endangering yourself.
If you drive irresponsibly then your breaking the law.
I am just baffled that i even have to explain this.

Yeah, there are actually documentaries from places like Germany and the Netherlands that point out how toxic and terrible the US bike laws are. Defying logic, the woman is NOT at fault here. She sure as hell should be, but that is the nature of traffic laws in the US. There are literally no protections for cyclists. I live in NYC and tons of cyclists are killed every year here and the drivers face ZERO retribution. IT DOESN'T EVEN EFFECT THEIR DRIVING RECORD HALF THE TIME. If a cop isn't present at the time of the accident and no accident report is made then no crime is considered to have happened and there are no repercussions. There was some b-celebrity who was hit and hospitalized and he couldn't get any justice and he had the license plate (I can't remember his name though). Several wealthy white upper crust types have been killed on the street by cars in NYC, no repercussions. It's practically a legal form of murder at this point. It's sad as hell. THEN you add in that even in a place like NYC, there is ZERO bike infrastructure to support cyclists.

So no laws to protect, no infrastructure to make it safe and you can be sued if you die.

You both realize that this didn't happen in the United States, right? Toronto, Ontario is not in the United States. The laws in question here are not US state or federal laws. This happened in Canada.

 

[tangoprime]

This sounds like a hoax. I can understand if the family was rich, but they seem to be your average middle class. What could she possibly gain by sueing them for 1 million, besides bad publicity.

It seems very setupish.

And here we have someone else who didn't read any of the comments even on the first page.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

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.

Thanks for clearing that up. When I read the title, I knew that that couldn't be the whole story. It just doesn't seem like something anyone would do, at least not for the reasons of trauma. This is the kind of thing that disappoints me about news outlets. It's all bait with a side order of emotional manipulation.