Driver kills boy, sues family for 1 million dollars

[Vareoth]

This can be so easily solved. We just need her name and hometown and we can end this charade quickly...

*Not meant as serious threat but more as an expulsion of annoyance (for those unable to differentiate).*

 

[Risingblade]

I'm glad I read comments here for extra background info, that way I don't look like an asshole for accusing the wrong people!

 

[andago]

If, however, you're driving along a highway, someone jumps off a bridge into your path and you hit them, is it 100% your fault? ...no. No, it is not. It's not even 10% your fault.

Uhh.. yes it is? If you don't even react then you weren't paying due care and attention to begin with. Because the only way they're going to be able to jump into the path of your car is if you're either a) gridlocked in which case, yeah, you aren't at fault in the same way you aren't if someone headbutts your parked car or b) not paying attention to the guy STANDING ON A BRIDGE LIKE HE'S GOING TO JUMP INTO TRAFFIC

It's not 100% your fault but it's more than 10. Just about every traffic accident I can imagine the lowest you can get it is 40-50% the driver's fault.

Do you also blame train drivers when people commit suicide by throwing themselves onto the rails?

What if someone throws themselves out from behind a tree 3 feet in front of you and you hit them? What if another car or cyclist swerves onto your side of the road accidentally and causes a head on collision? What if falling masonry hits your windscreen and causes you to crash into a parked car? What if someone reverse out of there drive without looking and t-bones you?

It's ridiculous to suggest that in every single case that you are involved in an accident in your car, you will be responsible.

Not for the train one? Because that isn't a car?

You give some good examples but as a counter argument, do you believe in those said examples that there is absolutely nothing the driver could have done to avoid any of them? That there is nothing they could have done to avoid what occurred? They are ones where I'd say they aren't mostly at blame, but I don't think they are completely blamefree in them.

The problem is, of course there are ways to avoid all these examples, but in general there is no way that would not lead into a worse accident. It's the reason that it's actually illegal to swerve to avoid some animals in the UK, because of the danger of causing a more serious accident.

 

[Vareoth]

I'm glad I read comments here for extra background info, that way I don't look like an asshole for accusing the wrong people!

Even if he was cycling like an idiot when he got hit, the fact that she is suing the family of the person she killed just because she either feels like making a quick buck or because she is a complete psychopath makes her the antagonist in this story. There is no grey area this time.

EVEN if she is counter suing, my opinion still stands.

 

[Supernova1138]

It's generally accepted that a collision between a car and pedestrian is drastically more likely to be fatal to the pedestrian each mph you go above 30mph. By the time you get to 40mph, it's something like 80% that the collision will kill the pedestrian.

The max speed of the road was 50mph.

So you want this woman to drive 20mph below the speed limit, just in-case there is someone on the road who didn't take the necessary precautions to make themselves visible at night.

Like I said, glad you don't have any kind of power.

Driving that far bellow the speed limit is actually an offense in of itself.

Actually the speed limit of the road was 50 kph, not mph. Which is about 31 miles per hour. She was speeding, had she been going the normal speed she would had more time to slow down and decrease her acceleration and react to what was in front of her. This case should be open and shut: The driver fucked up, she killed someone by driving irresponsibly and injured others, she should at the very least have to pay for the funeral and medical expenses of the accident she caused, instead she is trying to weasel her way out of it by counter-suing.

Can I get a source on the speed limit? The articles list the speed limit of the road at 50 mph and 80 kph. Granted the articles are FOX and SUN so they aren't the most reliable sources.

I live very close to the road where the accident took place, it's a two lane highway with a posted speed limit of 80 km/h. The speed limit only drops to 50km/h when you enter the small towns that dot the area. The particular stretch of Innisfil Beach Road where the accident took place has an 80km/h speed limit, so going 5 or 10 kph over that likely would not have made a difference if visibility was limited to maybe 6 meters ahead of you if you were lucky.

 

[Reaper195]

Only in (North) America.

Reminds me of a "mock" radio commercial in GTA III about how anybody can sue anybody for pretty much anything.

According to that article, you may have been mistaking it for an actual radio ad...

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.

 

[ecoho]

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.

actually if she was impaired in anyway(well have to see what the trial says)its her fault, or if she left the scene its her fault and she can be charge with murder 3 or 2 not sure.

 

[senordesol]

I'm glad I read comments here for extra background info, that way I don't look like an asshole for accusing the wrong people!

Even if he was cycling like an idiot when he got hit, the fact that she is suing the family of the person she killed just because she either feels like making a quick buck or because she is a complete psychopath makes her the antagonist in this story. There is no grey area this time.

EVEN if she is counter suing, my opinion still stands.

I'm curious, why does you opinion not change if it's a counter-suit? The investigators found her not at fault, yet the family is suing her anyway. If she truly isn't at fault (and it looks like she isn't) why shouldn't she try to protect herself?

 

[major_chaos]

innocent woman's

She was speeding on a dark wet road where conventional wisdom is that you should be going under the limit. Whether she killed someone or not I wouldn't want to share the road with her.
Also I don't care if the death was her fault (it was IMO, car drivers are always more responsible than pedestrians), trying to sue a grieving family for 1 mil is callous and dickish at best and sadistic and calculated at worse.

 

[FPLOON]

*eye twitches*

I want to say "I don't get it", but I feel like that would make me feel more stupid than before...

So instead, I'm going to stay indoors, never walk outside where cars could be driving nearby, and to never drive again, so that the reverse effect of being sued by anyone who would take advantage of getting hit by a car doesn't happen to someone like me...

In all seriousness, kinda, this whole story sounds too stupid to be true, especially the "aftermath" part...

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Whilst I'm not sure, so I'd prefer not to be quote on this as some sort of fact, I think the whole 'Standing on the other side of the railings, contemplating your life' is just some Hollywood bullshit to dramatise the situation.

If I wanted to jump, I'd have to just do it. Like ripping off a plaster. I think vaulting is far more likely. And if they vault and hit your car, you're probably not far enough back to even see 40 feet in the air.

Hmmm. I do agree on the vaulting, but I disagree on the railing part. However, I have little evidence on hand (and you appear equally uncertain) so I think we can call that moot since it'll depend on the scenario a little too much

The person falling would be moving too fast, they'd likely die on impact with the ground anyway. And you'd be moving too fast. When you're getting to like 60mph+ speeds, on roads with lots more traffic moving at similar speeds, you don't just slow down.

See, this is dependent on a lot of things like how long you have and how heavy the traffic is but I will say that yes, you can't always do something. My argument's pretty much being that depending on the scenario the driver is in anyway culpable since the initial post (ever since lost in the sands of time) claimed the responsibility lied entirely with the jumper for being hit by the car. I wouldn't say the driver is culpable for their death (one way or another, that man was going to die on that stretch of asphalt) but I object to the shirking of all responsibility, circumstances depending you could avoid hitting the falling dude with your car

Changing lanes in time isn't always an option. You often do see people re-running over roadkill.

Agreedd, see above. And... human roadkill? I dunno, dude, I figure you'd see people try a little harder to avoid it (though you are correct you do often see people re-hit already dead roadkill)

Maybe get some real world driving experience before weighing in on stuff like that at?

Maybe make a better argument before being an asshole, eh?[/quote]
Probably shouldn't call someone an asshole, you know what the mods around here are like.[/quote]

Ey, Cabbage a cabbage, man. You aren't being the politest of debaters.[/quote]

I'm being very polite, I didn't call you names or nuffin.

Wasn't a threat, just a warning. I got a poker up the arse for calling someone an idiot. Asshole is in about the same bracket as that.[/quote]

Surprisingly, I actually did get a warning for this, but I'll stand by it because while you're being polite now you opened on a pretty condescending tone, dude. Admittedly, I have not being the most mature in handling this (though I do hope I'm getting it for the asshole thing not calling you a cabbage. I don't think that one would be deserved) but you didn't exactly open it nicely.

I ain't mad or nothing, I retaliated plenty so I figure we're even, just defending my actions.

That isn't what I'm suggesting though, I'm suggesting that before jumping from a bridge there is time before they leap. If you don't see them before they jump, your first sign is their nikes in your windshield then yes, I agree you can just keep going and hope the damage is minimal. But if you see a guy hanging off the bars, which even if isn't in your Hazard zone seriously you should at least be aware there IS a bridge, then you should take pre-emptive action. If you can't change lanes or there's a guy riding your ass and you can't slow down then you're kinda boned but that scenario only exists if there are other faults.

I seriously doubt that hanging from a ledge, contemplating where it all went wrong is really a thing. I'd put money on most people that actually jump, build themselves up before they even get to the jump spot. And then just go for it.

Also on our motor ways, it takes you like 5 or so seconds of indicating to get a safe lane change, and there is always some dick nugget caressing your shapely bumper. Don't know if it's the same for Highways, or freeways, or whatever ways that you use. But for us, that's just part and parcel of the commute. [/quote]

I'm actually on motorways too and you're right depending on time of day/stretch of road. I had one bit on the M1 between Nottingham and London where I saw like 3 other cars, it was like 28 days later (in an incredibly relieving ohmigodidon'thaveaguyinferrarritailgatingme way) so it isn't like uniform. But yeah, rush hour your odds of actually reacting are way slimmer but you're likely only going at 40 max anyway because of traffic.

I think mines way more realistic.[/quote

That's understandable, but it does change the goal-posts. It's like arguing how good fish is if one of us has actually been eating cat food, until we work out what we're arguing we won't reach a consensus.

The comment I was replying to, you had made a crack about the hard zones. And you'd just made another one about high horses. Think I was perfectly in my rights to go for a retort there.

Especially considering I'd argue you were the one on a high horse, about holding people accountable for lacking superhuman reflexes and hazard detection skills.

Technically, it was a crack about Terminal Velocity. And I do concede while I was retaliating for your earlier tone you DID keep it going. Nevertheless, it's probly better to just write this one off.
...in a non pun way.

Driving that far below*(Now if you're going to stat doing that, I guess I will too.)I didn't spot it but if I did, HA! fair play] the speed limit is actually an offense in of itself.

Unsure of this? Source if you please? I thought 30 was adequete* (see)(I'll be redlined, huh. I learnt something) if slow on anything below a 60, where it is indeed illegal to drive below a safe speed when on multi-lane highways. Seen an awful number of police cars ignore this particular crime.

http://money.msn.com/auto-insurance/slow-drivers-can-get-ticketed-too-carinsurance.aspx

I can't be bothered looking for actual DVLA sources, but ye. Driving below a roads speed limit is an offense. There's probably like a 10mph courtesy. But it's still considered dangerous driving.

Hmmm, well, I can see the reasoning and I don't have enough invested in it to go and hound down to find a loophole (though I do want it on the record, I only did the one correction I quoted because it was in my vision for ages, I didn't exactly spellcheck everything)

Like I said, good job you don't have any sort of power.

Pretty glad you don't either, bro.

Oh I do, I rule my patch with an iron trowel.

And now I have a genuine fear I'm going to pull up to a traffic light and see a cabbage glaring at me.

Though you're lucky the argument isn't anything naval, this Captain title isn't just some random username.

 

[shintakie10]

This can be so easily solved. We just need her name and hometown and we can end this charade quickly...

Tell the truth. Did you just read the thread title and maybe the OP before postin or did you actually come to that conclusion after readin everythin?

On topic!

While it is messed up, the real problem is the damn family decided to sue her in the first place. That's the real frivilous lawsuit here. If the police find you at no fault for the crime that should be that. Instead these dbag parents who let their kid go out at 1:30 in the mornin without any sort of reflective gear and wearin dark clothes are suin because of their bad parentin skills. That's just messed up.

 

[Vareoth]

I'm glad I read comments here for extra background info, that way I don't look like an asshole for accusing the wrong people!

Even if he was cycling like an idiot when he got hit, the fact that she is suing the family of the person she killed just because she either feels like making a quick buck or because she is a complete psychopath makes her the antagonist in this story. There is no grey area this time.

EVEN if she is counter suing, my opinion still stands.

I'm curious, why does you opinion not change if it's a counter-suit? The investigators found her not at fault, yet the family is suing her anyway. If she truly isn't at fault (and it looks like she isn't) why shouldn't she try to protect herself?

Counter suing might be the easiest way to get the victims to drop their own suit, but in my eyes it is still repugnant to sue the family of a person you killed (even if it is a hollow threat). She is in a morally bad position no matter what she does. I understand why she counter sues but I just cant morally justify it to myself.

So basically my point is based on feelings rather than logicality.

However, she was going over the speed limit on a dark and wet road. In my eyes she is at least partially at fault here.

 

[Vareoth]

This can be so easily solved. We just need her name and hometown and we can end this charade quickly...

Tell the truth. Did you just read the thread title and maybe the OP before postin or did you actually come to that conclusion after readin everythin?

On topic!

See the comment above for the explanation you so crave.

 

[Zetatrain]

It's generally accepted that a collision between a car and pedestrian is drastically more likely to be fatal to the pedestrian each mph you go above 30mph. By the time you get to 40mph, it's something like 80% that the collision will kill the pedestrian.

The max speed of the road was 50mph.

So you want this woman to drive 20mph below the speed limit, just in-case there is someone on the road who didn't take the necessary precautions to make themselves visible at night.

Like I said, glad you don't have any kind of power.

Driving that far bellow the speed limit is actually an offense in of itself.

Actually the speed limit of the road was 50 kph, not mph. Which is about 31 miles per hour. She was speeding, had she been going the normal speed she would had more time to slow down and decrease her acceleration and react to what was in front of her. This case should be open and shut: The driver fucked up, she killed someone by driving irresponsibly and injured others, she should at the very least have to pay for the funeral and medical expenses of the accident she caused, instead she is trying to weasel her way out of it by counter-suing.

Can I get a source on the speed limit? The articles list the speed limit of the road at 50 mph and 80 kph. Granted the articles are FOX and SUN so they aren't the most reliable sources.

I live very close to the road where the accident took place, it's a two lane highway with a posted speed limit of 80 km/h. The speed limit only drops to 50km/h when you enter the small towns that dot the area. The particular stretch of Innisfil Beach Road where the accident took place has an 80km/h speed limit, so going 5 or 10 kph over that likely would not have made a difference if visibility was limited to maybe 6 meters ahead of you if you were lucky.

Thank you for clearing that up. I would have been really surprised if the police had let her off despite going 20 miles over the speed limit.

 

[Something Amyss]

This happened in Canada. I mean you're free and all to hate your country (it's also my country and I'm not very happy with it either), but let's not steal credit.

Come now, this sort of thing only happens in America.

At least, that's the impression I get from the rest of the world. >.>

 

[shintakie10]

I'm glad I read comments here for extra background info, that way I don't look like an asshole for accusing the wrong people!

Even if he was cycling like an idiot when he got hit, the fact that she is suing the family of the person she killed just because she either feels like making a quick buck or because she is a complete psychopath makes her the antagonist in this story. There is no grey area this time.

EVEN if she is counter suing, my opinion still stands.

I'm curious, why does you opinion not change if it's a counter-suit? The investigators found her not at fault, yet the family is suing her anyway. If she truly isn't at fault (and it looks like she isn't) why shouldn't she try to protect herself?

Counter suing might be the easiest way to get the victims to drop their own suit, but in my eyes it is still repugnant to sue the family of a person you killed (even if it is a hollow threat). She is in a morally bad position no matter what she does. I understand why she counter sues but I just cant morally justify it to myself.

So basically my point is based on feelings rather than logicality.

However, she was going over the speed limit on a dark and wet road. In my eyes she is at least partially at fault here.

Personally I find it morally reprehensible that these parents are taking their grief out on someone who very well may have been traumatized by the incident. Accidents are no joke, especially when someone gets hurt or in this case killed. Suddenly finding out that the parents of the kid that was killed by his own stupidity is suing you for what could easily be more than you're worth just adds more garbage onto an already crap situation.

Of course she's goin to try to find the quickest way out of it.

Over the speed limit in this case though means diddly. If she had been goin the speed limit instead of 5 over the speed limit she still would have killed the kid goin that speed. Heck, she probably would have almost killed the kid goin 10 under the speed limit. Anythin under that and you can get pulled over for goin too far below the speed limit (unless severe weather or traffic are a factor, which they weren't in this case).

 

[Vareoth]

Personally I find it morally reprehensible that these parents are taking their grief out on someone who very well may have been traumatized by the incident. Accidents are no joke, especially when someone gets hurt or in this case killed. Suddenly finding out that the parents of the kid that was killed by his own stupidity is suing you for what could easily be more than you're worth just adds more garbage onto an already crap situation.

Of course she's goin to try to find the quickest way out of it.

Over the speed limit in this case though means diddly. If she had been goin the speed limit instead of 5 over the speed limit she still would have killed the kid goin that speed. Heck, she probably would have almost killed the kid goin 10 under the speed limit. Anythin under that and you can get pulled over for goin too far below the speed limit (unless severe weather or traffic are a factor, which they weren't in this case).

The original suit from the child's parents encompasses around $900,000 in damages. She counter sues for $450,000 more either as a way to scare the victims into dropping the original suit or to make a quick buck (probably the first one). Either way, she has little justification for asking such a large amount in my opinion. I might be wrong on that last part though, since I don't know how expensive health care is in Canada.

And going over the speed limit is grounds on which the original suit could be found valid even if "it would not have made a difference" (which is speculation). Speed limits are not a very flexible thing in court.

But an interesting angle that just popped into my head deserves a look. Is she counter suing out of her own volition or because she was "advised" to do so by her insurance company (which, most likely, would have to pay the damages of the original suit)? Since both cases are "being handled by Ms Simon's insurance company".

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

snip for freshety freshness

I think the onus should always be completely on the jumper.

And one thing we haven't considered. What if they're on the other side of the bridge? As in, not the side you see driving towards it.

people can't be expected to see through bridges too.

I think there's very few, if any, occasions where you could put any sort of onus on a driver tagging a jumper.

I can respect that viewpoint and I'm inclined to agree. With the caveat that it's not a complete absolution of any driver hitting any jumper, circumstances can exist where it is possible to do something and not doing so (while not making the driver responsible FOR the death) would at least be a mark against the driver.

(though you're totally right that if they're on the far side there really is sh*t all you can do)