Driver kills boy, sues family for 1 million dollars

[michael87cn]

Corruption and greed, if this is true. Sounds like a very evil person to me. A very evil person.

 

[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.

 

[senordesol]

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.

 

[Private Custard]

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.

So, she's an antagonist......for defending herself against a pathetic lawsuit?? And no, grief is neither an excuse, or a shield, for shit like that. She was cleared and they're still going after her. Mourning or not, they need to back off.


And this bit worries me...

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

All that translates into is "Even if I'm overreacting, and wrong, I'm too proud to admit it"


Daaaamn, looking through this thread, this place is a disaster when it comes to rational debates, logic, reasoning and reading comprehension!

 

[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.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

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.

Why thank you. I saw the attention grabbing headline and fox news in the source but didn't feel like looking up the back story. 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

Edit: Is actually Canada and not America

 

[DementedSheep]

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.

This I agree with. It was unfortunate and the kids were being stupid at the time but people (especially teens) do things without thinking and shit like this happens a lot. No need sling shit at them, you can defend the driver without resorting to that. Most if not all of us have probably done things that had the potential to end badly due to negligence.

 

[senordesol]

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.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

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.

 

[axillarypuma]

Jesus fucking christ! Do people actually even bother to read the goddamn thread? at least read before spouting shit furiously while chopping your goddamn dick off.

Points to people who actually made an informed opinion.

Also while the driver was over the speed limit it still wasn't her fault, it was the kids fault for not wearing the proper gear for cycling at night, and the parents suing the driver was just dumb, chances are they are the ones who will end up paying money for being stupid ( I know nothing about canada laws, or well any kind of laws, so correct me if i'm wrong ).

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

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.

I realized my error but didn't feel like correcting it. But my point kinda still stands. Everyone assumed this was an "Oh America" lawsuit. Though maybe it is "North" America people associate these lawsuits with

Captcha: I'm cold. brr.

That's right captcha. This lawsuit comes from Canada. America's cold hat

 

[Zetatrain]

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.

What, haven't you heard? Canada is now the 51st state of America

 

[Private Custard]

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.

So, she's an antagonist......for defending herself against a pathetic lawsuit?? And no, grief is neither an excuse, or a shield, for shit like that. She was cleared and they're still going after her. Mourning or not, they need to back off.


And this bit worries me...

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

All that translates into is "Even if I'm overreacting, and wrong, I'm too proud to admit it"


Daaaamn, looking through this thread, this place is a disaster when it comes to rational debates, logic, reasoning and reading comprehension!

You should look at later posts where I (admittedly in a more eloquent way) explain that while she is perfectly allowed to defend herself from the original suit she is doing so in a way that is morally repugnant in my eyes. And I also backpedaled a bit later in saying that
she might not be the sole instigator of the counter suit.

Now, I would insult your own reading capabilities and intelligence but I am above such nonsense. I will vacate this thread henceforth and look for greener pastures elsewhere because this shit is going nowhere and I'm tired.

Oh I read your other posts.....they made no difference. A frivolous lawsuit won't just 'go away'. Fighting fire with fire is often the only option.

As I said, grief isn't some magic bulletproof vest. If someone's being a tit, it has to be stopped.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[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.

So, she's an antagonist......for defending herself against a pathetic lawsuit?? And no, grief is neither an excuse, or a shield, for shit like that. She was cleared and they're still going after her. Mourning or not, they need to back off.


And this bit worries me...

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

All that translates into is "Even if I'm overreacting, and wrong, I'm too proud to admit it"


Daaaamn, looking through this thread, this place is a disaster when it comes to rational debates, logic, reasoning and reading comprehension!

You should look at later posts where I (admittedly in a more eloquent way) explain that while she is perfectly allowed to defend herself from the original suit she is doing so in a way that is morally repugnant in my eyes. And I also backpedaled a bit later in saying that
she might not be the sole instigator of the counter suit.

Now, I would insult your own reading capabilities and intelligence but I am above such nonsense. I will vacate this thread henceforth and look for greener pastures elsewhere because this shit is going nowhere and I'm tired.

As my SO just explained it, and I'm using a direct quote here.

This entire situation is "How to Law 101"

The parents sue because you have to sue to make sure that insurance companies actually pay out the correct amount. The woman countersues because insurance companies are in complete control of the case when it comes to the legal side, so she has little to no say in the discussion.

There's no morally repugnant thing anywhere in this situation, just reality being reality.

 

[Animyr]

As I recall, the boys were found to be at fault and the parents sued anyway, so the woman countersued. That's how I heard it, at least.

 

[Vareoth]

-snip-

-snap-

So yea, once more into the breach to finish this argument for the good of all of mankind and to create a lasting peace for generations to come.

Fine. I was absolutely, unequivocally, entirely, completely, unconditionally, extensively, perfectly, thoroughly and totally wrong. The only reason she can properly defend herself is attacking back in the same manner, this whole morality business has no real sway in reality and I was defending a completely illogical and foolish position. I guess I was just incredibly annoyed by either my own temporarily failing mental cohesiveness or the unending heinous state of modern society. Perhaps I should work at my own reasoning skills before criticizing another's opinion. You two are totally right and if I had put aside my own idiotic pride I would have realized that much sooner. I am shamed by my own incompetence.

So there. I fully meant everything I said here and I intended no sarcasm or insult. And I'm deeply sorry for all the previous slur I uttered in my other comments.

And I feel a lot better now. Surrendering for a change is a very nice way to take the weight of your shoulders for a while. I guess I'm not one for any type of conflict.

 

[Weaver]

If she actually feels guilty about killing the kid why would siphoning 1 million dollars from the family whose son you already took away make you feel less guilty?

 

[x EvilErmine x]

Spoiler: ........

Am I reading this right? First she murders a kid and then she sues the family?
Seriously, if this works, the judge and jury deserve to be nailed to a cross and left to die and rot, somewhere along the side of a busy road for everyone to see.
The driver deserves it already.

No you are not reading it right.

Summery, woman hits and kills teenager who was cycling with friends at 1:30 am in the morning (without appropriate hi-vis safety clothing or lights) road conditions were not optimal, police find no evidence that the driver is at fault after accident investigators simulate the crash and don't press charges. Victims family sues anyway and woman counter sues to get them to drop the case.

Not so sensationalist where you just give the facts is it?

But she still killed the kid and had the audacity to sue the family.

No, she didn't sue them. they sued her, she is counter suing them so they will drop the case.

The circumstances are irrelevant.

Really?

Of course the circumstances are relevant. Saying they aren't is just craziness and not true.

If the condition of the road was bad, she should have driven slower. Slow enough to see kids not wearing high visibility clothing or lights.

How slow would that be then?
I assume you drive, so you are aware of how difficult it is to see someone on an unlit road in the dark even at the best of times.

*sigh* Kids today eh?

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

In my world, the driver is controlling where the vehicle ends up and any event related to that vehicle in motion is nine times out of ten (accidents beyond the control of drivers do happen) the responsibility of the operator. My world, it seems, is a place out of touch with the justice system. How such a suit could even be launched baffles me.