Driver that struck teen suing dead boy's family

[MKR&*42]

I actually cannot believe this woman


The *****y, handsome, 17-year-old bike enthusiast was out with his two buddies on Oct. 28, 2012 when they hopped on their bicycles to go for hot dogs on a drizzly, dark night around 1:30 a.m.

“I know they should not have been out there that late,” his father said. “But they are good kids.”

Brandon was struck from behind by an SUV and killed while his friend Richard McLean, 16, was seriously injured with a broken pelvis and other bones. His other pal Jake Roberts, 16, was knocked off his bike but sustained only scratches.

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.

Even the family’s lawyer is in shock.

“In all of my years as a lawyer, I have never seen anyone ever sue a child that they killed,” Barrie lawyer Brian Cameron said. “It’s beyond the pale. I just couldn’t bring myself to tell them on the phone.”

After a face-to-face meeting Tuesday, the parents and step-parents left his office almost staggering in disbelief.

“I’m devastated, I’m in shock,” said Brandon’s mother, Venetta Mlynczyk, a dental assistant who is drowning in sorrow. “She killed my child and now she wants to profit from it? She says she’s in pain? Tell her to look inside my head and she will see pain, she will see panic, she will see nightmares.”

Her voice shaking with emotion, the mother recalls her last words with her son.

“I said I love you … he said, ‘I love you, too, mom,’ and off he went with his friends,” Mylnczyk said. “At least I have that … but for this woman to be so selfish, to claim she is the one suffering but we are the ones living the nightmare … her children are still living.”

“It blows my mind,” Brandon’s step-mom, Lisa Tessier, said. “We are all devastated. This is so cruel.”

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.

“They did not apply their brakes properly,” the claim states. “They were incompetent bicyclists.”
Simon’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment from the Toronto Sun Friday.

Brandon’s father shakes his head.
“They’re kids!” he gasps. “And they have a right to make mistakes ... it was a wet, dark road — what about slowing down?”
He insists the reflectors on the bikes would have been visible.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/25/driver-that-struck-teen-suing-dead-boys-family

*****y means something else in the states js*

For those who are tl;dr - female driver hits teen on bike, teen dies, the DRIVER sues the dead teen's family for emotional distress. It's debatable whether it's the teen's fault for being hit by the car - his family insists he had reflective gear on his bike, the driver says no he didn't, but the driver was also going 10km over the speed limit and it was a wet day - she should have slowed down.

I am disgusted she is doing this, genuinely sickened.
--
Oh well that word got filtered anyway so eh.

[Absently]

was reading about this earlier, yeah the boys might have been in the wrong, but you did kill one of them and are now suing him? just get over it... swear to god, everyone in the states seems like they're always suing each other.. it's not all about money. how about you just try to move past the suffering you are going through without trying to take someone elses money. evil witch.

[The Don]

I don't agree with the compensation culture over that side of the pond, and I think it's morally questionable to sue the family of somebody you killed (albeit through negligence) but let's not act as if the ptsd and depression she more than likely has had since is something she can just 'get over'. I doubt she has been able to drive since, and if she had a job that requires commuting then she has more than likely lost that. If she has kids to feed, debt to pay, how is she going to do that all whilst living on a state handout? Again, i'm not saying I agree with what she's doing, but let's look at it from her perspective for a second...

[scottish]

I don't agree with the compensation culture over that side of the pond, and I think it's morally questionable to sue the family of somebody you killed (albeit through negligence) but let's not act as if the ptsd and depression she more than likely has had since is something she can just 'get over'. I doubt she has been able to drive since, and if she had a job that requires commuting then she has more than likely lost that. If she has kids to feed, debt to pay, how is she going to do that all whilst living on a state handout? Again, i'm not saying I agree with what she's doing, but let's look at it from her perspective for a second...

Has it been said she can't drive? or anything about losing job?

All I seen was that she's got mental issues and thinks she deserves compensation for having mental issues after killing someone.

Look at it from the families side. I doubt they've been able to live their life since, if they had a job they probably requires a lot of time off to get over the grieving process, If they had kids to feed, debt to pay, how are they going to do that when they're grieving over their son being killed? No doubt they'll have long lasting mental health issues too such as depression.

She deserves nothing for killing the other family members kid.

[Kardan]

I think she has a case if what she says is true, and people shouldn't be too quick to jump to the defence of someone just because they died. It all depends on what actually happened really. If she was speeding, then she has at least some of the blame, but if they were cycling in the dark without any lights or anything, then the cyclists have a large portion of the blame.

[scottish]

The cyclists had some blame, as they were out at that time without proper lights and the consequence for him was to lose his life.

The driver was speeding, should have seen the reflection from the cyclists reflectors and has to live with killing a young boy on her conscience

She isn't owed anything from the dead persons relatives or the seriously wounded.

[The Don]

Has it been said she can't drive? or anything about losing job?

All I seen was that she's got mental issues and thinks she deserves compensation for having mental issues after killing someone.

Look at it from the families side. I doubt they've been able to live their life since, if they had a job they probably requires a lot of time off to get over the grieving process, If they had kids to feed, debt to pay, how are they going to do that when they're grieving over their son being killed? No doubt they'll have long lasting mental health issues too such as depression.

She deserves nothing for killing the other family members kid.

The kid went out at 1am on a bike with only reflectors and no light to get a hot dog. I think most people in that situation would have ended up in an accident so i'm not sure why you're so quick to defend the dead kid after reading one heavily bias article simply because the kids dead. Also I can't see anything about the driver speeding at the time, and if she was in fact doing something wrong, she would have been found guilty at a trial. Since that hasn't happened one can safely assume the fault lies on the kids cycling in the pitch black night without any lights on their bikes.

[Kardan]

I'm sure someone can find me many examples where someone has accidentally killed someone and successfully sued.

[scottish]

The kid went out at 1am on a bike with only reflectors and no light to get a hot dog. I think most people in that situation would have ended up in an accident so i'm not sure why you're so quick to defend the dead kid after reading one heavily bias article simply because the kids dead. Also I can't see anything about the driver speeding at the time, and if she was in fact doing something wrong, she would have been found guilty at a trial. Since that hasn't happened one can safely assume the fault lies on the kids cycling in the pitch black night without any lights on their bikes.

I highly doubt it, I for one went out late night for years with only reflectors on and I never died.

Either that article or another stated she was exceeding the speed limit by 10mph.

So obviously not.

[The Don]

I highly doubt it, I for one went out late night for years with only reflectors on and I never died.

Either that article or another stated she was exceeding the speed limit by 10mph.

So obviously not.

Just rechecked the article and you are right, she was going 10kmph (6mph) over the speed limit, so some of the fault does indeed lie on her, however fault also lies on the cyclists for not having lights. All i'm saying is it's not as black and white as everybody is making it out to be.

[Yawn]

i think its perfectly understandable that she is distressed (prob not as distressed as the boys family ofc but still CONSIDERABLY traumatised i mean she KILLED SOME1). it makes sense to blame the dead boy for that distress cos he caused the accident by not wearing proper gear, which was completely reckless not only for his own safety but others as well

:S

having said that, to SUE this boys family is pretty messed up

[GommeInc]

She won't win. You can't sue someone for psychiatric injury sustained to someone you don't know - you have to be close to them, regardless of whether or not you killed them to begin with. If she wins, half of the people involved in the Hillsborough Disaster will get pay outs too.

EDIT: Oh it's the US. Meh, depends on the state. They're stricter than us in most of them.

[Joshirin]

I hope someone kills this lady, americans are ******ed

[Kardan]

She won't win. You can't sue someone for psychiatric injury sustained to someone you don't know - you have to be close to them, regardless of whether or not you killed them to begin with. If she wins, half of the people involved in the Hillsborough Disaster will get pay outs too.

EDIT: Oh it's the US. Meh, depends on the state. They're stricter than us in most of them.

So do train drivers not get payouts when they kill people? (Genuine question).

- - - Updated - - -


I hope someone kills this lady, americans are ******ed

Nothing better than grouping all Americans together because of one woman!

[Kyle]

She won't win. You can't sue someone for psychiatric injury sustained to someone you don't know - you have to be close to them, regardless of whether or not you killed them to begin with. If she wins, half of the people involved in the Hillsborough Disaster will get pay outs too.

EDIT: Oh it's the US. Meh, depends on the state. They're stricter than us in most of them.
She is suing for injury to herself, not somebody she doesn't know. Do you mean from someone you don't know?

they could of course bring a countersuit for the exact same thing. she's insane.

[Yawn]

A collision-reconstruction team from the South Simcoe Police Service investigated the crash; their 26-page report found that the “lack of visibility” of the cyclists “was the largest contributing factor,” and that on a dark overcast night, “the driver of the Kia did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to make an evasive reaction

hopefully this poor woman can at least get a new non damaged car out of this smh :(

[GommeInc]

She is suing for injury to herself, not somebody she doesn't know. Do you mean from someone you don't know?

they could of course bring a countersuit for the exact same thing. she's insane.
That's what I meant, hard to write quickly when it's bonkers to begin with. She hit the boy. Whether or not he was wearing a helmet, you shouldn't drive into people.


So do train drivers not get payouts when they kill people? (Genuine question).
Public liability insurance generally covers that and a mixture of other forms of compensation schemes that come from the Government and not the deceased. Also, a train is faster and less likely to stop or move out of the way of something on the tracks :P

[Kardan]

Yeah, I suppose. It all depends if she saw the boys before hand I guess. You can't move out of the way if it's already happened.

[GommeInc]

The article says she just drove into the back of them. If she can't use headlights, breaks and/or a steering wheel she shouldn't be a driver. The lawyers will have a field day with her claiming they were incompetent cyclists - she's hardly the cream of the motorist crop ramming in cyclists and then trying to profit from the crime :P If it was the UK the courts would probably tell her to cough up money for harassing the families, or tell her she can't claim a penny if she genuinely has all these things she's trying to claim for.

[MKR&*42]

Even if these cyclists supposedly didn't wear any reflective gear, why is she not being arrested/charged for driving 10km/h over the speed limit at the very least? As Ryan has said, she shouldn't be a driver... you do not notice a cyclist at the very last half-second before you crash into them,

[Futz]

that's ****** up man

we live in a messed up world when this is an actual viable decision

[Yawn]

she didnt deliberately run them over it was 1am on a dark night and they had no reflective gear she was not to blame

i'll post this again


A collision-reconstruction team from the South Simcoe Police Service investigated the crash; their 26-page report found that the “lack of visibility” of the cyclists “was the largest contributing factor,” and that on a dark overcast night, “the driver of the Kia did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to make an evasive reaction

[LiquidLuck.]

To be honest this also made me laughs. Seems like she is just trying to find people to sue, and even the brother who has since died?! Omg she is totally insane and that's the only reason I'm laughing!

[Joshirin]

So do train drivers not get payouts when they kill people? (Genuine question).

- - - Updated - - -



Nothing better than grouping all Americans together because of one woman!

Nothing unexpected from them!

[GommeInc]

she didnt deliberately run them over it was 1am on a dark night and they had no reflective gear she was not to blame

i'll post this again
She still hit them. She has to live with that. Asking for compensation from your victim is profiting from your crime, which is against the law. The fact she's even written to the family's solicitors asking for compensation shows she wants the money, because if she was truly suffering from social anxiety and depression she would be able to claim through other means.

[Yawn]

She still hit them. She has to live with that. Asking for compensation from your victim is profiting from your crime, which is against the law. The fact she's even written to the family's solicitors asking for compensation shows she wants the money, because if she was truly suffering from social anxiety and depression she would be able to claim through other means.
doesnt mean she was at fault and to blame like u said zzZzz

[GommeInc]

doesnt mean she was at fault and to blame like u said zzZzz
Yes she was as the fault was hitting the children. Also if it's true she was speeding then she is to blame for going over the speed limit.

[!x!dude!x!2]

I actually cannot believe this woman



http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/25/driver-that-struck-teen-suing-dead-boys-family

*****y means something else in the states js*

For those who are tl;dr - female driver hits teen on bike, teen dies, the DRIVER sues the dead teen's family for emotional distress. It's debatable whether it's the teen's fault for being hit by the car - his family insists he had reflective gear on his bike, the driver says no he didn't, but the driver was also going 10km over the speed limit and it was a wet day - she should have slowed down.

I am disgusted she is doing this, genuinely sickened.
--
Oh well that word got filtered anyway so eh.

Omg hayden this was in my town :O this was 10min down the road from me . I go to school with all these guys and talked to them all it was very sad when he was killed ( His brother end up killing himself over it ) But i think its kinda of stupid to sue all these people with a stupid reason. I really hope she doesnt win this or people are going to be really pissed off. :(

[MKR&*42]

Omg hayden this was in my town :O this was 10min down the road from me . I go to school with all these guys and talked to them all it was very sad when he was killed ( His brother end up killing himself over it ) But i think its kinda of stupid to sue all these people with a stupid reason. I really hope she doesnt win this or people are going to be really pissed off. :(

SHE'S SUEING HIS DEAD BROTHER
WHO COMMITTED SUICIDE

WHAT IS WRONG WITH HER?

[!x!dude!x!2]

SHE'S SUEING HIS DEAD BROTHER
WHO COMMITTED SUICIDE

WHAT IS WRONG WITH HER?

No no shes sueing the dead boy she hit . the 2 other boys that where with him . the dead boy parents and our County for a total of 1.35 mil.. And i was just saying the kid who was hit. his brother over dosed on drugs because he couldn't get over the fact that his brother was killed ( he killed himself 6 months after the crash) This mother lost both her kids over this. if you want the whole story watch this http://barrie.ctvnews.ca/driver-sues-estate-of-alcona-teen-she-struck-killed-1.1793782 . It's my local news if the video doesn't work let me know

[MKR&*42]

No no shes sueing the dead boy she hit . the 2 other boys that where with him . the dead boy parents and our County for a total of 1.35 mil.. And i was just saying the kid who was hit. his brother over dosed on drugs because he couldn't get over the fact that his brother was killed ( he killed himself 6 months after the crash) This mother lost both her kids over this. if you want the whole story watch this http://barrie.ctvnews.ca/driver-sues-estate-of-alcona-teen-she-struck-killed-1.1793782 . It's my local news if the video doesn't work let me know

Oh okay, I was gonna say if she's sueing his dead brother who wasn't even there then that is a new level of messed up. Thanks for link x

[!x!dude!x!2]

Oh okay, I was gonna say if she's sueing his dead brother who wasn't even there then that is a new level of messed up. Thanks for link x

Welcome hayden . I thought i would let you know what happen to the other 2 kids

1 kid was rushed to hospital in toronto and had life threatening injuries and the other boy of the far right had some bumps and bruises

[The Don]

Yes she was as the fault was hitting the children. Also if it's true she was speeding then she is to blame for going over the speed limit.

If you can't see somebody it's kind of hard to avoid hitting them. The cyclists are at fault, not her.

[GommeInc]

If you can't see somebody it's kind of hard to avoid hitting them. The cyclists are at fault, not her.
How does existing make them at fault? Had she not tried suing dead people she could have accepted it was a tragic accident, but to harass the families of the deceased that she killed is disgusting. Even more so if she was speeding.

Also, if visibility is bad you're meant to go slow seeing as you are handling a heavy, potentially dangerous object. If she can't be bothered to observe basic driver training (and in the US they're very strict) she is more likely to be found at fault and judgeing by this she was found to be at fault. The teenagers weren't - not having safety gear is stupid, but that's one problem to a ratio of many others a driver will suffer.

[MKR&*42]

Just watched an episode of Judge Judy with a similar style case. The woman was trying to sue the deceased daughter's mother for emotional distress and something else that I forgot. However, the woman in question - her son was actually driving the car (her defense was that the daughter agreed to get in and asked to be driven) and crashed. The son got away with next to no injuries, the daughter of the other woman died instantly.

Oh her son was 14 should have said*

Anyway, the judge ended up going beserk at the woman for trying to sue her and started stating that no judge in court would ever give her more sympathy over the mother of the deceased daughter. She lost her case very quickly.
---
I know its not identical to the topic in this thread, but I think it's quite apparent the woman of the deceased child (Well children in this case cause of the suicide) is probably going to 'win' the case.

[The Don]

How does existing make them at fault? Had she not tried suing dead people she could have accepted it was a tragic accident, but to harass the families of the deceased that she killed is disgusting. Even more so if she was speeding.

Also, if visibility is bad you're meant to go slow seeing as you are handling a heavy, potentially dangerous object. If she can't be bothered to observe basic driver training (and in the US they're very strict) she is more likely to be found at fault and judgeing by this she was found to be at fault. The teenagers weren't - not having safety gear is stupid, but that's one problem to a ratio of many others a driver will suffer.

The visibility was bad because it was dark, not because of fog or anything. If people are riding around on wet slippery roads without lights at 1am then it is absolutely their fault. Look at what subo posted where people that looked at the scene agreed the driver couldn't avoid hitting them. Judging by what she was found at fault? You're making things up. If you go cycling at nighttime you should have all the correct gear, including a light. If you can't see somebody because it's dark and they are cycling without lights then it's their fault.

[GommeInc]

The visibility was bad because it was dark, not because of fog or anything. If people are riding around on wet slippery roads without lights at 1am then it is absolutely their fault. Look at what subo posted where people that looked at the scene agreed the driver couldn't avoid hitting them. Judging by what she was found at fault? You're making things up. If you go cycling at nighttime you should have all the correct gear, including a light. If you can't see somebody because it's dark and they are cycling without lights then it's their fault.
So it was dark? Headlights were invented in the 19th Century for motor vehicles - if the driver can't be bothered to use their headlights then she shouldn't be driving. If it was wet, drivers who go through "driver's ed" must take caution by being extra careful on wet roads. The cyclists were careless going out without the right gear, but negating total liability on the driver's side is ridiculous when she drove the instrument of death into the children, which she must have been going at quite a speed to kill them.

If she is suffering from social anxiety and depression, harrassing the victim is wrong on so many levels, especially asking for $1.5 million. She would be profiting from her crime. She can claim through other means: motor insurance, health insurance, work insurance and I believe there are some Government organisations she can use too. Going straight to suing a dead boy (who probably doesn't even have an estate anyway) is disgusting.

So she was driving without headlights? Saying it was dark is not an excuse - she must have had headlights on if not she is entirely to blame.

[The Don]

So it was dark? Headlights were invented in the 19th Century for motor vehicles - if the driver can't be bothered to use their headlights then she shouldn't be driving. If it was wet, drivers who go through "driver's ed" must take caution by being extra careful on wet roads. The cyclists were careless going out without the right gear, but negating total liability on the driver's side is ridiculous when she drove the instrument of death into the children, which she must have been going at quite a speed to kill them.

If she is suffering from social anxiety and depression, harrassing the victim is wrong on so many levels, especially asking for $1.5 million. She would be profiting from her crime. She can claim through other means: motor insurance, health insurance, work insurance and I believe there are some Government organisations she can use too. Going straight to suing a dead boy (who probably doesn't even have an estate anyway) is disgusting.

So she was driving without headlights? Saying it was dark is not an excuse - she must have had headlights on if not she is entirely to blame.

Ryan nobody said the cyclists were at total fault? You seem to place all blame on the driver even though the cyclists clearly were negligent by not having lights. The whole reason bike lights are required is so they are visible at night (yes, even with headlight you still can't see everything). I have no sympathy for people that go cycling in the pitch black without lights and then get in an accident. She was going 6mph over the speed limit, which does put SOME of the fault on her, and makes her partly liable, the same as the cyclists not using lights also makes them liable. You also call it her 'crime' when it's not, it's an accident that could have been avoided had the cyclists taken more precautions to actually be visible to drivers, and also had the driver not been going over the speed limit. It's like you haven't even read the article, yes she had headlights, but that doesn't mean you can see everything which is why cyclists are required to have lights. I also said previously I don't agree with her suing them so I don't get why you've brought that up when all we've been discussing is who is liable.

[scottish]

Ryan nobody said the cyclists were at total fault? You seem to place all blame on the driver even though the cyclists clearly were negligent by not having lights. The whole reason bike lights are required is so they are visible at night (yes, even with headlight you still can't see everything). I have no sympathy for people that go cycling in the pitch black without lights and then get in an accident. She was going 6mph over the speed limit, which does put SOME of the fault on her, and makes her partly liable, the same as the cyclists not using lights also makes them liable. You also call it her 'crime' when it's not, it's an accident that could have been avoided had the cyclists taken more precautions to actually be visible to drivers, and also had the driver not been going over the speed limit. It's like you haven't even read the article, yes she had headlights, but that doesn't mean you can see everything which is why cyclists are required to have lights. I also said previously I don't agree with her suing them so I don't get why you've brought that up when all we've been discussing is who is liable.

I think everyone in the thread has agreed that the cyclist were at part responsible for not having lights/correct equipment..

If she had her lights on, she would have most likely seen the reflection from the reflectors on their bikes, she was exceeding the speed limit whether it's 6mph or not could be the difference between death and living. Wasn't there an advert that used to go around showing the that 10mph is the difference between 80% chance of living, and 70% chance of death?

If she has issues with visibility due to the lateness/wetness then it's a signal to slow down to take precaution, not speed up.

That's coming from a driver who absolutely hates cyclists.

- - - Updated - - -

http://mywheelsareturning.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/new-york-city-thats-why-its-30.jpeg?w=594&h=250

That's the advert that I was talking about

[GommeInc]

Ryan nobody said the cyclists were at total fault? You seem to place all blame on the driver even though the cyclists clearly were negligent by not having lights. The whole reason bike lights are required is so they are visible at night (yes, even with headlight you still can't see everything). I have no sympathy for people that go cycling in the pitch black without lights and then get in an accident. She was going 6mph over the speed limit, which does put SOME of the fault on her, and makes her partly liable, the same as the cyclists not using lights also makes them liable. You also call it her 'crime' when it's not, it's an accident that could have been avoided had the cyclists taken more precautions to actually be visible to drivers, and also had the driver not been going over the speed limit. It's like you haven't even read the article, yes she had headlights, but that doesn't mean you can see everything which is why cyclists are required to have lights. I also said previously I don't agree with her suing them so I don't get why you've brought that up when all we've been discussing is who is liable.
I don't believe I said they were at total fault or even hinted anyone has said that? Running over people for not paying due care and attention by speeding as it seems to be the case here is incredibly negligent, since she has a duty of care to respect other road users. I also clearly do not place all blame on the driver since I said the cyclists were careless, but as far as any balance goes she tips it for: 1) Not having her lights on or using them properly - if it was just dark as you said then having properly working lights is important and knowing how to use them; 2) If she did have headlights and she believes she is a risk to other road users (e.g. has a fear of night driving), she should have gone much slower; 3) If she contemplated the risk she should not have been speeding in the first place. 3 key issues against 1 against the cyclists.

Also it is a crime... It's gross negligence (negligence which involves death) which is a form of manslaughter. Speeding, hitting someone etc are crimes. You can claim compensation from the defendant for committing an offence alongside or after the criminal case - as the cyclists have not broken the law it's why she is guilty. Civil and criminal law are not always separate, particularly in tort law which is what this is. Her claiming compensation is civil litigation. Her being found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter is the crime, as she as a driver owes a duty of care to other road users.

[The Don]

I don't believe I said they were at total fault or even hinted anyone has said that? Running over people for not paying due care and attention by speeding as it seems to be the case here is incredibly negligent, since she has a duty of care to respect other road users. I also clearly do not place all blame on the driver since I said the cyclists were careless, but as far as any balance goes she tips it for: 1) Not having her lights on or using them properly - if it was just dark as you said then having properly working lights is important and knowing how to use them; 2) If she did have headlights and she believes she is a risk to other road users (e.g. has a fear of night driving), she should have gone much slower; 3) If she contemplated the risk she should not have been speeding in the first place. 3 key issues against 1 against the cyclists.

Also it is a crime... It's gross negligence (negligence which involves death) which is a form of manslaughter. Speeding, hitting someone etc are crimes. You can claim compensation from the defendant for committing an offence alongside or after the criminal case - as the cyclists have not broken the law it's why she is guilty. Civil and criminal law are not always separate, particularly in tort law which is what this is. Her claiming compensation is civil litigation. Her being found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter is the crime, as she as a driver owes a duty of care to other road users.

The people investigating it clearly do not think it's a crime otherwise she would be in prison. Also love how you're completely forgetting what subo; posted about the accident being unavoidable. Can't be bothered to discuss this anymore as it's going off track

[Yawn]

wat r u going on about her not using headlights for and having a fear of night driving

the case was reviewed and she wasnt at fault. so no not "3 key issues against 1 against the cyclists" u r just making stuff up in ur head :S

ive been driving on the uni campus on a wet night and ppl have crossed the road in front of me and ive literally not even been able to see them because of the headlights and rain causing a refelection/sparkle on the windscreen... and this is a well lit road im talking about. i didnt see them stood in the middle of the road til they were on my right through my driver side window and it scared the **** out of me

[GommeInc]

The people investigating it clearly do not think it's a crime otherwise she would be in prison. Also love how you're completely forgetting what subo; posted about the accident being unavoidable. Can't be bothered to discuss this anymore as it's going off track
Not all crimes are punished with imprisonment... In this instance, she was likely to have received a $1,000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition. Most crimes are punished with it, but not all of them. Also, article subo didn't post an article as far as I can find, other than a small quote about accident reconstruction which does not negate liability. In a real article:

Telegraph: She admits she was speeding (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/10791246/Canadian-driver-sues-family-of-teen-she-killed-blaming-him-for-accident.html)

She cannot pull the negligence card because she was grossly negligent (she killed someone). Not taking due care and attention on the road by speeding, which she ought to know better if she can't control a vehicle at night, is negligent. Calling the cyclists negligent simply will not work in this instance, because maybe if she wasn't negligent herself by thinking it wise to speed then maybe the boy would have survived. There are rumours she may have also have been under the influence of alcohol and/or been on her mobile phone.

wat r u going on about her not using headlights for and having a fear of night driving

the case was reviewed and she wasnt at fault. so no not "3 key issues against 1 against the cyclists" u r just making stuff up in ur head :S

ive been driving on the uni campus on a wet night and ppl have crossed the road in front of me and ive literally not even been able to see them because of the headlights and rain causing a refelection/sparkle on the windscreen... and this is a well lit road im talking about. i didnt see them stood in the middle of the road til they were on my right through my driver side window and it scared the **** out of me
You could just alter your headlights, which is what you're meant to do. Also, does your car not have wipers? They're good at removing water from the windscreen.

EDIT: Apparently the police let her go and it looks like everyone treated it as a horrific accident, which seems about right since the boys should have worn the right clothing (though not necessary, it is hugely recommended) and it wasn't on purpose. It's a shame she thinks it is wise to go on the offensive and reopen the wounds by going after some money from the families.

[Yawn]

Not all crimes are punished with imprisonment... In this instance, she was likely to have received a $1,000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition. Most crimes are punished with it, but not all of them. Also, article subo didn't post an article as far as I can find, other than a small quote about accident reconstruction which does not negate liability. In a real article:

Telegraph: She admits she was speeding (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/10791246/Canadian-driver-sues-family-of-teen-she-killed-blaming-him-for-accident.html)

She cannot pull the negligence card because she was grossly negligent (she killed someone). Not taking due care and attention on the road by speeding, which she ought to know better if she can't control a vehicle at night, is negligent. Calling the cyclists negligent simply will not work in this instance, because maybe if she wasn't negligent herself by thinking it wise to speed then maybe the boy would have survived. There are rumours she may have also have been under the influence of alcohol and/or been on her mobile phone.

You could just alter your headlights, which is what you're meant to do. Also, does your car not have wipers? They're good at removing water from the windscreen.

lol dont patronise me obviously i had wipers on y do u just make stuff up and assume all the time :S

uve done it again in ur post still going on about her not being able to control a car?? wat r u talking about??
u just guess all the time and fantasise wat u want to hear?? maybe u are skitz just a thought

ur wrong ALL the time its kind of weird. how can the cyclists not be negligent.. maybe if he wasnt cycling on the road at 1am without the correct reflective she wouldve actually seen him despite her speeding by 6pm, no??

all u have is that she was speeding by 6mph. yet if u searched that quote in google u would find it linked to countless articles and if u read it u would see that the police report stated AN EVASIVE REACTION TO AVOID THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT POSSIBLE meaning that she couldnt have helped the issue and the cause of the accident lies with the boys because they were not visible. therefore its not her fault

:S :S :S :S
.

[scottish]

10mph is the difference between 80% chance of living and 70% chance of death.

Even if for whatever reason they found the accident wasn't possible to evade, it could certainly have had a completely different turn out had she not been speeding. If what Gomme said regarding phone/DUI then in my view she's entirely to blame.

[GommeInc]

lol dont patronise me obviously i had wipers on y do u just make stuff up and assume all the time :S

uve done it again in ur post still going on about her not being able to control a car?? wat r u talking about??
u just guess all the time and fantasise wat u want to hear?? maybe u are skitz just a thought

ur wrong ALL the time its kind of weird. how can the cyclists not be negligent.. maybe if he wasnt cycling on the road at 1am without the correct reflective she wouldve actually seen him despite her speeding by 6pm, no??

all u have is that she was speeding by 6mph. yet if u searched that quote in google u would find it linked to countless articles and if u read it u would see that the police report stated AN EVASIVE REACTION TO AVOID THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT POSSIBLE meaning that she couldnt have helped the issue and the cause of the accident lies with the boys because they were not visible. therefore its not her fault

:S :S :S :S
.
So why was their rain on your windscreen? The fact you missed these people shows you clearly are competent when driving so it seemed pointless adding what you did.

Where did I say they weren't negligent? Maybe if you learnt to read better than you can write you may actually understand the argument :rolleyes: Her calling them negligent won't hold since maybe if she wasn't speeding and had control of the car she may have not caused the accident.The article you quoted even hints at this. The article even mentions how there are many unsolved mysteries - why was she being followed home by her husband? Why didn't she observe basic driving rules of going slower if she couldn't see? It's what you're meant to do since driving holds so many risks. There's the belief she was texting at the time.

Where am I wrong ALL the time? You just post "you're wrong" and leave, but given how you write and resort to calling people "skitz" shows that maybe talking to you is a waste of time since, well, you're clearly a rude and obnoxious, ignorant child.

Again, it was a tragic accident. The boys were reckless not wearing the right stuff, but they did have the minimum reflective bars on their bikes.

[Yawn]

So why was their rain on your windscreen? The fact you missed these people shows you clearly are competent when driving so it seemed pointless adding what you did.

Where did I say they weren't negligent? Maybe if you learnt to read better than you can write you may actually understand the argument :rolleyes: Her calling them negligent won't hold since maybe if she wasn't speeding and had control of the car she may have not caused the accident.The article you quoted even hints at this. The article even mentions how there are many unsolved mysteries - why was she being followed home by her husband? Why didn't she observe basic driving rules of going slower if she couldn't see? It's what you're meant to do since driving holds so many risks. There's the belief she was texting at the time.

Where am I wrong ALL the time? You just post "you're wrong" and leave, but given how you write and resort to calling people "skitz" shows that maybe talking to you is a waste of time since, well, you're clearly a rude and obnoxious, ignorant child.

Again, it was a tragic accident. The boys were reckless not wearing the right stuff, but they did have the minimum reflective bars on their bikes.

"y was there rain on ur windscreen" jesus christ

no no no she hit them because she couldnt see them not because she was speeding. she couldnt see them because they werent wearing the correct gear it really is as simple as that and the 26 page police report confirms that! ur wild imagination and theorizing isnt gna cut it, BYE!

[GommeInc]

"y was there rain on ur windscreen" jesus christ

no no no she hit them because she couldnt see them not because she was speeding. she couldnt see them because they werent wearing the correct gear it really is as simple as that and the 26 page police report confirms that! ur wild imagination and theorizing isnt gna cut it, BYE!
Bye then, we'd just keep discussing without you :S

-------------

It does seem dodgy how she was being followed by her husband. All these articles just make it completely difficult to understand what happened. The fact headlights are there to provide visibility and somehow in this instance they couldn't seems weird. If she was suffering from poor visibility the general practice is to slow down, seeing as you never know who you could hit.

[peteyt]

disgusting. It sounds like both parties were at fault but surely she could do the right thing and let the family grieve. She sounds like she's just trying to cash in on it

[RyRy]

Idiot of a woman.

She may have had time to react if she hadn't been speeding, as you would've seen cyclists in front of you and would have time to react. No question about it, the cyclists were not at fault for this regardless of deaths.

If you have poor visibility, you slow down to 15-20mph (least I do). The woman will be taken to the cleaners and forced to pay all the bills of the family she's taking to court, and although I feel for her as she's been through something traumatic herself (killing somebody is a big thing), she would likely get her just desserts.

Accidents can always be prevented somewhere down the line, like if she was driving slowly. My opinion is that reconstruction sounds a little flawed.

But nah, not the cyclists fault. People forget that the car would likely be heard by cyclists before it hit them, especially if it was travelling fast, but might be it was going so fast they didn't have time to react. Poor driver for not allowing the cyclists to react to a car coming behind them. Shame on them lol.