Driver that struck teen suing dead boy's family

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneTheOnly

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...lled-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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hayden

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

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.word...eg?w=594&h=250

That's the advert that I was talking about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

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.