[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I think this is the same story:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...light=SHARLENE

Yeah it is, sorry about that.


Also, thanks for letting me read these posts:

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I don't really see anything wrong with it.

Heck, the family of the boy is suing her. The paper hides that fact down near the bottom and plays it off as a "routine lawsuit".

I don't doubt killing someone with your vehicle is traumatic. If I had done it, and after I was cleared of any wrong-doing, the family of the boy sued me and alleged that I was drunk (with absolutely no evidence to support that fact), then I'd probably counter-sue as well.

Originally Posted by neo45

Wow misleading title. Sounds like she is counter-suing. Who knows, maybe she has a case?

If the kids were at fault for the collision, and now the family is suing her, then maybe she does have a right to seek damages for the effects the crash plus lawsuit is having on her.


I mean, if kids rode in front of my car at 2:00 am and then tried to sue me I might consider my options as well

Originally Posted by polak

Regardless of whether or not there is any truth to that statement, you jump to that conclusion. Hence why that kind of stuff shouldn't play in court.

I think she has every right to counter sue. I would've went with libel instead of this just to save face but I'm no lawyer. BS lawsuit regardless of how many heart strings it tugs on is still BS and the family shouldn't be surprised they're getting hit with another one in return. The paper should be ashamed at how skewed the story is though.

Either way, this is something straight out of Suits.