Woman suing kid she killed with her SUV, and family.

[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

[Barnet Flame]

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

She has a pretty flimsy case given that she was speeding and she hit them from behind.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Not only that, but apparently she took a roadside screening test that registered 'zero alcohol content in her blood stream.'

It could be entirely plausible that she was driving along doing nothing wrong - besides going 10 km/h over the speed limit , and accidently hit the kids cycling three abreast on the road while wearing dark clothing.

If it was me and that version was the truth, then I would be upset that the family was suing me for $900,000 and libeling me throughout the process. In that context it makes perfect sense to toss up a $1,000,000 countersuit.

Out of curiousity, where did you see that.

The report also states: “no breathalyzer was performed” – a point the lawyer intends to delve deeper into, he says.

To me its suspicious, that her husband who's a cop was following her along, and then no breathalyzer was performed on her and they were allowed to leave the scene. Call me a conspiracy loon, but this really doesn't smell right.

I get what everyone is saying, this suit is a horrible act, I can understand the parents suing for medical expenses and emotional trauma, her suing for nearly 1.5 million comes across as mean spirited at least.

[Locke]

Is it commonplace for victims of a crime such as this to sue?

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Out of curiousity, where did you see that.


.......

The report also confirmed that Simon, who acknowledged driving at about 90 km/h, above the 80 km/h limit, wasn’t required to take a breathalyzer test because there were “no grounds to request” one. A roadside screening device was administered “out of an abundance for caution,” the report said, and registered “zero alcohol content in her blood system.”

from this herald story, may have to go to page 2

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Out of curiousity, where did you see that.



To me its suspicious, that her husband who's a cop was following her along, and then no breathalyzer was performed on her and they were allowed to leave the scene. Call me a conspiracy loon, but this really doesn't smell right.

I get what everyone is saying, this suit is a horrible act, I can understand the parents suing for medical expenses and emotional trauma, her suing for nearly 1.5 million comes across as mean spirited at least.

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.

[vanisleflamesfan]

The part that really baffles me is, how can you sue a person who is deceased? That person cannot legally defend him or herself so how could any judge render a verdict?

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

The part that really baffles me is, how can you sue a person who is deceased? That person cannot legally defend him or herself so how could any judge render a verdict?

You can sue the estate of a deceased person.

[Brannigans Law]

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

Misleading how? Is she or is she not suing someone she killed in her SUV?

[Nage Waza]

One of my friends hit a kid that ran out between parked cars with his car, the child was seriously injured. My friend was not found at fault for anything. He has gone through a lot in the last 20 plus years since it happened as a result of what he did to that kid. It drains him to this day.

This website in particular seems to be very considerate of mental health issues. My friend did not receive a penny for his healing yet has paid out who knows what on treatment over the years. Should he have sued?

I don't know what to think about the OP's case, but the fact one side is grieving has no bearing on how the incident impacts the other party. People sue all the time when someone else is at fault for an accident, this is not much different. My friend did not suffer a physical injury, which I am sure most of us would support suing, but instead had pretty serious anguish, a certain 'injury' from the accident.

[J Diddy]

If you are just entering this thread don't read the quotes that the OP posted, as they make no sense on their own. Read the article from the link.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

Misleading how? Is she or is she not suing someone she killed in her SUV?

Not misleading, but rather sensationalizing the story. If one were to just read that title, you would assume that this is some overly litiguous woman who was clearly at fault for the accident trying to sue the victims' families.

When I first saw that article title in the paper, my first reaction was this was some drunk driver or someone who was distracted, hit some kids in broad daylight, and then had the audacity to sue them for damage to the vehicle or something ridiculous like that. After having read the article, it is an entirely different situation that had occured.

[GGG]

Seems like just a counter suit from the first lawsuit. Probably mostly just a defense tactic to the first lawsuit.

[Schraderbrau]

Originally Posted by GGG

Seems like just a counter suit from the first lawsuit. Probably mostly just a defense tactic to the first lawsuit.

Even if this is a counter suit it's is completely unacceptable. Just a terrible thing for a person to do.

[puffnstuff]

I get that its a legal tactic to countersue but perhaps a better choice needed to be made as to what to sue for. The whole 'killing your child has left me somewhat devastated so I want your money to make me feel better about it' wording is probably what irks people the most.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Schraderbrau

Even if this is a counter suit it's is completely unacceptable. Just a terrible thing for a person to do.

Is it just as unacceptable to sue and slander someone who was deemed not at fault in the incident? Who is probably pretty traumatized that she killed a kid. You don't get to sue someone, blame them for killing your child, accuse them of drunk and distracted driving AND get to be self righteous when a countersuit comes in.

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Not misleading, but rather sensationalizing the story. If one were to just read that title, you would assume that this is some overly litiguous woman who was clearly at fault for the accident trying to sue the victims' families.

When I first saw that article title in the paper, my first reaction was this was some drunk driver or someone who was distracted, hit some kids in broad daylight, and then had the audacity to sue them for damage to the vehicle or something ridiculous like that. After having read the article, it is an entirely different situation that had occured.

The thread title can only be so long, and I'm posting the news story about something that is morally reprehensible, I don't care for all the legal jargon attached to it to be honest.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

The thread title can only be so long, and I'm posting the news story about something that is morally reprehensible, I don't care for all the legal jargon attached to it to be honest.

I wasn't just referring to this thread, but how the newspapers have taken the "kid's killer sues victims family" approach in their article titles to generate buzz.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Schraderbrau

Even if this is a counter suit it's is completely unacceptable. Just a terrible thing for a person to do.

So, hypothetically, if a car is driving down the road and hits/kills the driver in the other car, and fault is determined to be the deceased, who pays for damages? What if the deceased had no insurance? Is it unacceptable to sue the estate? Should the widow sue?

Switch 'car' for pedestrian, child, you name it. These situations do happen, they suck, but people shouldn't balk at getting what they deserve simply due to the tragic nature of the incident.

I have no clue what the OP's case is all about, but if I was deemed not at fault for an accident and I was getting sued, you bet I would respond accordingly.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by scotty2hotty

Reason #873 why I don't have even a modicum of respect for any lawyer I have ever met.

I trust if you're ever wronged, wrongfully accused, or otherwise in legal trouble you'll just muddle through on your own rather than seek help from a lawyer who is 100% guaranteed to be a soulless d-bag, right?