Driver that struck teen suing dead boy's family

[Rippleman]

How were bike riders at fault? Riding at night isn't illegal. They should wear more reflective gear if they weren't, but that doesn't dismiss drivers from paying attention to the road. She hit them from behind - in the auto world, that's basically at-fault by default.

How was the driver at fault? And just because you hit someone from behind DOES NOT mean at fault by default. What if the person in front was driving in reverse? in any case, I would feel horrible if it was me in the drivers position, but in NO WAY would I accept blame and cost if it was NOT my fault. Sorry. Quick question: Do you drive? and if you do, have you drove at night?

[Tews]

I've no idea chap - I've never attended a school in Ireland.

 

In that case, This book is for you!  :rofl:

[Polonium]

In that case, This book is for you!  :rofl:

 

HA HA... thanks man. Might come in handy  :laugh:

 

In my defense, I am up to my eyes in work at the moment and actually didn't really digest the part that said it was Canada. I'm not an uneducated idiot, honest :blush:  

[Bertch]

I'm really curious if they were riding single file on the shoulder like they should be or if they were riding side by side and taking up the whole lane.  Bikers in my city are ridiculous for making up their own rules of the road, constantly switching from the road to the sidewalk, driving on the left side of the road when there is a proper bike lane on the right, blowing through red lights and stop signs.  The new e-bikes (or dui bikes) are making it even worse.

[HawkMan]

What if they were driving a vehicle and were in the wrong?... age and outcome doesn't alleviate responsibility. I think its horrible that this happened. But it happens all the time with automobiles. Someone causes accident, is killed and then is sued by the insurance company to recoup damages caused by the person who was in the wrong. The only difference here is the people at fault were riding bikes.

 

She was driving 10 kmph over the speed limit, automatically puts her it fault. Especially with no way to document the kids where at fault. and even if the kids had veered out into the road suddenly, she's still be at fault as she was in an area where that was something to expect to happen. You're always supposed to assume that somethign can pop out in front of the car at any time, unless you're on a motorway. 

 

On top of that, the speed limit is the max speed, when conditions dictate you're supposed to adapt your speed to the conditions, like dark and rainy is part of this, if it's dark and rainy you have to adopt speed to a level where you can confidently stop for any sudden things appearing in front of your car, more so when it's dark and you can't see stuff that can appear suddenly.

 

over here, not only would her case be dismissed, she's be the one facing lawsuits by the police and insurance companies for reckless driving. 

How was the driver at fault? And just because you hit someone from behind DOES NOT mean at fault by default. What if the person in front was driving in reverse? in any case, I would feel horrible if it was me in the drivers position, but in NO WAY would I accept blame and cost if it was NOT my fault. Sorry. Quick question: Do you drive? and if you do, have you drove at night?

 

As a driver hitting soft traffic, you're virtually always at fault. 

 

in this case

- Speeding

- dark

- wet

- low vision

- "possible intoxication"

- hitting from behind

 

they where most definitely not at fault. They might have been at fault for her hitting them. Her hitting them hard enough to kill and seriously injure, that's her fault. 

I'm really curious if they were riding single file on the shoulder like they should be or if they were riding side by side and taking up the whole lane.  Bikers in my city are ridiculous for making up their own rules of the road, constantly switching from the road to the sidewalk, driving on the left side of the road when there is a proper bike lane on the right, blowing through red lights and stop signs.  The new e-bikes (or dui bikes) are making it even worse.

 

Bikes are traffic are and allowed to be on the road anyway. driving side by side has no real effect anyway. it's annoying as a driver but it's no worse than passing a slow car that's wider anyway.

[bonalste]

This happened at 1.30am and the teenagers weren't wearing reflective gear or using lights on their bikes. All they had was reflectors on the wheels, which wouldn't be able to be seen from behind. They were riding in this incredibly dangerous fashion on a dual carriageway. The point above about intoxication, that's what the father, somebody who wasn't at the scene and has no information to suggest such a thing, has claimed based on zero evidence whatsoever. The notion of intoxication was dismissed by the attending police officers. They are usually pretty good at being able to judge that. As for speeding, yeah she was in the wrong, but if her speeding had been the cause of the deaths she would be facing a prison sentence, rather than being in a position to sue the teenagers.

Now, the above notwithstanding, she is an evil woman for doing this. Everybody suffers emotional trauma - it's a part of life. If you sued everybody who caused you emotional trauma nobody on the planet would be able to work, as everyone would be in court 24 hours a day. She is claiming a 7-figure sum for this trauma. I would love to know how she arrived at that number. She is greedy: a parasite leeching off of those who are already suffering. If I were the father I'm not sure that I would be able to contain myself, and would probably find myself arrested for murder by now.

[compl3x]

The notion of intoxication was dismissed by the attending police officers. They are usually pretty good at being able to judge that. As for speeding, yeah she was in the wrong, but if her speeding had been the cause of the deaths she would be facing a prison sentence, rather than being in a position to sue the teenagers.

 

 

 

I would have thought breath-testing would be mandatory in a traffic accident, especially when speed is involved. The fact her cop husband was driving behind her raises a huge red flag here.

[Polonium]

I would have thought breath-testing would be mandatory in a traffic accident, especially when speed is involved. The fact her cop husband was driving behind her raises a huge red flag here.

Exactly.

That said the police are very good at telling if you are over the limit or not. Shouldn't be a case of that though

[McKay]

I would have thought breath-testing would be mandatory in a traffic accident, especially when speed is involved. The fact her cop husband was driving behind her raises a huge red flag here.

 

It's certainly the law here in the UK, no idea about Canada though. 

[rr_dRock]

Exactly.

That said the police are very good at telling if you are over the limit or not. Shouldn't be a case of that though

 

 

The police are also very good at covering up for each other, and each others family,

 

as proved by the Derek Harvey-Zink trial in Winnipeg, that got an entire police force disbanded.

[Polonium]

The police are also very good at covering up for each other, and each others family,

as proved by the Derek Harvey-Zink trial in Winnipeg, that got an entire police force disbanded.

Oh I agree 100% mate. Not trying to make what they didn't do right.

The police are as corrupt as the Catholic Church....but we won't go there ;-)

[The Evil Overlord]

I wonder if she'll try to sue god for the circumstances that lead to it all next...?

Honestly, some people.

[chrisj1968]

Geez throw her in jail for frivilous lawsuits and flagrant stupidity

[Ryoken]

Not to defend her at all, cause I think this is horrible, but..

 

Such is my understanding, this is a counter-suit, against the parents who are already suing her.

No charges were laid. Hence the parents suing in the first place.

The boys were riding abreast, without helmets, and without the legal minimums for a bike ( Actual rear reflectors above the real wheel, lights for it being night, etc )..

 

It's not all as cut and dry as it seems.

She was speeding, but doing 90 in an 80 zone is FAR from uncommon, about the only places where 10 over is an issue is school zones and construction zones. Anywhere else, and you'd be a joke for writing a ticket. Also, breathalyzers are as far as I know, only done if the person Appears to be intoxicated. Which she didn't. 

 

End of the day I think it was just a horrible accident in which all parties share some blame, but not enough to press charges, or be suing over.

 

That said, I could be wrong and there's more to this.. who knows..

[Dashel]

10km is nothing speedwise and would have had little to no bearing on the accident.  Also pointed out above, I'm under the impression that the family started a suit first, not her.  This is simply a legal tactic.

 

Simple question, if this was a car driving at night, in the rain without lights, would you all feel the same way?

[Dot Matrix]

Man, if everyone did that, think of all the Law Suits I would get for Emotional trauma for my bad jokes!

You'll be hearing from my lawyer by the end of the week.

[compl3x]

10km is nothing speedwise and would have had little to no bearing on the accident.  Also pointed out above, I'm under the impression that the family started a suit first, not her.  This is simply a legal tactic.

 

Simple question, if this was a car driving at night, in the rain without lights, would you all feel the same way?

 

 

Completely false. Even 5km/h over the speed limit can increase stopping distance and reduce reaction time. Add that to a dark and rainy night and it is a recipe for disaster.

[Lant]

I would say both of them are at fault here. Reflectors are simply not going to be good enough. If they didn't have lights they really, should not have been cycling at night, or if they had to they should have been on the pavement (or a sidewalk) - who cares about the highway code in this instance, pedestrians are not likely to be using it at this point. (I know the article says a country road, but across the pond even these road sometimes have pavements.) I tend to avoid cycling at night because I feel that the risk just isn't worth it, I would never dream of it on a road with more than a 40 mph speed limit and no lights. That said the driver shouldn't have been speeding.

Its a terrible shame, as they didn't deserve this punishment for those small mistakes. And it shows great malice on her part for suing like this, its entirely unreasonable.

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

I have seen the issues caused by bikes, not following the rules and not having the right light and behaving like they own the road.

also, 80 vs 90 km is not a huge difference, seriously.      since they were invisible to her till the last moment, due to lack of markers, the accident would most likely happended anyway.

 

 

if this is a counter suit i understand....  since the police let her go, and the parents sured, she had to defend herself.

i have seen a lot of death for yongsters walking or biking on country roads, with very high speed limits at night.     ###### happens, and you cannot only blame and sue the driver.

 

 

when i was in my teens i was warned REPEATEDLY, not to go on fast moving roads, especially at night.     i am pretty sure, that if they rided in a colomn, one after another on the very side of the road, this would not have happened.

[Bryan R.]

What are her kids going to end up like... I shudder at the thought.

[chrisj1968]

Not to defend her at all, cause I think this is horrible, but..

 

Such is my understanding, this is a counter-suit, against the parents who are already suing her.

No charges were laid. Hence the parents suing in the first place.

The boys were riding abreast, without helmets, and without the legal minimums for a bike ( Actual rear reflectors above the real wheel, lights for it being night, etc )..

 

It's not all as cut and dry as it seems.

She was speeding, but doing 90 in an 80 zone is FAR from uncommon, about the only places where 10 over is an issue is school zones and construction zones. Anywhere else, and you'd be a joke for writing a ticket. Also, breathalyzers are as far as I know, only done if the person Appears to be intoxicated. Which she didn't. 

 

End of the day I think it was just a horrible accident in which all parties share some blame, but not enough to press charges, or be suing over.

 

That said, I could be wrong and there's more to this.. who knows..

 

you point out some truths here. But she has no class to add to a parents misery to make a buck. clearly both were in the wrong, her for speeding, the boys for not wearing proper safety reflectors

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

you point out some truths here. But she has no class to add to a parents misery to make a buck. clearly both were in the wrong, her for speeding, the boys for not wearing proper safety reflectors

 

if this is counter sue, then she is not in for the buck.

 

and she will never get that money anyway

 

 

if she does GET PAID anywhere near the amount or anything more then a few thousand (a cost to visit a mental health pro for 10 sessions) then i will be outraged.     however if the lawsuit is to diffuse the other lawsuit, then it is fine.

[Ryoken]

Completely false. Even 5km/h over the speed limit can increase stopping distance and reduce reaction time. Add that to a dark and rainy night and it is a recipe for disaster.

 

While you are technically correct, speed limits around here are made with the Assumption that you are going 10km/h over. They know most people are going to speed, so it's now just factored into the equation.

 

Again, not saying she's not at fault at all.. but just point out, there's a reason why police don't ticket you for going 5-10 over (again, unless school zones, or construction zones).

you point out some truths here. But she has no class to add to a parents misery to make a buck. clearly both were in the wrong, her for speeding, the boys for not wearing proper safety reflectors

 

Oh I agree,, tegal tactic or not, it's in VERY poor taste.

[compl3x]

While you are technically correct, speed limits around here are made with the Assumption that you are going 10km/h over. They know most people are going to speed, so it's now just factored into the equation.

 

 

I obviously can't comment on Canadian speed laws or how they are enforced, but it is pointless calling it a "speed limit" if they are expecting people to exceed it. It may as well be called a "speed suggestion".

[Dashel]

I can only assume you are a new driver if you still believe that what is on the sign is a hard ceiling, what nonsense.  To say a driver must categorically never exceed is not only a lie, it's a dangerous thing to do.  To throw this woman under the bus as Hawk did for such a facile reason alone, with a blind eye to the more important factors here, is unbelievable.