Sue me for killing your kid with my car?

[IDrinkaRum]

I'll sue you for pain and suffering!

David Weaving, who is serving a 10-year sentence for slamming his car into a 14-year-old boy, is suing the boy's parents saying they were negligent for allowing their son to ride his bike on a busy street without wearing his bike helmet.

This is a countersuit as the parents are parents are suing him for negligence for their son's death.

They are both suing each other for $15,000.

This is frivolous on Mr. Weaving's side, isn't it?

[Greenday]

This guy had FIVE DUIs in the past decade and was doing 83 mph in a 45 mph zone.

I'm sure he's going to win this one.

[Andara Bledin]

Actually, the guy who killed the kid sued first, claiming that the child being allowed to ride his bike in the street was negligent and that they have inhibitied his "capacity to carry on in life's activities," among other claims.

The parents have levied the counter suit in response.

^-.-^

[IDrinkaRum]

OooPs! Thanks Andara! Reading comprehension would be a good thing to have, huh?

Yeah, I'm a little tired. I still don't think he should have sued the parents.

[HYHYBT]

If you're driving drunk, then it's your fault. A bike helmet is worthless at 83 mph.

[Plaidman]

Your title is so confusing.

It says "Sue me for killing your kid with my car?"

I'd likely also sue. And press charges. And do everything in my power to make your life hell forever. How is it a bad thing?

[ZedOmega]

Your title is so confusing.

It says "Sue me for killing your kid with my car?"

I'd likely also sue. And press charges. And do everything in my power to make your life hell forever. How is it a bad thing?

Both sides are suing each other for negligence: Weaving is blaming the parents for not making sure the kid was wearing a helmet, the parents are blaming him for hitting the kid, period. This is gonna be a circus and I know the clowns are gonna be running it for sure.

[Plaidman]

But he did hit their kid. At nearly twice the posted speed limit. While likely drunk. He did kill their child, and got off easy.

The kid could have been wearing titianmun helmet, Super Saiyan Armor, DarkWarrior Duck's sidekicks armor, and he would still be killed.

[lordlundar]

The kid could have been wearing titianmun helmet, Super Saiyan Armor, DarkWarrior Duck's sidekicks armor, and he would still be killed.

<thinks on this>

You mean the kid could have MOVED?

[Rageaholic]

That guy is a first class asshole. He's suing a grieving family for the actions of a kid who he killed with his recklessness.

Hope he rots in hell.

[ZedOmega]

But he did hit their kid. At nearly twice the posted speed limit. While likely drunk. He did kill their child, and got off easy.

The kid could have been wearing titianmun helmet, Super Saiyan Armor, DarkWarrior Duck's sidekicks armor, and he would still be killed.

Hell, as fast as Weaving was reportedly going, nothing short of Bubblegum Crisis-style power armor would've saved that kid's life. What fucks me up, though, is the fact that Weaving is suing while in jail for killing that same kid.

[BlaqueKatt]

Ap Story here-more detail than AOL-Refutes some of the whargarble

This is frivolous on Mr. Weaving's side, isn't it?

and it's not frivolous to sue an inmate that has nothing, and no way to pay?

Actually, the guy who killed the kid sued first, claiming that the child being allowed to ride his bike in the street was negligent <snip>The parents have levied the counter suit in response.

Matthew Kenney's parents sued 48-year-old driver David Weaving shortly after he was sentenced last year to 10 years in prison. Weaving responded months later with a handwritten countersuit.

If you're driving drunk, then it's your fault

While likely drunk.

He was not charged with drunken driving in the Kenney case

That guy is a first class asshole. He's suing a grieving family

The Kenneys are seeking permission from the state claims commissioner to sue the Department of Motor Vehicles and its commissioner, Robert Ward.

Grieving or sue-happy(that's 3 lawsuits for one kid-they hit the lottery with that one I guess)?

They sued him, he counter sues, and they start with "can't you just serve your time and leave us alone?"-yes that is a quote from the parents.

for the actions of a kid who he killed with his recklessness.

The kid was reckless as well-and the state they're in HAS A HELMET LAW
requiring children fifteen years of age and underto wear bicycle helmets-passed in 1997-$90 fine first offense.

Matthew and some friends were jumping their bikes off a ramp at the end of a friend's driveway, around dusk in wet, foggy conditions and landing in the middle of the two-lane road.

Route 69 where the crash happened is a primary north–south state highway in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Also he died of Massive head injuries-a helmet may have meant he lived, albeit with injuries, and probable brain damage.

[crashhelmet]

I actually support the convict in this case. Wrongful death and other similar civil suits are frivolous and nothing more than a display of greed and/or spite.

[BlaqueKatt]

Wrongful death and other similar civil suits are frivolous and nothing more than a display of greed and/or spite.

yup the article I linked to has reference to Adam Walsh's parents attempting to sue the mall he was kidnapped from. After his mother left him alone to play video games. Yup it's the mall's fault

Wearing a bicycle helmet can reduce your risk of head injury by 85 percent, and reduce the risk of brain injury by 88 percent, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

It is estimated that 75 percent of bicycle-related fatalities among children could be prevented with a bicycle helmet.

I always wear mine-I met a guy that was still alive after he slid under a car and the car tyres ran over his head-his helmet took the brunt of it-no head injuries-

[Plaidman]

He was not charged with drunken driving in the Kenney case[/B]

I know. Every article states that pretty clearly.

Thus my wording LIKELY.

As much as he drinks and drives, he may still feel that he can handle more liqour then another, and still could have had quite the few drinks under his belt, while still passing any test outside a breathizer. (Though there are quite a few ways to beat that even). People that drink every day get use to the effects and can handle day to day work while people would be passed out from the same amount. I dealt with customers like that every day.

At least driving while drunk and killing him could have sobered him up a bit. Killing someone while NOT drunk, is likely just going to cause him to drink even more.