Sue me for killing your kid with my car?

[Plaidman]

I was hit by a car once without wearing a helmet. Still survived with minor injuries. My only real memory of that is the screaming and crying passangers while driver was muttering drunkely oh shit over and over again.

Though to be fair that one was my fault for riding it around the parking complex at my apartment and expecting a car to not screech around the corners at a hundred miles without even pausing.

[KnitShoni]

I don't know of any helmet that will prevent head injury or trauma if the victim is struck at 80 mph, and, according to this: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/effectiveness.pdf there are quite a few issues with that study, one of them being

Most of the injuries were minor, and there were no instances of helmeted cyclists in
collision with motor vehicles, but the results were extrapolated to apply to all types of
injury.

This is not to say that I don't think the boy should have had a helmet on. Just saying that I'm not aware of an available bicycle helmet that would allow anyone to withstand a collision with a vehicle traveling 80 mph. Especially considering all the people severely injured/killed in vehicle collisions when they themselves are surrounded by entire vehicles.

Not to mention, the AP article says Weaving claims the boy appeared out of nowhere, and that he couldn't see him well because this happened "around dusk in wet, foggy conditions." He couldn't see the boy well enough to not hit him, but he could see well enough to know he was ramp-jumping from somebody's driveway?

[KnitShoni]

Though to be fair that one was my fault for riding it around the parking complex at my apartment and expecting a car to not screech around the corners at a hundred miles without even pausing.

This, actually, is not an unreasonable expectation. Most parking complexes have a posted speed limit (usually 10-15 mph). Also, it's an apartment complex. Unless you were the only child who lived there, the driver knew there would be children present at some point. Not to mention the adults who travel across a parking complex for one reason or another.

[Shangri-laschild]

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)?

I can see how someone would be frustrated when it sounds like he technically shouldn't have even still had his license. The department admitted fault and is taking steps to fix what caused this though so I'm not sure what suing will help other than the "I'm in pain and money will help" thing....

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.

I'm not seeing where it says that he only died from head injury and that if not for that, he would have lived. We don't know that the internally injures and lacerations wouldn't have been too major. Just that he was declared brain dead. The rest of his injuries could very well have been bad enough that he still would not have made it.

Not to mention, the AP article says Weaving claims the boy appeared out of nowhere, and that he couldn't see him well because this happened "around dusk in wet, foggy conditions." He couldn't see the boy well enough to not hit him, but he could see well enough to know he was ramp-jumping from somebody's driveway?

It doesn't say that he noticed before hand that they were doing that. It could very well be that he saw the ramp and the other kids on bikes after the accident.


The fact that the kids were jumping out into the street is a dangerous thing in and of itself especially when it's a 45 mile per hour street. Then again, if the driver was going the speed limit he might have been able to stop or swerve in time. I guess while I overall see the major fault with the driver....if you were speeding and at the last minute, someone jumped out in front of your car, how would you see it? What if you weren't speeding? It sucks that it happened and while I think he is definitely guilty, the kid was definitely putting himself in a dangerous situation.

[BlaqueKatt]

I can see how someone would be frustrated when it sounds like he technically shouldn't have even still had his license.

yes and as everyone knows-not having a driver's license stops anyone from driving, because there has never ever been a ticket issued for that in the history of the world /sarcasm

45 mile per hour street. Then again, if the driver was going the speed limit he might have been able to stop or swerve in time.

braking distance at 45mph on DRY pavement, with good brakes is 196 feet

[Andara Bledin]

braking distance at 45mph on DRY pavement, with good brakes is 196 feet

Since this took place in "wet, foggy conditions" at dusk, that little fact is completely and utterly irrelevant. As is, for that matter, the actual speed limit of the highway in question, since the prevailing conditions would dictate the safe maximum speed, not some number on a sign.

Also, Weaving was passing at the time of the accident. If it was clear enough for him to have spotted the car he was passing, with a speed difference of nearly the limit itself if not more, then had he been traveling at a safe speed for the prevailing conditions, it's quite possible he could have seen and avoided the kid as well. After all, the vehicle he was passing managed to not hit anyone while on the same highway at the same time.

Oh, and for anyone interested in the relevant helmet law, here's some of the text of the law in question:

Failure to comply with this section shall not be a violation or an offense. Failure to wear protective headgear as required by this subsection shall not be considered to be contributory negligence on the part of the parent or the child nor shall such failure be admissible in any civil action.

So, the Weaving's case, on the face of it, is likely completely without merit and a waste of time and money (none of which is his, since he has none).

^-.-^