Woman who fatally hit boy suing dead boy and his family

[patiokitty]

...for causing her her 'suffer great pain and suffering' and 'her enjoyment of life has been lessened'!!!!

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...and-suffering/

See, Canada has plenty of assholes who think only about themselves, and the woman in the above story is a prime example. She is also suing the other two boys she hit as well as their families.

Thankfully, the families of the boys are also suing this useless waste of space for her part in the accident.

[BlaqueKatt]

I'm not surprised.

two articles explain how the laws actually make it ok to kill a cyclist, one such incident the driver received a whopping $42 fine, another received a verbal warning.

Of course she'd think of herself as the victim, no criminal charges so it wasn't her fault, obviously the kids destroyed her life

NYT article

More in depth cycling article

Frequently, drivers are not convicted of any infraction unless hitting the cyclist resulted from a moving violation or driving under the influence. Even then, the driver is usually punished solely for the traffic violation, while the death is oftentimes ignored in the prosecution process. Transportation Nation, an online publication based in New York City, mentions a case that was initially tried as manslaughter but that ended with a conviction of “driving with a suspended license.”

[anakhouri]

The article is unclear as to whether the boys were properly attired or not, and if they could have done more to prevent the accident.

Whatever the case, it's idiotic and cruel to sue the families. Sure her life is disrupted and she probably feels guilty and traumatized...but so are the kids she hit, except for the one who, you know, died. I can't fathom her thinking.

[s_stabeler]

The article is unclear as to whether the boys were properly attired or not, and if they could have done more to prevent the accident.

yes and no- what the official report into the accident said was that the woman wouldn't have been able to see them until it was too late to take evasive action. Which is interesting, as by my read of the article, they were wearing reflectors.(the police claimed they were minimal reflectors, whatever that means)-0 that means that i can only assume she was either a) not looking where she was going (probably) or didn't have her headlights on ( maybe, I dunno.)

Also, to be exceedingly blunt? why the $%^& did she not have her full beam headlights on? (apparently) deserted road, so there is no need to use the dipped headlights instead- and full beams would have shown up cyclists clearly, reflectors or no. (certainly far enough away to take evasive action- or even to use the horn to warn the cyclists you are there ( since then they can move off to one side- this is assuming you are going too fast to stop in time)

[Panacea]

This really sounds like a tragic accident.

Then this woman has to go and throw fuel on the fire by suing the boy's family. She should be ashamed of herself.

Go to therapy and deal with it.

[siead_lietrathua]

whelp. looks like i'm taking a road trip to simcoe.... *gets axe*

only kidding! (kinda)

damn i hate people like her though. hubs is beside me ranting about special hells for people who sue the families of people they've killed.

even if the accident was a true accident, to sue the family is inhu-fuckin-mane.

[Gravekeeper]

So....she hit all 3 of them from behind, while speeding, and admits she did not even see them so she hit them all going full speed. She's married to a cop, who was following her the night of the accident, but whom hasn't said anything as a witness. She killed one, maimed another and injured the third. 6 months later the brother of the one she killed also killed himself out of grief. ( She's actually suing him too even though he's dead. ).

She claims the boys were negligent because, and I quote from the lawsuit:

- Biking without the appropriate lights and reflectors
- Without helmets
- They didn’t keep an eye on the road or their bikes under control.
- They didn't apply their brakes properly.

I have no idea how keeping an eye on the road, their bikes under control or braking would have saved them from being hit from behind by an SUV doing 90 in an 80 zone. The suit also names the County and claims negligence on their part for the poor road conditions and lack of lighting. ( So this is a complete carpet bomb lawsuit, parents, victims, dead people, the county, everyone ).

This may sound odd, but hear me out. I don't blame her, because she's obviously mentally ill if she thinks this is a good idea and given the circumstances its quite possible she has had a pyschotic break.

No, I blame her husband and her lawyer, who must be the scum of the earth to take on ( or possibly even suggested to her ) this case from someone who has to be mentally ill. And her husband, the police officer, who doesn't appear to have done anything to stop her or get her treatment. The suit say she's suffering from depression, anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder. The combintion of the 3, if severe, could quite easily compromise your decision making capabilities and leave you an emotionless husk prone only to mood swings or fits of rage.

Suing the parents of a child you killed, and who has lost another child as well, is certainly not something anyone who is in their right mind and mentally/emotionally stable would do. Its something someone with severe mental and emotional problems would do. Or a complete sociopath would do. Since no one has mentioned her being a serial killer prior to the accident, we can go with option A: This woman is completely unstable and rather than treating her or stopping her, her lawyer and the people in her life are enabling her.

Now, instead of getting the treatment ( and copious medication ) she clearly needs, she's going to be publically destroyed until the morons and parasites in her life scurry away into the darkness after they get what they want out of it or can't deal with the situation they helped created.

[wolfie]

The article is unclear as to whether the boys were properly attired or not, and if they could have done more to prevent the accident.

WTF? They're trying to hold MINORS to the same standard as professional drivers (preventable vs. non-preventable, rather than at-fault vs. not-at-fault)?

the police claimed they were minimal reflectors, whatever that means

Probably means only the reflectors that came with the bikes.

BTW, for any Yanks out there, I recognize the name of the fiswrapnewspaper, and "Simcoe" - this is a Canadian story, so translate "90 in an 80 zone" to "55 in a 50 zone".

Sorry, I didn't see that woman's SUV until it was too late to take evasive action - I'd better sue her estate for the damage to my bumper.

[Titi]

I am questioning the "fact" that they were riding 3 abreast. If they were she would have hit all of them at the same speed and killed all of them. Due to the injuries she hit the first bike and it slammed into to the others. Must be nice to have a husband cop to lie about how they were riding. She feels depressed? She should. She and her husband shouldn't have lied about them riding 3 abreast across the road. She should have owned up to the accident (even though she was speeding it still was an accident), she would have gotten a ticket. She would still be depressed, that is what PTSD is, but she would be able to forgive herself for the accident, if she didn't lie about them causing the accident.

[Gravekeeper]

I am questioning the "fact" that they were riding 3 abreast. If they were she would have hit all of them at the same speed and killed all of them.

She hit two of them and clipped the third, who was far enough over to not get hit dead on. The one that went over the top of the SUV died. The one that went under it lived, albeit with a crushed pelvis amongst other things. This is not a fact that is in dispute in any way. There's enough moral outrage to go around here without making new shit up.

She should have owned up to the accident (even though she was speeding it still was an accident), she would have gotten a ticket. She would still be depressed, that is what PTSD is, but she would be able to forgive herself for the accident, if she didn't lie about them causing the accident.

Where are you getting any of this from? This is not a criminal investigation, its civil suit. It was already ruled an accident. So unless you've suddenly become clairvoyant your entire post is just ill informed. unfounded pot stirring.

[siead_lietrathua]

I am questioning the "fact" that they were riding 3 abreast. If they were she would have hit all of them at the same speed and killed all of them.

wait, what? how?
even if the kids were in a perfect lineup with eachother, it depends on where along the car's bumper they are as to the damage they take. ones more to the side can be deflected off. dead center, and you're probably going over the hood.
i had some moron of a teen once try to pop his rear tire up on my car. luckily i was far enough away, and he was off-center of me, so he just missed my bumper with his back wheel.** but if i HAD hit him, he would have bounced to the side because of the shape of my car's front end.
plus, just because they were riding abreast doesn't mean that one wouldn't be lagging behind slightly, or another pulled forward. all it means is they are spread out, fairly side-by-side, across the lane.


**exposition: dumbass was biking home from working on our farm, i was driving another kid home in the same direction. broad daylight here. we were going his pace, a few car lengths behind him, waiting for an oncoming car to go by so i could pass him, when he did it. damn near flipped himself over his handlebars too. he knew i was there and was trying to just fuck with me, or it was some sort of scam attempt that failed. sucked for him i had a witness in the car if he had tried anything (never did). tore him a verbal new asshole and he was not invited back for another season.

[patiokitty]

I've been hit by a car while on a bike before, and the driver tried to claim it was entirely my fault but at least he didn't try to sue me and my family. As a driver you should never assume that you're the only one on the road, regardless of the time of day or night, or the condition of the road.

I was lucky to have survived although by all accounts I should have been road pizza. This was before wearing helmets was supposed to be mandatory but I did have reflectors and additional lights on my bike so there was no way the guy couldn't see me, although he tried to claim that there weren't any lights on my bike. When the investigators saw the mangled mess that was my bike it was pretty clear he was full of shit. He was a taxi driver who had already hit two people prior to hitting me and he knew that if he could not pin the accident on me that he would lose his job. Well, guess who lost his job?

I have no use for fucktards like the woman in this story. I get that it's traumatizing and whatnot, but she was at fault in this. I almost wonder if she wasn't suffering from mental illness before the accident and this just made it worse. I mean, if the road was a bad as she says it was, why would she be going full speed down it in the first place? And I think that with her hubby being a cop she may be one of those women who figure she's invincible because she's married to a cop. Mine you the OPP are not exactly reputed to be all that great a police force.

I feel for the parents of the three boys, especially the ones who ended up losing both their sons as a result of this.

[Gravekeeper]

It appears the plot is thicker than it seems here.

This is a counter suit. The family of the dead boy sued her and her husband first ( who was in another vehicle behind her ), claiming neglience, speeding, operating a vehicle while intoxicated and while on the phone. It also claims the husband was negligent in knowing allowing his wife to drive impaired.

However, all of these claims are unfounded or were disproved by the original investigation save the speeding at 10 kpm over the limit. So as deplorable as her lawsuit seems, its the boy's parents that took the first shot across the bow with a lawsuit that is making some shit up.

I have no use for fucktards like the woman in this story. I get that it's traumatizing and whatnot, but she was at fault in this.

This is an unlit, rural road with no sidewalks and nothing but forest on both sides at 1:30am when it was overcast amd raining. With 3 teen cyclists on it that were violating two laws. No helmets and no bike lights or reflector strips. Both of which are the law in Ontario.

That is why the collision reconstruction team determined it was an accident due to lack of visibility and why the crown prosecutor decided there was no basis for criminal charges.

And I think that with her hubby being a cop she may be one of those women who figure she's invincible because she's married to a cop..

Excellent, now we have two clairvoyants in this thread. We'll get to the bottom of this in no time.

[s_stabeler]

It appears the plot is thicker than it seems here.

This is a counter suit. The family of the dead boy sued her and her husband first ( who was in another vehicle behind her ), claiming neglience, speeding, operating a vehicle while intoxicated and while on the phone. It also claims the husband was negligent in knowing allowing his wife to drive impaired.

However, all of these claims are unfounded or were disproved by the original investigation save the speeding at 10 kpm over the limit. So as deplorable as her lawsuit seems, its the boy's parents that took the first shot across the bow with a lawsuit that is making some shit up.

a) again, they WERE wearing reflectors- they were described as minimal by the original investigation team, but they WERE wearing them.
b) I don't trust the original investigation report- it was done by co-workers of the husband of the suspect, and seems to lay quite a lot of the blame on the cyclists for (admittedly) what they did wrong while whitewashing the woman's screwups. And when the victims' family complained, guess who investigated the complaint?
c) even at 1:30am, if she had her lights on, how the hell did she not see that there was something up ahead? note that she never even tried to stop.

This is an unlit, rural road with no sidewalks and nothing but forest on both sides at 1:30am when it was overcast amd raining. With 3 teen cyclists on it that were violating two laws. No helmets and no bike lights or reflector strips. Both of which are the law in Ontario. .

Again, what about the car's headlights? even dipped beam, she would have seen something, and if she really thought it was a deserted road, she should have had her full beams on. If her headlights are broken,s he should not have been driving the car at night. Also, they DID have reflector strips, they were just dismissed as minimal. which, if it is law to have them, probably means that they had the minimum level of reflectors to meet the law.

[Greenday]

WTF? They're trying to hold MINORS to the same standard as professional drivers (preventable vs. non-preventable, rather than at-fault vs. not-at-fault)?

Teenagers are clearly old enough to know better than to wear dark clothing at night while biking on a road and to have reflective gear on their bikes (Only ONE of the kids had MINIMUM amount of reflective gear). There's no excuse for that.

Maybe I drive in a different world than other people, but I've nearly hit people because they were wearing all dark clothing when it's pitch black at night and I didn't see them until it was nearly too late. It happens. My girlfriend hit and killed some idiot walking on an unlit on-ramp to a highway. Same thing. Person wearing all dark clothing (Not to mention walking where they shouldn't be walking). Shit happens. It's extremely feasible she didn't see them until it was too late and it wasn't her fault.