Woman who fatally hit boy suing dead boy and his family

[Sleepwalker]

Not all sociopaths are serial killers. I knew a woman whose daughter kept creaming people merging onto the interstate-she'd be sailing along in the the right lane(the slower traffic/merging lane) at high speed and just not slow down when she came across someone going more slowly than her. After several accidents, license being pulled, etc, she finally killed one person too many and is in prison. I kinda think, after hearing the story, that she'll do it again once she's out. Some people are just that uncaring/inflexible in their thought, like the flip side of jaywalkers who step blindly into traffic because 'they gotta stop'.

[Greenday]

like the flip side of jaywalkers who step blindly into traffic because 'they gotta stop'.

Screw that physics stuff, cars can stop on a dime!

[Gravekeeper]

a) again, they WERE wearing reflectors- they were described as minimal by the original investigation team, but they WERE wearing them.

I did not say they did not have basic reflectors. I said they didn't have the required level of them as mandated by Ontario law. Or helmets.

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.

No, it was performed by a different precint.

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.

Well, I'm glad you've figured out what an accident recreation team and a 26 page report couldn't. A report which I trust you've read the full text of seeing as you claim to know its contents?

See, the thing about large vehicles travelling at speed is that physics is a bitch. Cars are not magic and do not just stop instantly the moment you touch the brakes. It would take around 40 metres to react to something you suddenly spot on the road 45 metres ahead of you at 90 km/h. Then over 50 metres to come to a complete stop. And thats under ideal conditions, not overcast and raining at 1:30am.

If she had been travelling the speed limit on a dry road and spotted their reflectors 45m away and immediately braked, she would still have plowed into them at 66 km/h. There's a reason the accident report conclused the largest factor was visibility and the crown prosecutor said there wasn't enough basis for criminal charges.

[siead_lietrathua]

if it was country backroad, it could be anything from flat n borin' to hills and hairpin turns in this province. hell they just dropped the backroad speeds in my area from 80 to 60. i can easily see how an accident like that could happen.

however, bitch is still a bitch for suing.
i can see the parents suing because, ya know, they lost their fuckin' son.
but her, even if it's a countersuit, just comes across as loony.

[Greenday]

if it was country backroad, it could be anything from flat n borin' to hills and hairpin turns in this province. hell they just dropped the backroad speeds in my area from 80 to 60. i can easily see how an accident like that could happen.

however, bitch is still a bitch for suing.
i can see the parents suing because, ya know, they lost their fuckin' son.
but her, even if it's a countersuit, just comes across as loony.

Who has sued who so far? If the family filed a frivolous lawsuit and put her through misery dragging it on, I could see why she'd sue them for it.

[siead_lietrathua]

Who has sued who so far? If the family filed a frivolous lawsuit and put her through misery dragging it on, I could see why she'd sue them for it.

gk posted about it near the top of this page.

even if she sued the parents for mental trauma, why sue the dead kid's estate, the other injured kids, the county and etc? it's not just suing because she was sued first.

[wolfie]

See, the thing about large vehicles travelling at speed is that physics is a bitch. Cars are not magic and do not just stop instantly the moment you touch the brakes. It would take around 40 metres to react to something you suddenly spot on the road 45 metres ahead of you at 90 km/h. Then over 50 metres to come to a complete stop. And thats under ideal conditions, not overcast and raining at 1:30am.

If she had been travelling the speed limit on a dry road and spotted their reflectors 45m away and immediately braked, she would still have plowed into them at 66 km/h. There's a reason the accident report conclused the largest factor was visibility and the crown prosecutor said there wasn't enough basis for criminal charges.

Ever heard of "driving too fast for conditions"? It doesn't matter what the numbers on the speed limit sign say - if, at the speed you're traveling, your reaction distance plus stopping distance is further than you can see, you're going too damn fast.

[Gravekeeper]

however, bitch is still a bitch for suing.
i can see the parents suing because, ya know, they lost their fuckin' son.
but her, even if it's a countersuit, just comes across as loony.

The parents sued her and her husband ( who was not directly involved in the accident ) claiming she was drunk, texting, etc. Then sued him claiming he knew she was drunk and didn't stop her. All claims which are unfounded or unproven by the criminal investigation.

So they carpet bomb sued her, she a-bomb sued them, basically. Given that she's quite likely mentally/emotionally unstable at this point and if she has PTSD, may be prone to mood swings and fits of anger, then yeah I can see her going totally off her rocker and just suing absolutely everyone. But again, that's where the lawyer should have said hey, wait a sec.

Apparently her lawyer is known as kind of a sleaze ball. Like he's one of those late night commercial have you been hurt we can get you millions type lawyers.

Ever heard of "driving too fast for conditions"? It doesn't matter what the numbers on the speed limit sign say - if, at the speed you're traveling, your reaction distance plus stopping distance is further than you can see, you're going too damn fast.

So, do you drive at 20-25 km/h at all times at night? Because thats the speed you would have to be travelling under night time visibility conditions in order to stop in time without hitting these cyclists.

Plus you can just flip that around. Why were they riding in the middle of the road with no hlemets and poor reflectors at 1:30am and not notice an SUV coming? Its a long straight stretch of road, an SUV is loud and its lights would be very clearly visible. Plus there was another vehicle immediately behind her and another vehicle coming the other way. So 3 vehicles, all with head lights and engine noise, on a straight stretch of road in the dark. Yet they remained in the middle of the road riding abreast rather than go off to the shoulder.

There's a reason this was ruled an accident and not criminal negligence.

[fireheart17]

My first thought when I saw the words "Canada" was "please don't let this be a driver from Canada's Worst Driver"...it sounded SO much like one of them.

Thank fuck it wasn't! That would be even MORE scarier! (There are two cases where I would be scared and I'm in Australia! The first was Dale who I think has had her licence revoked and the other is Kevin)

[HYHYBT]

If there was another vehicle coming the other way, that explains a lot. You don't normally use the high beams then, and the bright light in the other lane, even by itself, makes dark objects in your own all but impossible to see.

[siead_lietrathua]

GK: what i ment is i can understand the parent's urge to sue. in their mind, the woman murdered their son. it doesn't matter that it was ruled an accident, it's kinda of a 'if the courts won't get her, we will!' thing. grief and anger make ugly playmates.
just because i can understand, doesn't mean i approve. just that i 'get it'.

the thing that disgusts me so much about the woman's countersuit is the sheer amount. i mean, if she was suing for laywer costs, maybe a couple grand tacked on for dealing with harrassment, sure. but over a million? c'mon, that's hitting the greed territory.

[Gravekeeper]

GK: what i ment is i can understand the parent's urge to sue.

Oh I completely understand. I think the problem is they crammed a bunch of small town rumours into it as fact.

the thing that disgusts me so much about the woman's countersuit is the sheer amount. i mean, if she was suing for laywer costs, maybe a couple grand tacked on for dealing with harrassment, sure. but over a million? c'mon, that's hitting the greed territory.

Well, sleazy lawyer. Could just be a rage figure too. Or it could just be aiming high because the lawyer knows it will get reduced anyway if they win.

Or it could be the parent's lawsuit. I can't find any information on how much the parent's are suing her and her husband for. If they threw some ridiculous number at her, it might be retaliation. Need to do some digging....

Ahh, here we go: $900,000. Since this is a counter suit, that's $900k to negate their lawsuit. Plus she can concievably add more due to lost work, medical bills, etc. Which is the problem with this whole scenario. They're going after her claiming negligence, but she can also claim neglience. Because there is fault on both sides.

[s_stabeler]

There is fault on bot sides, but if this was a minor rural road, then how come she was going at 50MPH with oncoming cars? most rural roads I know of are quite narrow- and I'd have been going slower to avoid risking clipping the oncoming car, if nothing else.

[Sleepwalker]

Yeah, and around here I'd have been going slowly to avoid idling turkey flocks. I can't extrapolate roving bands of drumsticks to where the accident happened, all this talk of road conditions is just wild speculation.

[s_stabeler]

Yeah, and around here I'd have been going slowly to avoid idling turkey flocks. I can't extrapolate roving bands of drumsticks to where the accident happened, all this talk of road conditions is just wild speculation.

actually, it's not- we know it was dark, and we know that the police report says she could not have avoided the accident.