Big Cliff Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 I kind of have mixed feelings about this whole thing; If I understand correctly she is being sued, am I correct? Now she is counter sueing, am I still correct? It sounds to me like this was an ACCIDENT! The only sad part of it is that a child lost their life and several other people including the driver and the parents have had their lives changed forever. It is sad but it happens all the time, kids do things they shouldn't, christ, adults do things they shouldn't and sometimes we get lucky and sometimes we aren't. I just don't see the logic in eather party sueing anyone, it isn't going to bring the child back, and it isn't going to remove the feeling that the driver has. However if the driver is being sued I totally understand a counter suit. If someone pointed a finger at you and said "murderer" would you just stand there and take it if you were innocent? My wife hit a kid on a bike almost 40 years ago, it was the kids fault, he came out from behind parked cars and right in front of her, there was nothing she could have done to avoide it. To this day it still bothers my her! Forty years and this has plagued her, who is to blame; the kid for making a mistake? Or her for being on the road that night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Ironmaker Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) This multi quote thing doesn't want to work for me. As far as shooting her, not too drastic. I can think of worse thing for this excuse of a human being. If I wrote what I really thought I'd be getting sued. Coming out of retirement is what I'm thinking of doing. Not from Ironmaking but from the days we did some things on the streets of Hamilton some years back I'd like to forget. Fishin Autographs. I know you see things the general public will never see and never want to, but you said your not surprised. Is it really that bad out there now? I wouldn't be surprised to see this happening in some backwater county in the States but here in Ontario, really? To even try and lay blame on the parents for letting the kids ride on a dark, wet night is ridiculous. If anyone knows tonight your child will be killed they would never be let out of ones sight. It's tough being the parent of a teen, now and before. If anyone thinks they really know what their teens are up to, or 20 year olds you're very naïve. Edited April 25, 2014 by Old Ironmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucktownAngler Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 sounds like the cop husband smoothed things over with his buddies, and they drove off worry free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moxie Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Laughable but thats the world we now live in. The herds of lawyers, like politicians must be thinned out . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirCranksalot Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 I think this topic has gotten a bit too much reaction. There are probably several different versions of the truth here, noone of which is contained in the news report. These reports are notorious for giving an incomplete and misleading picture. It sounds like 2 insurance cos suing each other, as someone above pointed out. I guess the 'defendant' ins co thinks the best defence is a good offence. (But just a guess because nobody can determine the truth from a press report). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Why a breathalyzer test wasn't performed is a bit odd considering it was a crash at 1:30am. Must be a perk of your significant other being a cop. There's not very many times that I am out on the roads at that hour without either having or being the designated driver. Maybe her designated driver was following behind in his cruiser?? We will never know the true story. Too bad for everyone involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iFish4real Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 this just proves yet again how wrong this monetary world we live in today is...human beings are losing any sense of morality and are capabale of doing ANYTHING for MONEY !!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassMan11 Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 Yeah sure she might have a case. So what? I don't need a lawyer to tell me what's morally right. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moxie Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 Still shaking my head. This is where our society is heading? You know that usually white porcelain apparatus we stand, sit or occasionally hover over with the chrome or white handle/button that when depressed causes the rapid discharge and movement of water in a clockwise direction towards the bottom of the bowl? Thats the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishermccann Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 You sue me , I will sue you, who is wrong-right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnote Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 You sue me , I will sue you, who is wrong-right? The person who was speeding and ran down a kid is wrong. Pretty obvious if you ask me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 To plays devils advocate for a minute, Innisfil Beach Rd is a 80km/h zone. Last place you'd find me.... on a bike.......at 1am with no lights. There's no way you can place 100% of the blame on the driver. Should she be suing them? Absolutely not, that's just unbelievable and classless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musky666 Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 Our society is becoming one of 'not my responsibility' not the parents responsibility to know where,when and what their kids are up to, not the drivers responsibility to always be alert and drive according to conditions, not mine, not yours. I see it all the time in my municipal worker world- towns are sued all the time- not my fault my child fell down the stairs, tripped on the sidewalk, hurt themselves on the park slide etc, its the new way of life in Canada- blame someone else.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishermccann Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) No charges were laid against the driver , so no crime. They are suing her for $ 900,000 to pay for medical and funeral costs, must of been some funeral. Edited April 27, 2014 by fishermccann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Diamond and Diamond adds bug me to no end as well... ... 80K zone.. dark and rainy, it's a crap shoot and yes I'm sure the husband help move the situation along for her that night... but hard to lay blame. That said... 60K zone on Friday night.. light rain and Leah almost tagged a guy on a bike right in front of Sargents cement factory on 93, returning from Toronto after dropping Jen off. Guy had no lights or reflectors, riding down the center of the lane... wearing camouflage... and when she went to swerve around him there was a guy walking in the other direction on the opposite side in dark clothes. She could have EASILY got them both. Was still shaking when she got home.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Cliff Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Pedestrians and cycilists seem to have the attitude that because they have the right to do something it is alright to do it. What they don't seem to understand is that a car traveling at 80km/hr is coming at them at 73'/second. On a dark night with no lights assuming the driver can see them even 230' away that gives the driver less than 3 seconds to realize what it is they are seeing and take evasive action. Reports say this woman was doing 90 in an 80 zone, who here doesn't? She blew zero on the road side breathalizer She had no reason to expect that there would be 3 kids without lights riding abreast on that road at 1;30 in the morning. The reports that one of the invistagators was a friend of her husbands turned out to be false. She didn't file a suit against them until after they sued her. I'm sorry but if most of you were in her situation I think you would be filing a countersuit too or would you just say it's all my fault and pay the $900,000.00? Wayne, glad to hear that Leah managed to avoid them but here is where I think they should be charged! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Cliff, her insurance is on the hook for the $$$, not her personally. Like I said in your thread, that's why you pay those monthly auto insurance fees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishermccann Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 I do think that it is her insurance co. suing them back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 I do think that it is her insurance co. suing them back. This happens all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishermccann Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) Then why is everyone so upset in this case? Because thier lawyer contacted the newspaper? Edited April 28, 2014 by fishermccann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Then why is everyone so upset in this case? Because thier lawyer contacted the newspaper? Probably because the news outlet wanted a lot of drama and they got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch312 Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 This multi quote thing doesn't want to work for me. As far as shooting her, not too drastic. I can think of worse thing for this excuse of a human being. If I wrote what I really thought I'd be getting sued. Coming out of retirement is what I'm thinking of doing. Not from Ironmaking but from the days we did some things on the streets of Hamilton some years back I'd like to forget. Seriously? Even the kids dad acknowledges that his kid was in the wrong..."“I know they should not have been out there that late,” his father said." Many people who ride their bikes at night within city limits, where most streets have adequate lighting, put front and rear lights on their bikes and some even wear reflective clothing. Riding a bike at 1 am on a rainy night with no lights or reflective clothing on a road with an 80 km/h speed limit and, from what I recall, no street lights is absolutely stupid and the kids are mostly at fault here. While we have yet to hear what the surviving kids had to say, there is this from the drivers side: "In a statement of claim filed with the court, Simon is claiming $1.35 million in damages due to her psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress. She blames the boys for negligence." If in fact the boys were negligent, which I believe they were, this lady ended up killing a kid due to the kids negligence as I highly doubt she saw the kids on the road and tried to run them down. I dunno about you guys, but if I killed a kid under the same circumstances I would likely be as devastated as the parents who lost their kid. This lady is likely going to be messed up for a long time. It's very sad to hear about a teen losing their life, but just because it was a kid that died does not negate the fact that he is at fault. Was the bicycle proper equipped? HTA 62(17) - Lights a bike must have a white front light and a red rear light or reflector if you ride between 1/2 hour before sunset and 1/2 hour after sunrise and white reflective tape on the front forks and red reflective tape on rear forks. Set fine: $20.00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishermccann Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Do you think the driver would have sued if the kids family had not? I guess we will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fisher Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 I don't think it's the isurance company that is suing, otherwise; wouldn't the suit be in the insurance company's name (or at least named as a co-complainant)? Sad that she is going to put the parents through all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 I don't think it's the isurance company that is suing, otherwise; wouldn't the suit be in the insurance company's name (or at least named as a co-complainant)? Sad that she is going to put the parents through all of this. It's the insurance company..... It wouldn't be very interesting if the article stated 'Insurance company #1 suing insurance company #2' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now