Sharlene Simon, who struck and killed 17-year-old cyclist Brandon Majewski, is now suing the estate of the dead teen for $1.35-million in 'pain and suffering'.
Can you believe that?
Linky
Can you believe that?
Linky
Killer sues victim for pain and suffering
- Thread starter Lepplady
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
...oh the death and injury was caused by "lack of visibility" alright....the fact that she had her #$#@% face buried in her phone would be the mechanism of fatal injury...and the fact that she's lawyered up, and claiming what she is, only proves she isn't worthy of the label-"human being".....
I imagine what she's hoping for is a settlement and no trial. Most frivolous lawsuits are about that, not justice, of course (hence frivolous). It's a sign of the times, imho; the increasing prevalence of thoughtless, heartless, irresponsible people (After the accident she apparently said, "I don't care."). The idea of the driver's inability to see well - even if the claim is provable - being the bike riders' faults seems ridiculous enough to me that a judge and jury must laugh the b***h and her silly attorney out of court.
Neesy
#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
God I hope not - this is in Ontario where I am from. If she wins, it will open the flood gates to all kinds of screwy lawsuits!
I think the article says those things happened in a different accident.
~~~~
I know nothing about the details of this accident in the article. But earlier today, we were driving up a busy street, two lanes of traffic in each direction. A guy was riding a bike on the road (adults on bikes are not allowed on the sidewalk). This guy had no helmet, was "playing drums" on his legs, while riding in busy traffic, and wearing headphones. He was also weaving around pot-holes...by leaning when he could, but sometimes actually putting his hands on the handlebars. Sometimes the driver of the car isn't guilty. The guy we saw actually cut off a few cars, who fortunately didn't hit him....but when you are driving and a bike suddenly pulls in front of you....sometimes you cannot avoid hitting the person.
Found this article.
Read more: Driver sues estate of Ontario teen Brandon Majewski, who was struck, killed | CTV News
The parents are sueing her, and this is basically a counter-suit.
Read more: Driver sues estate of Ontario teen Brandon Majewski, who was struck, killed | CTV News
The parents are sueing her, and this is basically a counter-suit.
Neesy
#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
I am not sure - who started the claim? The dead boy's parents? Did they sue first?
Yes. They were sueing her. I assume "wrongful death". But, if it's true there was nothing she did wrong, that's not right either, IMO.
...you are correct about the article, however-that was my own extrapolation of what might have occurred, given the proliferation of asshat behavior due to texting being more important than focusing on driving...or human life...
Well, if she did nothing wrong, she shouldn't 'to be getting sued. And if the kids were the ones acting like asshats, then a year of the stress she's been living with.....I don't blame her for the counter suit.
People driving cars do need to watch for others. Absolutely. But, people driving bikes and motorcycles need to watch as well. They need to take some of the responsibility themselves. Wear proper safety helmets, and drive like they haven 'to already suffered brain damage.
People driving cars do need to watch for others. Absolutely. But, people driving bikes and motorcycles need to watch as well. They need to take some of the responsibility themselves. Wear proper safety helmets, and drive like they haven 'to already suffered brain damage.
I don't know much about the judicial system in Canada but what kind of moronic judge (or magistrate?) would even allow a lawsuit like this?
Neesy
#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
I know - this will set a precedent if this case goes to court - it opens the floodgates to all sorts of ridiculous claims.
She'll cash in whether she wins this case or not. She'll write book or sell a movie. Something.
That's what the victim's family should do, IMO.
That's what the victim's family should do, IMO.
So, without knowing details she is guilty? The investigation says she was not guilty. But, she's being condemned....why exactly?
I think, IF the kids pulled out in front of the car, and there was nothing a driver could do to avoid hitting them, then allowing the driver and the owner of the car to be sued is a dangerous precedent setting issue too.
I think, IF the kids pulled out in front of the car, and there was nothing a driver could do to avoid hitting them, then allowing the driver and the owner of the car to be sued is a dangerous precedent setting issue too.
Neesy
#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
Neither party should have sued, in my personal opinion. I guess what they are saying is bizarre is that she is suing a 17 year old dead kid which is kind of mind blowing actually.
Okay, I haven't read the link, so squash me for that. I'm just going on what I'm reading in the thread.
But let's say that a car runs a stop sign and the vehicle n the through lane hits that car. (This happened to me, as a matter of fact, but not what follows.) The driver who ran the stop sign is killed. The driver of the car with the right-of-way gets injured. Let's just go with that hypothesis for now.
The driver who is injured would then have every right to seek damages from the estate of the driver who was in the wrong. I don't think there's any disagreement with that.
Now, if a bicyclist ran the stop sign and got smacked and killed, I'm sure the driver of the car with the right-of-way would be suffering. I sure would. Whether it was my fault or not, I wouldn't want to carry the thought of killing another human being.
So I can see that, in that scenario, there's a theoretical cause of action for distress. Theoretical. In fact, I don't think many juries would be very sympathetic, and if I were truly interested in putting it behind me, I'd try to put it behind me and not relive it over and over again in the litigation process and feed off of the estate. I mean, that's counterintuitive to "I feel guilty" and more intuitive to "Let's see what I can get out of this." If I were the defense lawyer, that's what I'd argue.
Just my thoughts.
But let's say that a car runs a stop sign and the vehicle n the through lane hits that car. (This happened to me, as a matter of fact, but not what follows.) The driver who ran the stop sign is killed. The driver of the car with the right-of-way gets injured. Let's just go with that hypothesis for now.
The driver who is injured would then have every right to seek damages from the estate of the driver who was in the wrong. I don't think there's any disagreement with that.
Now, if a bicyclist ran the stop sign and got smacked and killed, I'm sure the driver of the car with the right-of-way would be suffering. I sure would. Whether it was my fault or not, I wouldn't want to carry the thought of killing another human being.
So I can see that, in that scenario, there's a theoretical cause of action for distress. Theoretical. In fact, I don't think many juries would be very sympathetic, and if I were truly interested in putting it behind me, I'd try to put it behind me and not relive it over and over again in the litigation process and feed off of the estate. I mean, that's counterintuitive to "I feel guilty" and more intuitive to "Let's see what I can get out of this." If I were the defense lawyer, that's what I'd argue.
Just my thoughts.