Killer sues victim for pain and suffering

[AnnaMarie]

Grandpa, I completely agree. (Great analogy.)

In this instance the family of the kid is sueing the driver and sueing the owner of the car (her husband). So, putting it behind her is not an option.

And according to the article, an investigation said the driver could not have avoided the accident.

 

[Bryan James]

This world has too many armchair lawyers and not enough Dexters.

 

[AnnaMarie]

This world has too many armchair lawyers and not enough Dexters.

Lol. Unfortunately, more and more Dexters.

 

[Shasta]

Okay, I haven't read the link, so squash me for that. I'm just going on what I'm reading in the thread.

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.

Normally I can see both sides of the story but this one just disgusts me. Yes, it looks like it wasn't neccessarily a "fault" accident, but how callous can someone be??? I do think the journalism is slightly sensationalistic. They say she told cops, "I just don't care," but they never say what she actually said that about. Regardless, she killed a teenage boy, accident or not. Others are probably going to go bankrupt caring for the kid in the hospital that wasn't killed. How can anyone sue a family that is suffering like that??

 

[AnnaMarie]

Normally I can see both sides of the story but this one just disgusts me. Yes, it looks like it wasn't neccessarily a "fault" accident, but how callous can someone be??? I do think the journalism is slightly sensationalistic. They say she told cops, "I just don't care," but they never say what she actually said that about. Regardless, she killed a teenage boy, accident or not. Others are probably going to go bankrupt caring for the kid in the hospital that wasn't killed. How can anyone sue a family that is suffering like that??

You are confusing drivers.

Texting while driving is a horrible and dangerous idea, but what's worse is saying "I just don't care" like 21-year-old Kimberley Davis did after slamming her car into a cyclist (injuring his spine) while texting behind the wheel.

Although she called emergency responders upon hitting the cyclist, the injured man says he was left lying on the side of the road because Davis refused to render him any assistance after running him over. But wait, there's more.

According to the Standard, the shocking words spoken by the young Australian driver in her statement to police show that her only regret seems to selfishly be over the dents this incident left on her 'pretty expensive' car.

The original article posted in this thread refers to this Kimberly in Australia who said that after causing an accident by texting.

This woman in Canada did not say that and was deemed not guilty.

If you were NOT GUILTY of having committed a crime, but felt guilty for what happened (a decent person would feel guilty even if the kid popped out of no where in front of their vehicle) so, she is not guilty legally, but feels guilty....and the parents are sueing her. Her only legal defence is a counter suit.

Knowing the laws here, if the driver was found not guilty, most likely the kid on the bike was either goofing or cut the car off or something like that.