Woman sues teen she hit and killed

[LadyL]

disclaimer: in posting the following, I do not mean any disrespect to the teenagers or their families or anyone else for that matter

in regarding fault, let's assume for the sake of argument that the driver is not intoxicated or distracted or speeding ... just driving along a highway late at night on her way home when ...

she hits a deer.

she didn't see the deer because usually the only time we see a deer in the roadway at night is when there's a flash if our headlights hit their eyes

who's at fault? the driver or the deer or neither?

 

[LadyL]

I read The family of the deceased teen is suing for Funeral and Medical expenses.
From what I know that is not a highly unusual claim to be made

http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/2014/04/25/driver-that-struck--alcona-teen-suing-dead-boys-family
Cameron has launched a routine lawsuit against the driver, mainly for medical and funeral costs on behalf of the boys and their families. He alleges Simon was speeding and may have been intoxicated and talking on her cellphone.


The Driver (also named as Plaintiffs in her suit..her husband, her mother and her 3 children) is suing, for 1.35 million, the dead teen, the teens parents, the dead teens' now deceased brother, the other teens and their families for emotional trauma, and suing the County which maintains this rural road

I wonder what medical costs they endured that weren't covered by OHIP? Unless they had out of pocket meds or counselling to help with their grief etc. I think it's about $75 or so for an ambulance. The hospital and emergency services are free.

 

[LinasK]

I completely forgot about a couple of more recent cases that happened in the Bay Area where 17-year-old drivers were speeding and killed bicyclists, and there's been a few in San Francisco too...

 

[LinasK]

the title is misleading ... this is a countersuit - which everyone files when they are sued

did the plaintiff actually expect them not to file a countersuit? her kid was biking in the middle of a highway in the dark at 1:30 a.m. with no bikelights, no reflectors, and no helmet

yes, the defendant(s) are traumatized - why wouldn't they be?

btw, for those questioning the speed - the driver claims about 90 km but there might have been other drivers (husband following?) who were going around the same speed who could attest to the 90 km estimate and there might also have been brake marks that police can measure to assess speed

Mmmm, no, I don't agree that everyone who is sued files a countersuit. And many times, like with Casey Anthony, the counter suits have no basis and they are thrown out.

 

[LinasK]

First, let me say, this is a tradegy for all of them. However, I don't blame the woman for counter suing. What about the responsibility of the parents who allowed their kids to be out, riding down the middle of the road at 1:30 am? As a parent I have to say, that is total irresponsibility on their part. Those kids should have been at home at that hour.

Come on, be realistic- these were 17-year-old boys. How many parents are able to enforce curfews on 17-year-olds???

 

[Intermezzo]

A collision reconstruction team from the South Simcoe Police Service investigated the crash; their 26-page report found that the “lack of visibility” of the cyclists “was the largest contributing factor,” and that on a dark overcast night, “the driver of the Kia did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to make an evasive reaction.”

(regarding earlier questions about speed, collision team would've investigated that)


As Mr. Majewski put it, “They’re kids; they’re allowed to make a mistake.” -

(so older teenagers are allowed to make a mistake that costs lives and causes trauma but the driver is not allowed to possibly make a mistake because she's an adult?)


... wasn’t required to take a breathalyzer test because there were “no grounds to request” one. A roadside screening device was administered “out of an abundance for caution,” the report said, and registered “zero alcohol content in her blood system.”

(what is a roadside screening device? - whatever it is, it measured zero alcohol)


Their suit alleges Ms. Simon was speeding, under the influence or texting at the time of the accident

(they don't even know which to accuse her of? let's just throw it all against the wall and see what sticks?)


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...-sued-by-motorist-for-her-pain-and-suffering/

bbm
This part I really don't get...
The quote by the dad about the kids making a mistake was said after they found out about the lawsuit against the dead teen and the others...

 

[Yoda]

:scared:

Come on, be realistic- these were 17-year-old boys. How many parents are able to enforce curfews on 17-year-olds???

Parents who take parenting seriously. Me. Jmo

 

[Intermezzo]

I wonder what medical costs they endured that weren't covered by OHIP? Unless they had out of pocket meds or counselling to help with their grief etc. I think it's about $75 or so for an ambulance. The hospital and emergency services are free.

I agree.
Could be costs for medication not covered, or counselling, but I can't think of anything else...I just don't know.

 

[LadyL]

According to this article, they did leave the scene, so how could a breathalyzer be done???

the lady who was attending to Brandon said she did not see the husband for the rest of the night

then she says they were both allowed to leave while she & others were forced to stay at the scene until 5:30 a.m.

1. just because she did not see the husband does not mean he wasn't there (he could've easily been sitting in the back of a cruiser giving his version of events or comforting his wife)

2. if the driver and/or husband were released from the scene by police, then that's not 'leaving the scene' - the preliminary questioning and roadside test (whatever it is, I have no idea) would've already been done - but again, we don't know exactly when they left or for what reason (they could've gone home to relieve the babysitter, gone to a family members for support, gone to the hospital for medical care - for all we know, the wife was in an ambulance being treated for shock

or yes, the husband could've fled the scene because he was inebriated (and a cop) and wanted to get out of there before the authorities arrived - if that was what occurred, it would make his part of the countersuit disgusting and immoral

so did he leave the scene? were they both released to go home? were they in a cruiser/ambulance/at the hospital which explains why the witness did not see them after a certain time?

of course LE is going to question/release the driver and husband first as they were the most involved - the lady who held Brandon's hand is a secondary witness and so she wasn't necessarily kept longer but lower on the priority list - I'm positive the cops did not force her to stay at the scene and that had she asked, she would've been free to go but naturally she stayed until they released her, which is what good people do

 

[Karmady]

The driving 10KM/H over the posted limit is HER word..right? She told the Police she was driving 90KM/H in a 80KM/H zone

And I agree most Officers would not stop you or ticket you for 10 over the limit.. you don't lose any Demerit points on your Drv Lic at 10KM/H over the speed limit either.

My brother in laws are Police Officers..IN the City they may pull drivers over for doing 10 over the limit in a Residential area. BUT they rarely issue a ticket..Mostly warnings because there are children in the area.

10 what (k) is significant. She was basically doing 55 in a 50. In the US a cop wouldn't even look at you sidewise unless MAYBE you were in a school zone. jmo

 

[LadyL]

Mmmm, no, I don't agree that everyone who is sued files a countersuit. And many times, like with Casey Anthony, the counter suits have no basis and they are thrown out.

really? who doesn't?

I can't imagine not filing a countersuit if someone is suing me for almost a million dollars and my future is on the line

I guess if it's a relatively minor civil suit but don't insurance co's always file countersuits?

 

[Simply Caustic]

I think it's beyond gauche to sue the dead teen/his family. JMO, though.

I think his family filed the initial suit out of a desperate attempt to place blame - they lost so much, those parents, that I refuse to judge them for filing suit. Not saying they should be granted their demands, but if the suit is frivolous it will be dealt with by the court system. I believe it's a rough stage of grief they're going through, and lawyers can be - not always, but some are pariahs that prey upon the weak, like these parents.

But in regards to curfew? I'd be hesitant to blame the parents for a minor curfew violation...actually I'm unsure if curfew is enforceable after 17 but I could have a faulty memory on that. Regardless I've seen parents lose their toddler for hours and receive taciturn politeness here on WS. Imo these parents deserve nothing less.

Hopefully none of us will ever have to live with their grief, so, imo, the commentary on their parenting skills are not in line with our nonblaming of victims. JMO and with respect to my fellow posters.

ETA: If her insurance company filed suit, then imo she has no choice but to submit to their decisions, depending on her policy, and my point would be moot.
Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie

 

[Yoda]

Article from Nov 8 2012. Info about the boys from their families.

http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/1993355-criticism-stings-parents-after-fatal-crash/

 

[Yoda]

"Const. Dave Phillips, of the traffic and marine unit, said he is overwhelmed by the number of witnesses — 16 to date — who have contacted police with information about the case."
10/31/12 article
http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/20...nnisfil-youth-struck-and-killed-while-cycling

 

[LadyL]

10 what (k) is significant. She was basically doing 55 in a 50. In the US a cop wouldn't even look at you sidewise unless MAYBE you were in a school zone. jmo

they don't look at you sideways here either

probably won't even get pulled over for less than 20k over

a school zone I'm not sure about - I'd expect them to be more vigilant but who knows if they actually are

 

[Intermezzo]

10 what (k) is significant. She was basically doing 55 in a 50. In the US a cop wouldn't even look at you sidewise unless MAYBE you were in a school zone. jmo

It's the same here
School zone
construction zone
or areas where homeowners complain of speeding and the police have to conduct checks.

 

[Yoda]

Man who lives in area describes the road/site/etc where boys were struck.
"“It is dark. You have no visibility, even with headlights,” he said. “If it's by the forest, it's a dark spot. Because of the trees, any light there is shadowed.

“It's not something (bicycles) you expect to see. . .at night.”

Demaline has lived there for less than a year, but says traffic is often heavy and fast on this stretch of Innisfil Beach Road – despite frequent police presence — because it connects to Highway 400 and Barrie.

"It's not a road frequented by cyclists, especially at the that time of night," said Staff Sgt. Steven Wilson.

“This road is crazy for idiot drivers,” Demaline said. “Since last December, I've seen four accidents. It's brutal here.”


http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/2012/10/28/vehicle-hits-two-cyclists

 

[Yoda]

 

[Simply Caustic]

they don't look at you sideways here either

probably won't even get pulled over for less than 20k over

a school zone I'm not sure about - I'd expect them to be more vigilant but who knows if they actually are

Maybe this is part of what formulates the differing opinions...out here in Chicago and the burbs, I would never go more than 5 over, comfortably...10 at the highest end of the spectrum and I would be hesitant to do that.
The expressways are another matter, I go with the flow of traffic...but after viewing the picture of the accident location...I would use extreme caution on such a dark, heavily wooded strip of road. I would be afraid of deer. Maybe it's city driver syndrome affecting my viewpoint.

So perhaps the locale of the accident is much different, and 10mph speeding is a given/common. JMO

Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie

 

[Intermezzo]

Just for the sake of knowing I looked up the curfew laws for Ontario

Curfew under the Child And Family Serviced Act refers to children UNDER 16yrs of age

http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/community/parent_zone/parent_curfew.aspx
EXCERPTS FROM THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT

Allowing child to loiter, etc.

79(5) No parent of a child less than sixteen years of age shall permit the child to,

loiter in a public place between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m.; or
be in a place of public entertainment between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m., unless the parent accompanies the child or authorizes a specified individual eighteen years of age or older to accompany the child.
Police may take child home or to place of safety

79(6) Where a child who is actually or apparently less than sixteen years of age is in a place to which the public has access between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. and is not accompanied by a person described in clause (5) (b), a peace officer may apprehend the child without a warrant and proceed as if the child had been apprehended under subsection 42 (1).