Annother WTF moment brought to you by the folks in the Great White North

[vaskidmark]

http://nypost.com/2014/04/27/driver-sues-parents-of-boy-she-killed/

A woman who hit three teenage boys on bikes while driving, killing one and injuring the other two, is suing the dead teen for the emotional trauma she suffered.

Mother-of-three Sharlene Simon, 42, is also suing the other two boys and the dead boy’s family for $1.35 million in damages due to her psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress.

....

In a statement of claim filed in a Canadian court, Simon blames the boys for negligence, the Toronto Sun reports.

“They did not apply their brakes properly,” the claim states. “They were incompetent bicyclists.”

Simon is also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.

I beg your effing pardon.  You are suing whom?  For what?  Because why?

Canada has been pretty much circling the drain with their don't-offend-the-Muslims speech laws, but if this actually gets heard (let alone prevails) the place is going to cause enough suction going down that the Moon will shrink its orbit by half.

stay safe.

[Hawkmoon]

More proof that Shakespeare was prescient when he penned "Let's kill all the lawyers"

(With apologies to Ned and Chris)

[Northwoods]

Not that unusual from what I hear in the USA either.  Usually the suit is filed by the killer while incarcerted as they have nothing better to do and its either some twisted odea of revenge against the people that  "got them into jail" or plain greed after hearing of other inmates that won money from their victims.

[Strings]

I was involved around the edges of such a case: driver was a reserve deputy sheriff, and the deceased was a teenage girl in her own car

[Boomhauer]

Here in my hometown a school bus plowed into a car at about 45-50mph...the car was waiting to turn left into a parking lot. Clear day, good visibility. The 19 y.o. girl in the car was pretty *expletive deleted*ed up from the wreck.

The state (which owns and operates the buses) sued her.

[cordex]

I saw a little girl on a bike get hit by a car once. I was the first on the scene and my name was in the police report. Thankfully the girl survived.

About a year later the girl's mom called me and said she wanted me to give a statement to her lawyer because the driver's insurance company was suing the girl for the damage to the car.

[T.O.M.]

More proof that Shakespeare was prescient when he penned "Let's kill all the lawyers"

(With apologies to Ned and Chris)

Apology unnecessary, but appreciated.  I realize that it's that bad 90% of lawyers that give the rest of us a bad name.

Seriously, the issue of a lawsuit gives me concerns in a self-defense scenario.  Lawyer on behalf of the deceased/injured criminal and/or his family will sue, and will allege negligence to get the homeowners insurance involved.  The hope is that the insurance company will want to get out quick, so offer cash to settle, and it's an easy payday for lawyer and family...unless the insurance company denies coverage because the shooting was an intentional act, and is not covered by the insurance policy.  For this reason, I favor giving a statement to the police (with counsel, of course), as it will go a long way in keeping out the deep pockets of the insurance company.  After that, I don't have much but ongoing student loan debts, a mortgage, and cars I still owe on.  Not a good target for an ambulance chaser.

[RevDisk]

Apology unnecessary, but appreciated.  I realize that it's that bad 90% of lawyers that give the rest of us a bad name.

Seriously, the issue of a lawsuit gives me concerns in a self-defense scenario.  Lawyer on behalf of the deceased/injured criminal and/or his family will sue, and will allege negligence to get the homeowners insurance involved.  The hope is that the insurance company will want to get out quick, so offer cash to settle, and it's an easy payday for lawyer and family...unless the insurance company denies coverage because the shooting was an intentional act, and is not covered by the insurance policy.  For this reason, I favor giving a statement to the police (with counsel, of course), as it will go a long way in keeping out the deep pockets of the insurance company.  After that, I don't have much but ongoing student loan debts, a mortgage, and cars I still owe on.  Not a good target for an ambulance chaser.

That is the most important part of PA's Castle Doctrine, civil immunity if the shooting was legit.

Question, do any of those "sue the victim" win in court? Is it is just intended to scare the victim into settling or not suing? I generally mean unrelated to firearms. I'm familiar with victims suing the shooter of a self-defense case, because the shooter did use force against the aggressor. Assuming the self-defense was valid, it's an awful tactic of the family of a criminal but makes an ounce of sense on the surface. Suing the person YOU hit in YOUR car makes no sense unless they were significantly negligent or intentionally doing something wrong, like those motorcycle guys that the SUV hit to escape after one of their members brake checked the SUV.

[White Horseradish]

IIRC, Minnesota has a law that prohibits civil lawsuits if the damages claimed were incurred in the course of committing a criminal offense. Sounds pretty dang sensible to me.

[Balog]

More proof that Shakespeare was prescient when he penned "Let's kill all the lawyers"

(With apologies to Ned and Chris)

In context, he was talking about law makers ie politicians mot lawyers as we understand it today.

[AJ Dual]

In context, he was talking about law makers ie politicians mot lawyers as we understand it today.

My understanding as well, or even more specifically people who twist the meaning or intent of laws, or who intentionally debate the finer points of law ad nauseum on purpose to bog things down, or as a means onto itself.

[Viking]

Apparently she sued only after being sued herself by the family/families of the dead teen(s).

[Hawkmoon]

My understanding as well, or even more specifically people who twist the meaning or intent of laws, or who intentionally debate the finer points of law ad nauseum on purpose to bog things down, or as a means onto itself.

Is that not the essence and purpose of such nuisance lawsuits?

[Tallpine]

the issue of a lawsuit gives me concerns in a self-defense scenario

Don't you think a homeowner should be able to sue the estate of a deceased home invader for clean-up costs, damage to doors/windows, time lost from work, emotional damage 

 

Apparently she sued only after being sued herself by the family/families of the dead teen(s).

Yeah, I was going to point that out also 

[Stand_watie]

Apparently she sued only after being sued herself by the family/families of the dead teen(s).

I inferred that was a possibility from the final paragraph of the article. That puts an entirely different spin on the notion of the lawsuit and takes it entirely out of the WTF/Horrific! category and into the tragic, but entirely predictable category.

Imagining a best case scenario of the driver's actions, I have no trouble whatsoever seeing how having your heart destroyed (and if you have a soul your heart would be destroyed) by being at the wheel when a child was killed by his own (ordinary and common) negligence, and then to be sued and accused of manslaughter to add insult and financial damage to that pain, would contribute to some people suing in response.

[T.O.M.]

That is the most important part of PA's Castle Doctrine, civil immunity if the shooting was legit.

Question, do any of those "sue the victim" win in court? Is it is just intended to scare the victim into settling or not suing? I generally mean unrelated to firearms. I'm familiar with victims suing the shooter of a self-defense case, because the shooter did use force against the aggressor. Assuming the self-defense was valid, it's an awful tactic of the family of a criminal but makes an ounce of sense on the surface. Suing the person YOU hit in YOUR car makes no sense unless they were significantly negligent or intentionally doing something wrong, like those motorcycle guys that the SUV hit to escape after one of their members brake checked the SUV.

My knowledge of the area of law is limited.  Wife works in the insurance industry.  I know of a few firearms related cases where a homeowner was sued for use of a firearm.  I know of no situations where it was intentional use of a firearm in response to a criminal threat.  That said, I have heard it discussed among insurance people, so the idea is out there...

[T.O.M.]

I inferred that was a possibility from the final paragraph of the article. That puts an entirely different spin on the notion of the lawsuit and takes it entirely out of the WTF/Horrific! category and into the tragic, but entirely predictable category.

Imagining a best case scenario of the driver's actions, I have no trouble whatsoever seeing how having your heart destroyed (and if you have a soul your heart would be destroyed) by being at the wheel when a child was killed by his own (ordinary and common) negligence, and then to be sued and accused of manslaughter to add insult and financial damage to that pain, would contribute to some people suing in response.

I don't know Canada law, but I do know that in some negligence civil suits, the only way you can fully bring in the negligence of the othere party is by filing a counter-suit.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

My understanding is many suits of this sort originate with insurance co land sharks. Its all about some party being found at least partially at fault so they can avoid/reduce payouts.  Didn't progressive go after their own policy holder in md?after she was killed through no fault of her own?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk