Who sues a dead kid they hit and killed? YRP that's who.

90km/h at 1:30am when it is or has been raining on the sideroads around Alcona and your over driving your headlights. Lots of small dips and slight bends that at night make it seem like you have a clear view a head but your really don't. Add in the fact that it was wet and the glare reduces your vision and increases your stopping distances. She was driving too fast for conditions plain and simple. Now that being said, most people myself included drive at that speed on those roads. I know the risk and will accept the responsibility.

She's also suing the County of Simcoe stating that the road conditions were bad enough to be a factor in the accident. So lets recap. She admits to speeding on a dark, wet country road that is in an unsafe condition. How does she figure anyone else is responsible?

At least 2 of the 3 bikes had at least some reflectors according to all of the Barrie news reports. The kids were riding 3 abreast in non-reflective clothing so poor decision on their part, but in no way does that alleviate or diminish her responsibility. What if they had been trying to cross the street?

I hope she gets throw out of court, and then I hope her neighbors force them right out of the province. How do you sue some one for trauma that your actions caused in the first place?
 
I hope she gets throw out of court, and then I hope her neighbors force them right out of the province. How do you sue some one for trauma that your actions caused in the first place?

Yes !
 
How do you sue some one for trauma that your actions caused in the first place?

Ask S. Brian Wilson.

On September 1, 1987, while engaged in a protest against the shipping of U.S. weapons to Central America in the context of the Contra wars,[SUP][2][/SUP] Willson and other members of a Veterans Peace Action Team blocked railroad tracks at the Concord, California Naval Weapons Station. An approaching train did not stop, and struck the veterans. Willson was hit, ultimately losing both legs below the knee while suffering a severe skull fracture with loss of his right frontal lobe. Subsequently, he discovered that he had been identified for more than a year as an FBI domestic "terrorist" suspect under President Reagan's anti-terrorist task force provisions and that the train crew that day had been advised not to stop the train.[SUP][3][/SUP] In 1989 a music benefit was held in San Francisco to help raise funds for Willson. Performers who turned out in support were Nick Gravenites with guests Jerry Garcia and Pete Sears, Jackson Browne played a set, and Ed Asner and Wavy Gravy spoke. Mimi Farina and Pete Sears later played a folk set for protesters just outside the barbed wire surrounding the naval base. They built the stage on some old railroad tracks using a generator for power. Their show was filmed by police from a tower just inside the base.

For years after the Willson incident, anti-war protesters maintained a 24-hour-a-day vigil at the weapons depot, which shipped between 60,000 and 120,000 tons of munitions each year to U.S. forces and allies, a Navy spokesman said.[SUP][4][/SUP]
Willson filed a lawsuit contending that the Navy and individual supervisors were given ample warning of their plan to block the tracks, and that the train crew had time to stop—which the subsequent official Navy report confirmed. The train crew filed a lawsuit against Willson, requesting punitive damages for the "humiliation, mental anguish, and physical stress" they suffered as a result of the incident, which was dismissed. U.S. District Judge Robert Peckham said Willson did not plan to cause the railroad workers any distress, because he assumed the train would stop before hitting him.[SUP][4][/SUP]

Willson later agreed to settle his lawsuit against the government and train crew for $920,000.[SUP][5][/SUP] He now walks with prostheses.
 
Kids were riding three abreast, wearing dark clothes with zero reflective surface anywhere on the bikes or themselves at 1:30 in the morning.

I live close to there and the side roads where the speed is 80, i can see being in that exact situation.

The accident was analyzed and she was found not responsible in the death of the kid. That ofcourse didnt stop the parents of the child, in their grieving blindness to sue her anyways.

Her counter-suit is nothing more than what any competent lawyer would have done.

You boys remember the story of the kid who got smashed at a bar, drove (or tried to) himself and three friends and ended up killing himself and the passengers? In his infinitive "everyone is to blame but my child" wisdom, the father sued the bar, sued the bartender and fought hard to enact a law that 21 and younger cant have any alcohol whatsoever even if they have their G.

First of all.... her husband is a cop. Of course she was found not responsible. The shock there is overwhelming :rolleyes:

Second, I know the accident you're referring to as my step dad's client was the first guy on scene who called 911. There's a huge difference in suing the person who fed your kid and his friends however many drinks (I recall it being many just not the exact number) that's part of operating a bar or serving. They technically should have been cut off long before they were.

This chick is just a blind idiot and I lived there too. Even at 100 at night with black bikes and kids dressed all in black the only way you don't see them is you're blind. That's a flat stretch and you can see well ahead of you even on a rainy night.
 
First of all.... her husband is a cop. Of course she was found not responsible. The shock there is overwhelming :rolleyes:

Second, I know the accident you're referring to as my step dad's client was the first guy on scene who called 911. There's a huge difference in suing the person who fed your kid and his friends however many drinks (I recall it being many just not the exact number) that's part of operating a bar or serving. They technically should have been cut off long before they were.

This chick is just a blind idiot and I lived there too. Even at 100 at night with black bikes and kids dressed all in black the only way you don't see them is you're blind. That's a flat stretch and you can see well ahead of you even on a rainy night.

I'm not supporting her but if its raining & wearing black, it might be hard. She could be out driving her lights
 
I'm not supporting her but if its raining & wearing black, it might be hard. She could be out driving her lights

in which case she is being negligent.

i'm appalled at her decision to file a law suit for her personal anguish after she killed the kid. It's in extremely poor taste, even if it's a countersuit
 
Last edited:
Kids were riding three abreast, wearing dark clothes with zero reflective surface anywhere on the bikes or themselves at 1:30 in the morning.

I live close to there and the side roads where the speed is 80, i can see being in that exact situation.

The accident was analyzed and she was found not responsible in the death of the kid. That ofcourse didnt stop the parents of the child, in their grieving blindness to sue her anyways.

Her counter-suit is nothing more than what any competent lawyer would have done.

You boys remember the story of the kid who got smashed at a bar, drove (or tried to) himself and three friends and ended up killing himself and the passengers? In his infinitive "everyone is to blame but my child" wisdom, the father sued the bar, sued the bartender and fought hard to enact a law that 21 and younger cant have any alcohol whatsoever even if they have their G.

I disagree because a "competent" lawyer would know that such a lawsuit has very little chance to stand up in court. Suing because of suing is not a good idea, much less if it brings all kind of bad press and negative opinions against her. She is going to lose, and on top is looking as the biggest c*** in the world? Not a good lawyer.

Just my 2 cents. Let's see what happens...
 
Your opinion ion doesn't matter, it's a standard practice. Look it up.

I disagree because a "competent" lawyer would know that such a lawsuit has very little chance to stand up in court. Suing because of suing is not a good idea, much less if it brings all kind of bad press and negative opinions against her. She is going to lose, and on top is looking as the biggest c*** in the world? Not a good lawyer.

Just my 2 cents. Let's see what happens...
 
This chick is just a blind idiot and I lived there too. Even at 100 at night with black bikes and kids dressed all in black the only way you don't see them is you're blind. That's a flat stretch and you can see well ahead of you even on a rainy night.

I don't believe either family has a right to sue in my opinion. Society has too much of a sense of entitlement today.

That being said what bothers me is people claiming the fact there is no possible way to not see people in those conditions. Since you state you lived there or right by there you would know there is an open field with a creek that runs under the road approx 50 meters from where the memorial is set up. Many times I have been driving down that road in similar conditions where a slight breeze will force the fog across the road suddenly and abruptly reducing visibility to zero. Since it was raining and the time of year I can only say those kids with that little marking would have been next to impossible to see during regular conditions let alone poor weather conditions.
 
I almost ran over a couple people at night once. Can't really say what happened, I only saw them jump out of the way when I was a couple feet from hitting them at around 80. I suspect they were casually walking across the road like they owned it, expecting drivers to stop for them. Except there was a car coming the other way so of course all I saw was a pair of headlights. Then a flash of one guy on the right shoulder while another guy was moving very quickly towards the shoulder.

Sometime, people are stupid. Incredible, I know.
 
I almost ran over a couple people at night once. Sometimes, people are stupid. Incredible, I know.

I know it's not a competition but I almost ran over someone in broad daylight once. Completely deserted road, guy on a recumbent in the middle of the lane. Because the recumbent is lower than a regular bike and not expected to be in the middle of an 80km/h road and I was speeding I immediately claimed aggrieved party status. Cars rule, everybody knows that.
 
Your opinion ion doesn't matter, it's a standard practice. Look it up.

Funny, initially I was going to say the same about your post, the lawyer being competent is only your opinion, therefore it doesn't matter, but I was too polite to put it in those terms.

Let's just say that we will have to disagree. To be crystal clear in my opinion, I think the driver's lawsuit is frivolous and will be laughed out of court, and I think the lawsuit launched by the parents of the dead boy will get some $$$$ in compensation.

Let’s just keep an eye on this one, and see if I am right.
 
I can't believe I read this post from start to finish, and only today did I click on the link to the stories posted in the papers....

This is a personal friend, and I have known Derek for many years, we used to race 1/4 mile cars, rode snowmobiles together, I even rode his first motorcycle home for him from his fathers place up in Shelbourne, after the company he worked for disolved, and he moved away, we grew apart and never really had much contact after that, the sons were very young the last time we were together....

My GOD, I will have to give him a call.....

What a way to catch up with old friends......

My deepest condolences to the Majewski family

one other story I found of this tragedy...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/n...h+cyclists+suing+dead+teen/9772606/story.html

.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom