Posted on 04/27/2014 5:22:00 PM PDT by rickmichaels
Not saying that this is a brilliant legal strategy, but what’s not too prominent in the article is this is not a stand-alone suit, but a counter-claim in the negligence suit brought against the woman who hit the kids on their bikes. In the hope, I gather, of increased leverage so as to lessen the amount that the woman would pay in a possible settlement.
Also, why was this woman and her husband (a cop) allowed to leave the scene right away? Were they covering up a DUI?
That's what I got out of this article as well. I'm sorry for the kid but, this kind of reckless behavior by bikeists goes on all the time. I'm surprised there aren't more fatalities than there are.
I believe that the riding of bicycles on major thoroughfares after dark should be prohibited.
There is no way to compensate for the bizarre actions of cyclists in such situations.
There is the old saying that nothing good happens after midnight.
I thought I would get in before the “They were riding bicycles so they deserved what they got” posts showed up, but I see I am already too late.
hehe
Common law recognizes a ‘right of way’. On this topic all the Constitution-loving, common-law-referencing he-men get amnesia and demand government action to get the inconvenient out of the way.
“...this is not a stand-alone suit, but a counter-claim in the negligence suit brought against the woman who hit the kids on their bikes.”
Thanks for that detail which hasn’t made it through the “buzz” of the headline on this.
Still, it’s pretty loathsome and no, it makes no sense that the driver(s) were allowed to leave while witnesses were detained.
In 1997, a drunk woman’s little dog got tangled up under her brake pedal and she ran over and killed one of my best biker friends.
She successfully sued his family for her ‘mental anguish’.
“Even more confusing Cameron said, is the fact that the woman’s husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, is also suing for $100,000 for damages and expenses incurred because of his wife’s suffering.”
This I do believe is lawyer code for “Not getting any sex.”.
how is that even possible?
I read the story and thought, ‘there must be some important relevant details missing here. You just explained it. Sleazy reporting here.
BTW, where the husband and wife were going is not relevant.
Where does it say in the article that the woman (who hit the kid) is being sued by his family?
“They were riding bicycles so they deserved what they got
Where do you live that cyclists ride in the rain after midnight “all the time”?
cops let the cop and his wife go...
then the cops say “riding side by side”... cops are not witnesses.. there were no witnesses other than those involved. so the cops take the cop’S wife’s story.. BAD ODOR WAFTING FROM THIS STORY....
the husband and wife left the scene..cops covering for a cop’s wife. she hit 3, and killed one of them.. now that’s a FACT.
The lawyers will get rich.
I have *no* idea how.
She totally beggared the guy’s widow who wound up losing her home.
Ironically, I ended up with nasty PTSD, having watched it all, even though I can’t consciously remember it.
[but when I sleep....]
Maybe I should’ve sued her and the widower of the *other* biker the woman hit, too.
[yeah, right]
It’s a twisted world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.