[BCrago66]

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.

[SamAdams76]

Where does it say in the article that the woman (who hit the kid) is being sued by his family? I only see where she and her husband are suing the kid's family.

Also, why was this woman and her husband (a cop) allowed to leave the scene right away? Were they covering up a DUI?

[jocon307]

“...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.

[cuban leaf]

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.

[Gay State Conservative]

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.

The kid's dead...the driver's "traumatized".Unless the kid did something so stupid that the driver couldn't reasonably be expected to have avoided him I say the driver pays *and* does time.And that she does *additional* time for filing a fraudulent lawsuit.