I'm speechless!

[johncarnie]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/driver-suing-the-teenage-boy-she-struck-and-killed-for-emotional-trauma-9292104.html

[ArMoRothair]

I read some comments posted below a local paper's report on this and one of the commentators alleged the motorist is the wife of the local policeman who was following her car in his. They were both returning from a party. He failed to administer CPR, they both fled the scene and neither of them were breathalysed.

The victim's family are suing the driver.

It was only an allegation but it seems there is a lot more to this shocking story.

[Dean]

There's a big difference between suing somebody and not being laughed out of court, thankfully.

[Vorpal]

If I were her lawyer, I'd tell her to take her business elsewhere. I don't think I could bring myself to tell the victim's family

[Elizabethsdad]

If I were her lawyer, I'd tell her to take her business elsewhere. I don't think I could bring myself to tell the victim's family

You're assuming that there is a lawyer out there with some kind of humanity or conscience in them.

[Vorpal]

If I were her lawyer, I'd tell her to take her business elsewhere. I don't think I could bring myself to tell the victim's family

You're assuming that there is a lawyer out there with some kind of humanity or conscience in them.

There are many lawyers who are good people, who do things on a voluntary basis, or reduced fees because they believe in a cause. There are many lawyers who work on behalf of charities and disadvantaged people, and/or make relatively little money from their work.

I'm sure that the legal profession, especially in countries with a US type of legal model, attracts some people who are more interested in money than morals. But that doesn't mean that all lawyers are conscienceless money-grubbers.

[kwackers]

all lawyers are conscienceless money-grubbers.

I agree.

[Elizabethsdad]

If I were her lawyer, I'd tell her to take her business elsewhere. I don't think I could bring myself to tell the victim's family

You're assuming that there is a lawyer out there with some kind of humanity or conscience in them.

There are many lawyers who are good people, who do things on a voluntary basis, or reduced fees because they believe in a cause. There are many lawyers who work on behalf of charities and disadvantaged people, and/or make relatively little money from their work.

I'm sure that the legal profession, especially in countries with a US type of legal model, attracts some people who are more interested in money than morals. But that doesn't mean that all lawyers are conscienceless money-grubbers.

Maybe there are, but that hasn't been my experience, which has been overwhelmingly negative. So a pox on the entire legal profession.

[Vorpal]

Two of my cousins are lawyers. One works mostly on behalf of the disabled and disabled charities. Unless she has squirreled away some money somewhere and not told anyone about it, her income is not much. I gether that she does quite a lot of her work on a voluntary basis.

The other lawyer in my family specialises in patent law and intellectual property. She used to work for a corporation, where she made a good, but not exhorbitant salary. She is now semi-retired and does some consulting, mostly for the company she used to work for.

There is another person in my extended family who is a lawyer. I don't know him well, but he always seemed to be a decent person.

I have limited exposure to lawyers outside my family. I once consulted a lawyer on some matters of employment law. And I have used them for such things as real estate transactions. While I won't say my expereince with them as a customer has been 100% satisfactory, I also have nothing severely negative to report.

[Vantage]

I've experienced both sides.
My ex wifes lawyer/solicitor tried every trick in the book and some outside the book to argue against my case in not only the divorce but getting fair visitation rights to my children. One particular stunt was so severe that my own solicitor had her and the firm she worked for up in front of whichever body regulates the legal profession.
On my ex's side they were more interested in a win for them and on my side my girls needs were put first. Playing by the rules and being civilised won my case.
As with drivers, cyclists and anyone else, there's good and bad.

[Vantage]

From other reports I've found online, the boys were cycling 3 abreast, without lights or reflectors, in dark clothing, at 1:30am in the rain on an unlit country back road with a 50mph speed limit. Not wishing to get into the whole "Lights/no lights/hi-viz" debate, that imo is pretty damn stupid on their part.

What amazes me is that the driver has stated that the boys were incompetent cyclists despite the fact that it was she who was speeding in those conditions and she who hit them. If her headlights can light up the road enough to follow it at that speed then how did she not see them?

[Tonyf33]

From other reports I've found online, the boys were cycling 3 abreast, without lights or reflectors, in dark clothing, at 1:30am in the rain on an unlit country back road with a 50mph speed limit. Not wishing to get into the whole "Lights/no lights/hi-viz" debate, that imo is pretty damn stupid on their part.

What amazes me is that the driver has stated that the boys were incompetent cyclists despite the fact that it was she who was speeding in those conditions and she who hit them. If her headlights can light up the road enough to follow it at that speed then how did she not see them?

And if it had been a fallen tree across the road due to a storm, or a wild animal, then what, who would there be to blame...it is the mentality of those that killed the youths that is most sickening here, the lawyers are just there to make money and don't give a flying fig about the rights or wrongs.

There's a totally unlit back road with a 6% gradient just 2 minutes from where I live, there's no path but it's a direct route to the area (it's an extra mile+ to walk the other way) so it's fairly common to see people walking along the route. However there is a bend at the bottom of the hill and it's hidden by tall tress and is narrow, I drive pretty much down the centre of the road at night because some people walk along there with no torch or reflective top. When they are hidden half behind trees/bushes even driving at a slowish speed and full beam it can be hard to see them, but all the same the majority responsibility is mine.
I think most motorists don't think that way and when an incident happens find ways to blame the other party.
I mean if you as a motorvehicle were moving at 3mph and a person ran into you even at 20mph there's no way you would be harmed though the pedestrian/runner would be, point is that the motorist has by far the greater responsibility. Something that courts, police and general public can't see or don't want to see.

[Mike Sales]

The Highway Code is clear on the driver's responsibilty.

Paragraph 126.

Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

I would hope every nation's code has its equivalent.
The International Regulations for the Prevention of Collision at Sea certainly do.
It is also the most basic common sense to drive within the limitations of your lights and brakes. It is not acceptable to go charging on in the expectation that there will be nothing in the way.
There is much advice to cyclists to wear Hiviz. I see very little advice to drivers to observe rule 126. If the rule was constantly repeated perhaps drivers like this one would not feel so entitled to drive too fast.
If the Canadian equivalent of the H.C. has its rule 126 this driver's case would surely be weak.

[LondonBikeCommuter]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/driver-suing-the-teenage-boy-she-struck-and-killed-for-emotional-trauma-9292104.html

Definitely a tragic case for sure.

I'm not taking sides but taking an impartial look under Ontario law where this happened cyclist are legally required to wear a helmet if under 18. He wasn't. He was required to have rear lights and reflectors he didn't despite it being a dark cloudy night. The road where this happened was an unlit country road.

Others have pointed out contributory factors to this tragedy that the vehicle driver contributed i.e. driving at 55 in a 50 zone.

I think impartiality is the best policy when discussing these sorts of cases. Both driver and cyclist had responsibilities to each other

[Vorpal]

Canada doesn't have a HC, as such. It has a Driver's Handbook, but the handbook has no legal status, and there are no laws to suggest that one must drive such that one can stop in the distance which one can see to be clear. However, there is an implicit understanding that drivers must drive within conditions, including, what is called in North America, the 'assured clear distance'. I was, in fact, surprised to hear that this was taught only at advanced driving levels in the UK, as it is considered a basic lesson in North America. I do not, know, however, the effect of applying an implicit understanding in civil or criminal cases in Canada.

If the driver was breaking the law (speeding), and the cyclists were not, full responsibility should fall on the driver. If the cyclists were also breaking the law it is likely that some sort of proportionate or contributory liability will be applied. That is, the cyclists may be considered 20% liable, and the driver 80% liable. Any convictions for breaking the law will be considered in this assignment of liability, but typically helmets cannot be, even if the cyclists were legally obligated to wear them.