Driver that struck teen suing dead boy's family

cloud493

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/25/driver-that-struck-teen-suing-dead-boys-family

ALCONA - Still in the throes of agony from losing their son in a vehicle crash, the parents of young Brandon Majewski are now reeling after they learned the woman who struck and killed him is suing their dead child

Some people :mad: disgraceful.

So it turns out the parents of the dead kid were in fact suing her first, for $900,000. Which, while obviously not the right thing to do, there's shared fault on both sides, isn't what I'd think is an uncommon reaction, and it doesn't make her reaction right. If someone reacts to you doing something bad to them, it doesn't mean you have the right to be a dick.

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/driver-sues-estate-of-ontario-teen-she-struck-killed-1.1793813

Renegade Mechanic

cloud493 wrote: »

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/25/driver-that-struck-teen-suing-dead-boys-family



Some people :mad: disgraceful.

Heh, you know what? Im not even surprised. There are plenty of these excuses for people around. Though, of course the case will be thrown out of court if the judges is worth anything at all.

Edit: As per Wabbit Ears' find later in this thread, the story is actually very much two sided. She is being sued herself for 900k so is counter-suing.

John.Icy

Tragic, but I do feel for the driver too. She is f*cked up mentally for life probably because a group of teens went out without night visibility (articles says just their pedals has reflectors, and I've had friends nearly hit by cars in late evening with better visibility than there would be at 1:30am). Suing is the wrong pursuit though.

Mr. McGreg

The spunky, handsome, 17-year-old bike enthusiast was out with his two buddies on Oct. 28, 2012 when they hopped on their bicycles to go for hot dogs on a drizzly, dark night around 1:30 a.m............

Now the driver of the SUV, Sharlene Simon, 42, a mother of three, formerly from Innisfil, is suing the dead boy for the emotional trauma she says she has suffered. She’s also suing the two other boys, as well as the dead boy’s parents, and even his brother, who has since died. She’s also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.

Let me get this straight, she's also suing the dead boys dead brother who wasn't even at the accident? Is Lionel Hutz working for her?

RayM

The spunky, handsome, 17-year-old bike enthusiast was out with his two buddies on Oct. 28, 2012 when they hopped on their bicycles to go for hot dogs on a drizzly, dark night around 1:30 a.m.

Some really odd wording there.

My name is URL

Looks like she's suing everyone. Good luck to the mental cunt!

deise08

I'm actually speechless after reading that.
what lawyer would even take that case?

darkpagandeath

deise08 wrote: »

I'm actually speechless after reading that.
what lawyer would even take that case?

Plenty they get paid either way.

deceit

If this somehow went her way and she won, the only thing I would be able to think if I was the parents is acting out the plot of law abiding citizen.

Wabbit Ears

1:30 am in the rain without bike lights...Ive nearly hit gobsh1ts on country roads doing the same thing, Often only seeing them at the very last second.

I feel sorry for the grieving family, I do, but He basically died due to his own intensly stupid and irresponsible actions, which is what she is suing them for.

This ladys life is ruined, The guilt of killing someone is massive, Moreso I believe then the loss of someone.

Peregrine

Now the driver of the SUV, Sharlene Simon, 42, a mother of three, formerly from Innisfil, is suing the dead boy for the emotional trauma she says she has suffered. She’s also suing the two other boys, as well as the dead boy’s parents, and even his brother, who has since died. She’s also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.

So basically, she's suing anyone and everyone.

How can she sue two people who are no longer alive?

Pa2k

Looper

Doyler92

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

So basically, she's suing anyone and everyone.

How can she sue two people who are no longer alive?

I wouldn't be saying too much, she might try you you too!

scwazrh

The woman suing is scum but waht type of parent lets their 17 yr old kid out cycling at 1am ?

deise08

Judge Judy would have a field day with this!

cloud493

There was already a similar case on Judge Judy, a mother was suing the mother of her sons friend after they stole her car and crashed it, something like that.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/83248541/

branie

I hope the case is thrown out

Lenin Skynard

I hope she gets counter-sued for the further stress she is causing towards the poor victims' families.

Renegade Mechanic

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

1:30 am in the rain without bike lights...Ive nearly hit gobsh1ts on country roads doing the same thing, Often only seeing them at the very last second.

I feel sorry for the grieving family, I do, but He basically died due to his own intensly stupid and irresponsible actions, which is what she is suing them for.

This ladys life is ruined, The guilt of killing someone is massive, Moreso I believe then the loss of someone.

It is. You are absolutely right but at the end of the day she has no right whatsoever to do this. She was driving, avoiding hazards was her responsibility. Night driving demands increased perceptive distance and lesser speeds. Ive often come close to people staggering along country roads with ordinary clothes because they "wont give the feckin guards the pleasure of bagging me...." Christ, I gave one a lift home because hed just slumped against a stone wall in the middle of nowhere and and called it quits!! But you still see these people, even with oncoming lights, you see them in enough time to react. Theres no way someone wouldn't see three people on bikes, there must have been a distraction at play. I do feel for her, I truly do. But this is something she has to live with now, like anyone else in that boat.

Oh, and no amount of money will ever, ever make the pain of knowing you took someones life even remotely easier to bear. Actually, knowing that youre living easier when the people you've affected aren't compounds your guilt making you more miserable. So I find her attempts to sue really rather strange. Unless she is entirely unremorseful..

Stavros Murphy

scwazrh wrote: »

The woman suing is scum but waht type of parent lets their 17 yr old kid out cycling at 1am ?

TBH, my one could be out surfing on the roof of a Dart atm, for all I know. It's 17, not 7. Mine works full time, has a long-term girlfriend and comes and goes as he pleases without so much as a by-your-leave. He's an adult IMO.

Donkey Oaty

RayM wrote: »

Some really odd wording there.

Some very emotive reporting in that piece. The reporter says the following - which are not quotations from anyone, but their own interpretation:

Still in the throes of agony...reeling....heartache ....can hardly contain his tears.... emotional trauma ....in shock....staggering in disbelief....is drowning in sorrow....shaking with emotion... he gasps... his voice breaks again...therapy, medication, even booze, doesn’t dull the pain...just trying to stifle his grief

This kind of Duffyesque elaboration is a bit creepy.

FreshKnickers

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

TBH, my one could be out surfing on the roof of a Dart atm, for all I know. It's 17, not 7. Mine works full time, has a long-term girlfriend and comes and goes as he pleases without so much as a by-your-leave. He's an adult IMO.

But the boy's mother says she spoke to him just before he left.

The article also says the police knocked on their door 2 hours later and “I knew,” says his father. Surely if your lad went off for a hot dog at 1:30 in the morning and wasn't back yet by 3:30 you'd be calling the police yourself?

I'm hoping it comes out in a few days that this was a completly made-up story. Like the one where a woman responded to an RSVP for her child that she didn't want the child going to a party because she didn't approve of the 2 dad's lifestyle.

cloud493

Yes it is quite an emotive piece.

SparkySpitfire

Sitec wrote: »

I don't agree with the suing of basically anybody involved but the 17 year old should have not being out cycling in bad weather at 01:30.

It was an accident waiting to happen and unfortunately it did.

I rarely defend cyclists, but I didn't realise there was a time limit on when you can cycle? :rolleyes:

He should have been wearing reflective clothing to increase visibility but it's too late for shoulda, couldas now.

Maphisto

This is a very unhappy story from everyone's point of view but we do only have a rather biased newspaper report to go on.

The Toronto Sun a fine journal I'm sure.

BetterThanThou

FreshKnickers wrote: »

But the boy's mother says she spoke to him just before he left.

The article also says the police knocked on their door 2 hours later and “I knew,” says his father. Surely if your lad went off for a hot dog at 1:30 in the morning and wasn't back yet by 3:30 you'd be calling the police yourself?

I'm hoping it comes out in a few days that this was a completly made-up story. Like the one where a woman responded to an RSVP for her child that she didn't want the child going to a party because she didn't approve of the 2 dad's lifestyle.

I myself am 17 years old. My mother knows I'm not going to get into any trouble, as do my best friend's parents, so we do often decide to go to McDonalds at all hours of the morning. I can tell my mother I'm going to McDonalds at 1:30 and it would be fairly uncommon for me to be back by 3:30, usually we'd also go for a walk and could easily be out until sunrise, if not later. I feel some parents are far too protective of their 17 year olds. If it's acceptable for an 18 year old to go out on the piss and potentially be so drunk they have no idea where they are in the middle of the night, I think it's alright for a 17 year old who's not under the influence to go to McDonalds/go to get a hotdog.

Wabbit Ears

Lenin Skynard wrote: »

I hope she gets counter-sued for the further stress she is causing towards the poor victims' families.

It says in a lot of the comments below she is doing it because she is in fact the one counter suing which really changes everything.

iguana

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

This ladys life is ruined, The guilt of killing someone is massive, Moreso I believe then the loss of someone.

If she was feeling any guilt at all about it, the very, very last thing she'd be doing is suing his family, including his deceased brother.

I also find it very suspicious that her police officer husband witnessed the whole thing and drove her home after the accident without ensuring she was breathalysed. I'd imagine that in such a serious accident it's standard procedure to test the driver for alcohol consumption? Even if the driver seems sober, isn't it in everyone's best interests for the police to test her in order to rule it out as the cause of the accident?

Wabbit Ears

So yea, a little additional digging and yes, She is doing this as a counter suit as the family are looking for $900,000 from her and her husband.

So shes not actually doing it because she is evil or a bítch, Its a pretty standard defense.

Stupid misleading emotive articles.


From http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/driver-sues-estate-of-ontario-teen-she-struck-killed-1.1793813

Cameron is representing Majewski's family in a separate lawsuit.

In that suit, Majewski's family is seeking a total of $900,000 in damages for the "emotional trauma and shock" of their son's death. In that suit, Simon, Simon's husband -- the owner of the car-- and the County of Simcoe are named as defendants.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/driver-sues-estate-of-ontario-teen-she-struck-killed-1.1793813#ixzz3026wzrlH

cloud493

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

So yea, a little additional digging and yes, She is doing this as a counter suit as the family are looking for $900,000 from her and her husband.

So shes not actually doing it because she is evil or a bítch, Its a pretty standard defense.

Stupid misleading emotive articles.


From http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/driver-sues-estate-of-ontario-teen-she-struck-killed-1.1793813

Cameron is representing Majewski's family in a separate lawsuit.

In that suit, Majewski's family is seeking a total of $900,000 in damages for the "emotional trauma and shock" of their son's death. In that suit, Simon, Simon's husband -- the owner of the car-- and the County of Simcoe are named as defendants.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/driver-sues-estate-of-ontario-teen-she-struck-killed-1.1793813#ixzz3026wzrlH

Well she did kill their son. Although I wouldn't think suing her is the right way to go.

Renegade Mechanic

Good find.

Wabbit Ears

yea, she did, But the news artical makes out shes suing them because she is a cold hearted bítch and theres no other explaining why shes doing it. It makes out like the suit is a complete shock to the grieving family when its not at all, a counter suit is practically expected in these things.

Cee-Jay-Cee

If she wins her case, which I can't see even getting into court but if she does, I hope the money beings her the worst possible luck for the rest of her life. She must be a despicable nasty little low life to even consider such an action.

Gatling

Seriously WTF Canada

John.Icy

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

So yea, a little additional digging and yes, She is doing this as a counter suit as the family are looking for $900,000 from her and her husband.

So shes not actually doing it because she is evil or a bítch, Its a pretty standard defense.

Stupid misleading emotive articles.


From http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/driver-sues-estate-of-ontario-teen-she-struck-killed-1.1793813

Cameron is representing Majewski's family in a separate lawsuit.

In that suit, Majewski's family is seeking a total of $900,000 in damages for the "emotional trauma and shock" of their son's death. In that suit, Simon, Simon's husband -- the owner of the car-- and the County of Simcoe are named as defendants.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/driver-sues-estate-of-ontario-teen-she-struck-killed-1.1793813#ixzz3026wzrlH

Sad this will be overlooked and most people will still be calling the driver the evil one. I think it's rather disgusting of the diseased parents to be looking for money off a woman who has probably been destroyed mentally foreverbecause of a groups decision to cycle without visibility.

It really is just as bad as a counter suing by the driver.

darkpagandeath

Are people not reading the fact that she is counter suing now... bias emotive article has been show up for what it is. Does not say anywhere in the article the driver was found guilty of any crime. Counter suing is pretty standard. The parents are suing the driver, Interesting that other parents/bike riders are not suing.

Ken.

Read this before you judge her
http://www.reddit.com/r/rage/comments/23y9g2/this_is_****ing_disgusting_xpost_from_rwtf/ch216m3

Before this lady is crucified here in the "court of Reddit opinion," let's consider all sides. Playing devil's advocate, put yourself in her shoes.

You're driving home one evening on a dark road. You're sober, you're paying attention to the road, you're not texting or even adjusting the radio. You might have edged a bit above the speed limit hurrying home, but doesn't everyone? The road is clear and you're the only one around.

Suddenly you see a flash of bicycles immediately in front of your headlights and slam on brakes a split second before feeling the horrible bump and crunch. Someone is screaming. You're stunned for a moment in complete disbelief - where could they have come from? You never took your eyes off the road! How could you not see them?

You push it from your mind and jump from the car to help. One kid is running up from a ditch, screaming his friends' names as he runs to the nearest. That boy is howling in agony, severely injured but alive. As you approach, both start swearing at you, calling you names and telling you to get away, to call the cops. You saw another bike go flying over your car, so you run back to a shadowy figure on the road behind, dialing 911 as you go.

Dear god. That kid is torn to pieces. You've never seen a human being in that shape before and you have no idea what to do. How do you aid him? Do you touch him? You try talking to him while you look for an uninjured place to lay a hand for comfort. Maybe you try to hold his hand and keep it together even as you want to panic, retch, run, scream. How the **** did this happen?

You're pretty traumatized during the questioning, but sometime the next day you're allowed to go home. Nothing in the world looks the same though. The boy you tried to talk to is dead, another might not make it. It's weird to see the sun shining and cars driving by like nothing happened as your spouse drives you home. He calls a psychiatrist as soon as you've settled into a chair, staring out a window, replaying everything that happened. Your mind relentlessly questioning why didn't you see the boys. Telling you this was your fault. If only you hadn't left so late. If only you'd had your high beams on. If only...something.

Your story makes the local news and you see the memorial, the grieving family. You wish you could do something for them. Go to the funeral, send flowers, tell them you're sorry. But they don't want to hear from you. To them, you're their son's killer. You understand, so you sit home, unable to eat or even talk. In fact, by the time the police return to talk about the investigation, you're suffering from PTSD as surely as any war veteran.

The cops tell you that the two survivors and evidence have painted a clear picture. The boys were wearing dark clothing on bikes with hardly any reflectors. They road three abreast and did not move to the shoulder even though they surely saw and heard you coming long before you could have seen them. It was a tragedy, but it wasn't your fault. It could have been anyone. Nobody would have been able to see them and stop in time. There will be no charges.

It's little comfort to you, though. Survivor guilt eats at your mind as you go through the motions of daily life. Nothing will ever be the same after seeing what you saw that night. You haven't driven since and never want to again. Just riding in a car makes you panicky and distraught. You can't go back to work. You can't resume your normal activities. Happiness ended that night, and you're just going through the motions now, no matter who was at fault.

But for the sake of your sanity and your family, you try. The psychiatrist is helping a bit. You're holding up as best you can. Your attorney tells you that the families aren't happy with the investigation results; their child is gone and they want someone to be held responsible. You try to be understanding. They're grieving and want more answers. You cooperate and wait for the second investigation to be finalized.

Then your friend or your son or someone else says, hey...I gotta tell you something before you hear it elsewhere. That's when you learn that the parents are spreading rumors. They say you were drunk or texting. They're telling everyone and it's spreading like wildfire. People stare and whisper at the grocery store. Maybe someone even yelled "murderer!" as you picked up your mail. Prank calls start, maybe some anonymous mail or ugly posts online show up. You tell the police and shut down the avenues people have to harass you, alienating yourself from your extended family and friends as you do.

Then it hits: you're being served with a massive lawsuit, formalizing those allegations. They want to take everything from you and from your family, to leave you bankrupt if they can. The panic attack hits like a freight train as you digest the news. You break down completely and terrifyingly. Maybe it is your fault. You deserve this. Why weren't you the one who died? You've killed a child, you've ruined your family.

Those around you are outraged. They know you didn't text and weren't drunk. You don't deserve this. They want you to heal and move on. You're so emotionally wrecked, you can barely even speak with your own attorney. But your husband is standing strong and tells him to fight it. You've already lost thousands in missed work, paying doctors and psychiatrists and lawyers for something that wasn't even your fault. It's not right, and someone is going to fight for you in this.

The attorney tells you that the best course is to offset their demands with a counter-suit for all the suffering the accident has caused you. You are also a victim here, but instead of letting you heal, these people have dragged matters out, ruined your reputation, unraveled your mental and emotional progress and now threaten you with financial ruin, all for an accident that the police already determined wasn't your fault.

But even this gets taken out of context by the family's lawyers who want to torture you further. They feed a story about how you're suing the victims you killed, as if that's all anyone needs to know. On Reddit, they've rushed to judge you a psychopath, a worthless piece of garbage.

But really, you just wish it had been you who died that night. You don't want this lawsuit, but you do want this nightmare to end. It won't though. The nightmare of running over three kids will replay in your mind for the rest of your life.

SparkySpitfire

John.Icy wrote: »

Sad this will be overlooked and most people will still be calling the driver the evil one. I think it's rather disgusting of the diseased parents to be looking for money off a woman who has probably been destroyed mentally foreverbecause of a groups decision to cycle without visibility.

It really is just as bad as a counter suing by the driver.

Agree that it's horrible that both parties involved have been hurt beyond belief and to bring money into it is disgusting.

However, is there any more evidence that this is true?

A South Simcoe Police report shows Simon admitted that she was driving at 90 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on the two-lane road. She claims she didn’t see the boys or any of the orange-red pedal reflectors.

If so, it would seem that a combination of lack of visibility on the kids part and recklessness on hers would be the cause.

Turtwig

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

So yea, a little additional digging and yes, She is doing this as a counter suit as the family are looking for $900,000 from her and her husband.

So shes not actually doing it because she is evil or a bítch, Its a pretty standard defense.

Stupid misleading emotive articles.


From http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/driver-sues-estate-of-ontario-teen-she-struck-killed-1.1793813

Cameron is representing Majewski's family in a separate lawsuit.

In that suit, Majewski's family is seeking a total of $900,000 in damages for the "emotional trauma and shock" of their son's death. In that suit, Simon, Simon's husband -- the owner of the car-- and the County of Simcoe are named as defendants.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/driver-sues-estate-of-ontario-teen-she-struck-killed-1.1793813#ixzz3026wzrlH

OP should be edited with this side of the story. Otherwise woman may get underdeserved vitriol from people who only skim this thread.

jimgoose

It was a horrible stupid accident. And it will destroy people forever because of the horrible stupid litigous society we have created for ourselves.

Shakespeare's Sister

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

However, is there any more evidence that this is true?


If so, it would seem that a combination of lack of visibility on the kids part and recklessness on hers would be the cause.

Yes, exceeding the speed limit by 10km does go against her - "don't we all do it?" doesn't wash, in my opinion. Even if that's often true, it still doesn't work in her favour.
At the same time though, I do feel for her, and acknowledge she wasn't some crazed lunatic on the road either. Awful situation for all involved.

Stavros Murphy

ken wrote: »

Read this before you judge her
http://www.reddit.com/r/rage/comments/23y9g2/this_is_****ing_disgusting_xpost_from_rwtf/ch216m3

Before this lady is crucified here in the "court of Reddit opinion," let's consider all sides. Playing devil's advocate, put yourself in her shoes.

.........

But really, you just wish it had been you who died that night. You don't want this lawsuit, but you do want this nightmare to end. It won't though. The nightmare of running over three kids will replay in your mind for the rest of your life.

Great post, well written, Bebetta. You get sloppy seconds for the "highlighting it" bit Ken. Nice one.

I lose all hope when people get lost in emotion reading about law.. I read stories like that with an open mind whereas most have already made up their minds because the kid died.

SparkySpitfire

Magaggie wrote: »

Yes, exceeding the speed limit by 10km does go against her - "don't we all do it?" doesn't wash, in my opinion. Even if that's often true, it still doesn't work in her favour.
At the same time though, I do feel for her, and acknowledge she wasn't some crazed lunatic on the road either. Awful situation for all involved.

Would agree wholeheartedly there. Very sad situation.

sdanseo

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

So basically, she's suing anyone and everyone.

How can she sue two people who are no longer alive?

She can sue their estates. Not that doing so is appropriate.

If it was a genuine accident surely both families should just try and make the best of their lives rather than starting years of legal stuff that will only serve to keep the wounds open.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I didn't realise that it was a counter action when I posted my comment.

I now hope that both parties are awarded $1 million each and that they have to pay their own costs so it'll end up costing them both money (for their downright greed and nastiness)

You know what - it's so hard to tell.

Yes, this woman did kill the other family's poor son, but they were out on bikes at 1:30am on a wet and drizzly night, without any form of adequate reflectors and indicators. Surely there should be some form of personality responsibility here and the boy's actions was the more contributing factor in his death than the woman driving her car.

However if it were me that lost my child, I can't say that I would do any different.

suicide_circus

The fact that this is a counter suit does in fact changes everything.

The family of the dead kid are the assholes here. Their son, went out at 1.30am to get hot dogs (munchies?) cycling without lights in the rain. He was 100% the architect of his own demise. This woman was at the wrong place at the wrong time, nothing more.
Will 900k bring their son back? Mercenary dickheads.

Arthur Beesley

Pa2k wrote: »

Looper

Good film.

Arthur Beesley

cloud493 wrote: »

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/25/driver-that-struck-teen-suing-dead-boys-family



Some people :mad: disgraceful.

Did you even read the full story?

cloud493

Yep. And regardless of the fact that suing the woman clearly isn't the right thing, I'm sure most of us in similar circumstances would do the same thing, or something along those lines. Less greed, more grief.