Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Driver that struck teen suing dead boy's family

245

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,065 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,234 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Seriously WTF Canada


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭John.Icy


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,898 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭Shakespeare's Sister


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭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.


  • Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,299 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,234 ✭✭✭✭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)


  • Posts: 26,920 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭Arthur Beesley


    Pa2k wrote: »
    Looper

    Good film.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭Arthur Beesley


    cloud493 wrote: »

    Did you even read the full story?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,346 ✭✭✭No Pants


    He should have been wearing reflective clothing to increase visibility but it's too late for shoulda, couldas now.
    Lights. Not reflective clothing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


    Aye.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,346 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Some very emotive reporting in that piece. The reporter says the following - which are not quotations from anyone, but their own interpretation
    A lot of newspapers do this to some extent. You should compare some reporting from 50 years ago with reporting from today; it's like the reports are from different planets. Way too much focus on what people are feeling. For someone like me who wants the facts and couldn't care less about how people feel about stuff, it's frustrating.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    3 teenagers with no lights on their bikes on a road at 1.30am, who in the Hell expects to find that? That was a heavily biased article designed to paint the driver as some kind of monster and the family as saints. What on earth does it matter that the house is 'immaculate' or 'the dogs started barking' Jesus, sensationalist hack journalism at it's finest.

    The families solicitor has tried to gloss over the families greed at making some money out of their son's death by suing the driver and yet all the driver is doing is counter suing to defend themselves. I'd say the driver is going to be reliving the nightmare of that night for the rest of their lives.

    Really tacky reporting.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,178 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    The families solicitor has tried to gloss over the families greed at making some money out of their son's death by suing the driver and yet all the driver is doing is counter suing to defend themselves. I'd say the driver is going to be reliving the nightmare of that night for the rest of their lives.

    Actually, the initial court-case is quite common to do things like funeral costs and the like, etc. which aren't exactly cheap. What you've missed is not only is the driver counter-suing; she's trying to sue *everyone* up to and including the dead boys dead brother, and her husband is also suing for $100,000.

    What puzzles me is that other witnesses (there is another article with a witness who tried to comfort the dying boy) were made to stay on the scene for some 4 hours whilst the principal actor was allowed to leave with her husband (in two seperate vehicles by the way) soon after, and according to the witness I mentioned above, the woman never once checked on any of the three boys; and the husband - a police officer - came over in what was described as a panic to say he was calling for help - but also not once checked on any of the three boys. And that's him being a police officer ... the whole thing stinks something awful.

    The driver also was not (and AFAIK never was afterwards) breathalysed, despite this being a road-traffic fatality. Mention has been given to her being "tested" by an approved device, but she was not breathalysed and there has been no clarification as to what this supposedly "approved device" was and what test was carried out.

    Having seen a picture of the stretch of road on which the incident happened I'm baffled as to how she could not have at least avoided the three boys or did not see some sort of movement/reflection ahead of her given that it's a fairly straight stretch of wide road.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    Lemming wrote: »
    Actually, the initial court-case is quite common to do things like funeral costs and the like, etc. which aren't exactly cheap. What you've missed is not only is the driver counter-suing; she's trying to sue *everyone* up to and including the dead boys dead brother, and her husband is also suing for $100,000.

    What puzzles me is that other witnesses (there is another article with a witness who tried to comfort the dying boy) were made to stay on the scene for some 4 hours whilst the principal actor was allowed to leave with her husband (in two seperate vehicles by the way) soon after, and according to the witness I mentioned above, the woman never once checked on any of the three boys; and the husband - a police officer - came over in what was described as a panic to say he was calling for help - but also not once checked on any of the three boys. And that's him being a police officer ... the whole thing stinks something awful.

    The driver also was not (and AFAIK never was afterwards) breathalysed, despite this being a road-traffic fatality. Mention has been given to her being "tested" by an approved device, but she was not breathalysed and there has been no clarification as to what this supposedly "approved device" was and what test was carried out.

    Having seen a picture of the stretch of road on which the incident happened I'm baffled as to how she could not have at least avoided the three boys or did not see some sort of movement/reflection ahead of her given that it's a fairly straight stretch of wide road.

    They are counter suing. I've no interest in conspiracy theories. 3 teenagers on a road in the early hours of the morning, no lights, no helmets and she hits them, kills one and injures others, yeah I'd say she'll be reliving that forever. Sounds to me like the family are just trying to fleece her tbh.

    If they hadn't let their teenage son wander around the roads in the early hours of the morning they wouldn't have to pay funeral bills. Greedy parents trying to milk what was a simple accident that could easily have been avoided if they'd been responsible parents. They clearly have no consideration for the driver or the Hell she's been through as a result of it all. I really can't blame the driver for counter suing. Leave it up to the courts to decide.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,642 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    That article is an absolute cluster**** of the highest order. Facts are seriously thin


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    wonder how many here out at that hour and in that weather drive even as fast as the speed limit allows, let alone over it. not my way.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭miss no stars


    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.

    No, she's pretty greedy, the evidence being that she's suing the brother who was nowhere near it and is now dead. WTF? It's a "just sue everyone" approach.
    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.

    You do realise that when you hit and kill someone when driving you'll be taken to court, sued and the insurance company pays out. It's not like they got the insurance pay-out and then decided "let's sue her". It's a routine court case. She hit them, she killed them, her insurance pays medical and funeral costs.

    There's nothing routine about killing someone and suing them.


    Just think about it, you're driving along and for whatever reason you hit three kids on bikes and end up killing one of them. Your husband (a cop) is driving behind and whisks you away before you can be breathalyzed. You go home in shock and feeling awful. You then find that the family of the dead child are suing you (through your insurance more than likely) for the medical and funeral costs. The normal reaction is NOT to say "I'm gonna sue the dead kid, his parents, his dead brother, the other kids, the state". There's just not a damned thing normal about that reaction. Counter-suit or not, it's fcuking absurd and smacks of no remorse. And 1.35 million? What for?!


    Should the kid have had lights on his bike? Yeah. But it was a straight wide road.The type of road where you'd see pedal reflectors. There has to have been a reason why she didn't see them. Where was she coming from that her cop husband knew well enough to whisk her away before she could be breathalyzed? In a situation like that you'd WANT to be breathalyzed if you haven't been drinking so that there can't be any suspicion of that playing a part. She's not 100% to blame, but she sure as feck shares most of the blame because she was speeding and I do not believe that family owe her a dime. Certain people are on here acting like she's a saint and that the natural thing to do when you kill a kid and they try to cover costs is to sue them for 1.35 million.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    No, she's pretty greedy, the evidence being that she's suing the brother who was nowhere near it and is now dead. WTF? It's a "just sue everyone" approach.



    You do realise that when you hit and kill someone when driving you'll be taken to court, sued and the insurance company pays out. It's not like they got the insurance pay-out and then decided "let's sue her". It's a routine court case. She hit them, she killed them, her insurance pays medical and funeral costs.

    There's nothing routine about killing someone and suing them.


    Just think about it, you're driving along and for whatever reason you hit three kids on bikes and end up killing one of them. Your husband (a cop) is driving behind and whisks you away before you can be breathalyzed. You go home in shock and feeling awful. You then find that the family of the dead child are suing you (through your insurance more than likely) for the medical and funeral costs. The normal reaction is NOT to say "I'm gonna sue the dead kid, his parents, his dead brother, the other kids, the state". There's just not a damned thing normal about that reaction. Counter-suit or not, it's fcuking absurd and smacks of no remorse. And 1.35 million? What for?!


    Should the kid have had lights on his bike? Yeah. But it was a straight wide road.The type of road where you'd see pedal reflectors. There has to have been a reason why she didn't see them. Where was she coming from that her cop husband knew well enough to whisk her away before she could be breathalyzed? In a situation like that you'd WANT to be breathalyzed if you haven't been drinking so that there can't be any suspicion of that playing a part. She's not 100% to blame, but she sure as feck shares most of the blame because she was speeding and I do not believe that family owe her a dime. Certain people are on here acting like she's a saint and that the natural thing to do when you kill a kid and they try to cover costs is to sue them for 1.35 million.

    While certain people feel that no blame attaches to the parents or the victims. 3 teenagers on unlit bikes, unsupervised, on a road in the early hours of the morning were most probably messing around and perhaps acting dangerously. None of us were there. None of us know what really happened. The media articles are heavily biased against the driver.

    So, as I said earlier, lets leave it to a court to decide. There's far to much trial by media these days.


Advertisement
Advertisement