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

135

Comments

  • #62
    miss no stars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭miss no stars


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    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.

    Nothing warrants suing the dead boy, his family, his dead brother and state though. As I said, he should have had lights, but she shouldn't have been speeding.


  • #63
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    miss no stars wrote: »
    Nothing warrants suing the dead boy, his family, his dead brother and state though. As I said, he should have had lights, but she shouldn't have been speeding.
    It was just a tragic accident. Why shouldn't she sue, they're suing her? If the kids hadn't been out on that road her life wouldn't have been destroyed. Suing isn't something most of us would consider, but I don't really blame her. The parents let their teenagers go out in the middle of the night and that led to a tragedy. They then lost a second son to drugs and alcohol. That doesn't sound like great parenting to me.

    Frankly it sounds as though the drivers life has been destroyed by the accident. I think she's suffered enough.


  • #64
    miss no stars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭miss no stars


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    It was just a tragic accident. Why shouldn't she sue, they're suing her? If the kids hadn't been out on that road her life wouldn't have been destroyed. Suing isn't something most of us would consider, but I don't really blame her. The parents let their teenagers go out in the middle of the night and that led to a tragedy. They then lost a second son to drugs and alcohol. That doesn't sound like great parenting to me.

    Frankly it sounds as though the drivers life has been destroyed by the accident. I think she's suffered enough.

    See, she was speeding. She broke the law and in doing so killed a boy. That's why it's not JUST a tragic accident. She shouldn't sue them because they haven't done her material harm! She's KILLED him. That's why they're suing her. He's dead and she's alive, did you miss that? That's what happens every bloody time a driver kills someone - they're sued and the insurance pays out. The driver suing the victim is outrageous. Of course I blame her for suing them, if she had any remorse she'd be trying to get the insurance company to settle out of court rather than dragging the victim's parents through the trial process. She's not going to suffer more by being sued, her insurance will cover it. She has, however, decided to inflict more suffering on the family.


  • #65
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    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.

    One could be generous and just say that it was an accident waiting to happen.

    However she was going at around 70-80km and apparently and hit not one, not two; but three cyclists (who also had reflectors on their bikes).

    Is she mad? And what does it say about the country that would have a legal system that would entertain her case (regardless of outcome)? :eek:


  • #66
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    One could be generous and just say that it was an accident waiting to happen.

    However she was going at around 70-80km and apparently and hit not one, not two; but three cyclists (who also had reflectors on their bikes).

    Is she mad? And what does it say about the country that would have a legal system that would entertain her case (regardless of outcome)? :eek:

    We have no idea if the road is as straight as made out most apparent straight roads go up and down. Could have hills and trough they could have been in a trough. Were from the drivers perspective reflective peddles could not be seen. Do we even know they were actually cycling and not stationary in the road 3x3 ? so many things could have happened. I think it speak volumes that the woman has not been convicted of a crime. As for the conspiracy theory's they will always have come out as soon as the husband was revealed to be a police officer and at the scene.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    miss no stars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭miss no stars


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I think it speak volumes that the woman has not been convicted of a crime. As for the conspiracy theory's they will always have come out as soon as the husband was revealed to be a police officer and at the scene.

    I think it speaks volumes that other witnesses were detained for hours afterwards and the key witness (the driver of the car that hit them) was brought home quickly and not even breathalyzed. Funny that, I reckon if I killed a kid and hit two others (seriously injuring one) I would be breathalyzed whether or not I appeared to have consumed alcohol. Cos it's the kind of thing people want to know - was there alcohol involved. Taking the word of her husband's co-worker that he doesn't reckon she'd been drinking hardly stands up to scrutiny and people will justifiably question it.


  • #68
    tobybinns
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15 ✭tobybinns


    deise08 wrote: »
    I'm actually speechless after reading that.
    what lawyer would even take that case?
    I would insist on taking the money first before anything is initiated and then say after the money has been received "nope, this case ain't viable, try another lawyer".


  • #69
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    miss no stars wrote: »
    See, she was speeding. She broke the law and in doing so killed a boy. That's why it's not JUST a tragic accident. She shouldn't sue them because they haven't done her material harm! She's KILLED him. That's why they're suing her. He's dead and she's alive, did you miss that? That's what happens every bloody time a driver kills someone - they're sued and the insurance pays out. The driver suing the victim is outrageous. Of course I blame her for suing them, if she had any remorse she'd be trying to get the insurance company to settle out of court rather than dragging the victim's parents through the trial process. She's not going to suffer more by being sued, her insurance will cover it. She has, however, decided to inflict more suffering on the family.
    Relax and take a breath dear, not everyone is going to agree with your point of view.


  • #70
    miss no stars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭miss no stars


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    Relax and take a breath dear, not everyone is going to agree with your point of view.

    Don't be so patronizing.

    I just don't see how people are missing the bit where she killed him and are thus concluding that in some way she's a victim here but hey, each to their own. Hope the judge sees sense.


  • #71
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    miss no stars wrote: »
    Don't be so patronizing.

    I just don't see how people are missing the bit where she killed him and are thus concluding that in some way she's a victim here but hey, each to their own. Hope the judge sees sense.

    Seen as there are no criminal charges being brought, He could choose to dismiss the cases. As for holding the other witnesses I have no idea. Maybe they could not get any sense out of them. Were all of the boys under age if so they would have to wait for a respective adult to attend so they could be interviewed. Is it not The case in Canada children need an adult present to be interviewed.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.

    Are you even open-minded, bro?


  • #73
    skelligs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 196 ✭✭skelligs


    I always find it amazing how many people judge an issue on one NEWSPAPER report. Its as if every nespaper is always 100% accurate and unbiased.

    News reporters will report and write to suit an agenda. Many get sucked in by one side of a story - recent example the woman and her kids living in a car in Tallaght. (seems she had house, defaulted, won't allow kids father access, doesn't talk to her mother and just hapended to be able to pull off a stunt with a local SF councillor immediately on the "scene")

    So on this toronto story - the other side is the boys had a couple of drinks on them, they were riding bikes in a way you'd normally just do in a controlled area, weaving in and out of each other. They had dark clothing and no lights. The tiny pedal reflectors CANNOT be seen from any height (especially a SUV).

    Maybe believe all that.?

    Or some people said she was in a bar earlier? - Do you believe that story. But even if she was in a bar, did she have a drink?


    So many angles and my guess (its only a guess) is she believes she was totally blameless for the accident. The boys parents, wanting someone else to blame fro their son's stupidness, went to town on her and tried to sue her. She then is being accused in public of being responsible for the death and people don't regard her in the same way. She suffer anguish and depression because of something that WAS NOT HER FAULT.

    If that is the situation she has every right to sue for her loss.

    Remember this is a COUNTER-suit. They lodged their claim first for trauma of loss of their son. They want her to be made responsible and don't want their son to be blamed for his own stupid recklessness. Accident report says that she had no blame whatsoever and could not have prevented the accident - yet the boy's parents want to sue her?


  • #74
    locum-motion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,144 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    Nimrod 7 wrote: »
    ...How can she sue two people who are no longer alive?


    Essentially, she's suing their estates.
    Not that I imagine they have very extensive estates. A 17 yo is unlikely to have amassed a multi-million dollar fortune.


  • #75
    AndonHandon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭AndonHandon


    locum-motion wrote: »
    Essentially, she's suing their estates.
    Not that I imagine they have very extensive estates. A 17 yo is unlikely to have amassed a multi-million dollar fortune.

    Equally, what use for money will a corpse have?


  • #76
    LizzieJones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭LizzieJones


    SparkySpitfire wrote: »
    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.

    Reflective clothing isn't widely used in Ontario, Canada for bike riding. It should be but it isn't.


  • #77
    skelligs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 196 ✭✭skelligs


    locum-motion wrote: »
    Essentially, she's suing their estates.
    Not that I imagine they have very extensive estates. A 17 yo is unlikely to have amassed a multi-million dollar fortune.

    you need to understand the US/Canadian system.

    Kid is dead, but parents are still alive. Say court awards $1m. Award is against the kid's estate.

    Say in 30 years, the parents pass on and THEIR estate is worth $4m and they have 3 other kids. The estate of the dead kid could theoretically claim $1m.

    Remember it is America/Canada we are talking about (laws similar in both) and they will think up the weirdest possibilities.


  • #78
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Right so if I get this straight...

    The deceased's family are suing the driver for 900k
    The driver is counter-suing the deceased's family for 800k

    Could one infer from this that the driver believes that they are in fault and are valuing the deceased's life at 100k?


  • #79
    LizzieJones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭LizzieJones


    P_1 wrote: »
    Right so if I get this straight...

    The deceased's family are suing the driver for 900k
    The driver is counter-suing the deceased's family for 800k

    Could one infer from this that the driver believes that they are in fault and are valuing the deceased's life at 100k?

    Yes. What is even sadder about this is that the family of the dead boy also lost his brother 6 months later.


  • #80
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


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

    17 year old kid? I'd moved out of home at 17 FFS, it's not like he was three.


  • #81
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    FTA69 wrote: »
    17 year old kid? I'd moved out of home at 17 FFS, it's not like he was three.

    Child under law......


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Child under law......

    So what? Your man is blaming the parents for "letting" him go out as if they should be watching a 17 year old at every waking moment.


  • #83
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    FTA69 wrote: »
    So what? Your man is blaming the parents for "letting" him go out as if they should be watching a 17 year old at every waking moment.
    Brandon’s father shakes his head.

    “They’re kids!” he gasps. “And they have a right to make mistakes ... it was a wet, dark road — what about slowing down?”

    Think you will find it's the other way around. Parents are saying they were kids


  • #84
    Allyall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,381 ✭✭✭✭Allyall


    So if she's suing for mental trauma and stress etc... Isn't that what she's putting them through? :confused:


  • #85
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    LizzieJones wrote: »
    Yes. What is even sadder about this is that the family of the dead boy also lost his brother 6 months later.

    That's unfortunate alright. Probably not best that it's all being hashed out in public to be honest. Probably different systems in Canada compared to here but don't the various lawyers here (for the insurance companies) usually work out the compensation figure between themselves in private rather that having this kind of emotive public laundry happening?


  • #86
    LizzieJones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭LizzieJones


    P_1 wrote: »
    That's unfortunate alright. Probably not best that it's all being hashed out in public to be honest. Probably different systems in Canada compared to here but don't the various lawyers here (for the insurance companies) usually work out the compensation figure between themselves in private rather that having this kind of emotive public laundry happening?

    It is generally done in private. I think that the family of the dead boy went to the media, with their side of the story. in order to publicly shame the women suing them.

    I could be wrong but that is what I am assuming and why it is in the media now.


  • #87
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


    I thought your woman was suing the family for a million odd.


  • #88
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    miss no stars wrote: »
    Don't be so patronizing.

    I just don't see how people are missing the bit where she killed him and are thus concluding that in some way she's a victim here but hey, each to their own. Hope the judge sees sense.

    You clearly accept the biased hack reporting of a tabloid newspaper. That's your choice. I wouldn't wipe my arse with a tabloid let alone read one. She didn't set out to 'kill' them. I think you are borderline hysterical about this. The family have their own agenda, they're angry, they want someone to blame, that's human nature but it doesn't make it or them right.

    No charges have been brought against the driver. Think about that before you try to force your opinion on others. Incidentally, trying to impose your uninformed opinions on others is patronizing.


  • #89
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    LizzieJones wrote: »
    It is generally done in private. I think that the family of the dead boy went to the media, with their side of the story. in order to publicly shame the women suing them.

    I could be wrong but that is what I am assuming and why it is in the media now.

    Yeah what I'd say happened was that the lawyers representing the driver (and/or their insurance company) offered a settlement of 100k in private, the deceased family (or possibly their lawyers) didn't think that was enough so decided to sue for 900k (and bring the whole sorry mess public), the driver (or again possibly their lawyers) decided to counter-sue for 800k so that any final settlement would be the original 100k.


  • #90
    Dohnny Jepp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Dohnny Jepp


    I may be way off and may need to read the article again but... I think she has a right to sue. She's mentally twisted now because of the young fella's decision to go out in the dark without appropriate reflective gear and lights.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    scwazrh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,994 ✭✭✭scwazrh


    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.

    At 17 he is not an adult .Not by legal , experience , educational , physical , emotionally , or mentally is he an adult and it is your job as an adult to advise him of that.


Advertisement
Advertisement