People are broad-minded. They'll accept the fact that a person can be an alcoholic, a dope fiend, a wife beater and even a newspaperman, but if a man doesn't drive, there's something wrong with him.
that's messed up.
The part that I find interesting is that he has a lawyer (I assume from legal aid) for the criminal proceedings but is serving as his own council for the civil suit.
I'm just surprised that the court took the case and didn't throw it out.
Creep's like this continually PO people around them, 'cept now he's going to be POing other convicts. Let me predict his future: He's going to backup into a shiv.
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A driver who's serving a manslaughter sentence for striking and killing a 14-year-old boy is suing the victim's parents, blaming them for their son's death because they allowed him to ride his bike in the street without a helmet.
On the up side, they gave him 10 years for mowing down the kid, despite the usual claims of "he popped out of nowhere". That's worth something.
I would like to say it is baseless, but I won't. It is law 101, it is a response and countersuit after they filed suit on him. Regardless of how I might feel about it, this is what places our justice system so much higher than others and is also why it is so fragile. Place yourself in his shoes, or maybe in one of the recent releases prisoners that were exonerated after DNA testing proved their innocence. This isn't a bad thing and I would say that those who say it is, well, maybe they are the problem. And this is still along way from having any decision rendered . This is another fluff piece written to incense the reader.
Be careful of what you give up for safety and convenience, you never know when you might need those same protections.
This young man was not wearing a talisman as well, that would have saved his life. Obvious negligence on his parents part.
It's an ******* move to be putting the parents through any more grief.
Place myself in his shoes? Multiple DUI convictions passing someone at 83 mph and mowing down a child and then having the audacity to sue the parents because the kid wasn't wearing a styrofoam coffee cup on his head to protect him from 3,000 lbs of steel traveling and double the speed limit. Sorry I can't relate.
"Ride lots." -- Eddy Merckx
Anyone with a pencil can file a lawsuit. Winning and collecting is what matters. In civil actions, it's all about insurance money, anyhow. The inmate gets to raise his defenses and counterclaims just like any other litigant in a civil suit.
The parents then should sue their own parents (grandparents of the victim) for not telling them that they should not allow their child to ride without helmet.
Btw, what happens if my bike hit a pedestrian who's J-walking?
"Ride lots." -- Eddy Merckx
According to the article, the Kenneys have sued Weaving, presumably in a wrongful death action, and Weaving is "countersuing" the Kenneys for "contributory negligence." Contributory negligence is a generally raised as an affirmative defense, not as a "countersuit." Either Weaving has mislabeled his response to the Kenneys complaint (which wouldn't be surprising if he is representing himself) or the reporter didn't understand the nature of the defense. Either way, there is something about that report that doesn't add up.
I would think that the court would dismiss Weaving's claim for damages for "wrongful conviction and imprisonment," given that he has already been tried and convicted in a criminal court, and his allegation that he has been deprived of his "capacity to carry on in life's activities" seems to be essentially the same allegation, so I would expect that to be dismissed as well.
That leaves only his claim for emotional pain and suffering. It looks like Connecticut does recognize a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/Civil/part3/3.12-2.htm). Depending on the specific allegations that he made in his counterclaim, it is possible that that claim would survive a motion to dismiss, but given his criminal conviction, it is extremely unlikely that he would ultimately be able to establish his claim at trial.
As an aside, given the facts here, it's pretty ironic that his name is "Weaving."
The thing about all this is you never heard about civil suits after a criminal conviction before the O.J trial. I'm sure there were a few but not like now. The cruel thing is filing a civil suit after a person is convicted in a criminal suit. To me that's kind of like double jeopardy only with monetary losses because that's all you can get from a civil suit. If there is to be any monetary award it should be included in the sentencing phase of a criminal suit IMHO, not separated out in a civil matter.