Advocacy & Safety - Driver in fatal Conn. crash sues victim's parents

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLk4dFEMQUjI2-XKYd4IzMQ3lV1A?docId=f256dd857e7d460fb3437a211b93e305

that's messed up.

that's messed up.

Not really. It's just part of the legal process. If you really think that it's messed up you should be willing to take his side in a bet on the outcome. I'd like my odds covering that bet.

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.

Not really. It's just part of the legal process. If you really think that it's messed up you should be willing to take his side in a bet on the outcome. I'd like my odds covering that bet.

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.

It is only part of a legal process when initiated by a total and complete *******.

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.

I'm just surprised that the court took the case and didn't throw it out.I'm often surprised by the fact that such baseless suits are not thrown out. But in fact, I've seen even more baseless suits drag on for years. An acquaintance had to sell his house to defend himself against a lawsuit that basically accuses him of not being able to read someone's mind. As far as I know, that's still not settled 15 years later.

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.Not really, since that is the sentence he should have been given on his previous DUIs. If that would have happened, a 14 year old boy would still be alive.

He's going to backup into a shiv.

at least the other inmate could sue him for not wearing body armor, or being too thin skinned

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.

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.


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.

Not really, since that is the sentence he should have been given on his previous DUIs. If that would have happened, a 14 year old boy would still be alive.

Good point. We need to start treating dangerous driving in all forms as serious in this country.


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.

I have to agree with canopus , our system is great because it gives a fair shake to everyone, even the most vile of people.

Good point. We need to start treating dangerous driving in all forms as serious in this country.



I have to agree with canopus , our system is great because it gives a fair shake to everyone, even the most vile of people.

He got his fair shake and now he sits in a jail cell. That should be the end of the story.

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?

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.

I assume it matters to the parents of this dead child that they now have to go through another round of litigation regardless of whether they "win" or not. Suing your victim's surviving family is a total ******* move. It is evil and cruel. It is obviously just one more way this guy is trying to get around the fact that he and only he is responsible for his own actions.

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?

Screw J walking, what happens if you hit a pedestrian who breaks on their legs because they weren't wearing fully body armor? Nevermind that you were going 80 mph in one of these.

http://www.photopumpkin.com/wp-content/uploads/giant-truck-1.jpg

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."

He got his fair shake and now he sits in a jail cell. That should be the end of the story.

It was, until the parents decided to sue.

It was, until the parents decided to sue.

Not sure what the parents are hoping to get out of that. When they showed the story on the Today show this morning, that was the part my wife picked up on more than that he was countersuing them.

Not sure what the parents are hoping to get out of that.

The limits of his liability policy, probably.

I assume it matters to the parents of this dead child that they now have to go through another round of litigation regardless of whether they "win" or not. Suing your victim's surviving family is a total ******* move. It is evil and cruel. It is obviously just one more way this guy is trying to get around the fact that he and only he is responsible for his own actions.

The parents brought a civil suit against the defendant (the guy in jail), his countersuit was a part of his response to their lawsuit. They chose to file suit first and should expect a defense against it and should be prepared mentally to go through it all over again, if they weren't they should have left it alone.

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.

[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps it is, but it's really the only way in the U.S. for a victim to get any (real) compensation. Tort laws are in place to make sure people are responsible for their actions .. by paying. Otherwise, this guy spends (probably less than) 10 years in jail and then gets out.

The parents had the right to sue the basturd for killing their child while drunk. Not sure why they sued for only $15,000, it should have been more to the tune of 1.5 million, not that the bum would be able able to pay but the A-hole would have and should have had to pay some sort of monthly payment to the family for the rest of his useless life as a memory for what he did. But for the Jerko to sue for $15,000 in damages is just darn right insane and mean. Of course he will lose the case but the family will spend close to that to fight the case, so the family loses again.

The parents of the child should then counter-sue the parents of the driver for not teaching him enough about driving.

You know what's really pisshy; this drunken skum bag obviously hasn't learned his lesson because he's not the least bit sorry, and with that kind of attitude he kill again while drunk when he gets released. I hope one of his fellow roommates or an immate takes a blade to him before he gets out.

You know what's really pisshy; this drunken skum bag obviously hasn't learned his lesson because he's not the least bit sorry, and with that kind of attitude he kill again while drunk when he gets released. I hope one of his fellow roommates or an immate takes a blade to him before he gets out.

Having killed a kid, he should be real popular in prison. It ought to put him somewhere between ******* and pedophiles.

Having killed a kid, he should be real popular in prison. It ought to put him somewhere between ******* and pedophiles.

Whats the difference between a kid and an adult in this situation? Nothing. One can be sadder for the kid since they didn't get to live long but in the end it doesn't matter. This guy isn't like a pedophile, there wasn't any inference that he targeted children and to imply that is nothing more than grandstanding. Thanks, but no thanks.

The parents had the right to sue the basturd for killing their child while drunk. Not sure why they sued for only $15,000, it should have been more to the tune of 1.5 million, not that the bum would be able able to pay but the A-hole would have and should have had to pay some sort of monthly payment to the family for the rest of his useless life as a memory for what he did. But for the Jerko to sue for $15,000 in damages is just darn right insane and mean. Of course he will lose the case but the family will spend close to that to fight the case, so the family loses again.

Neither party is suing for "only $15,000." The report indicates that both parties are "seeking more than $15,000 in damages." There is a big difference.

The Connecticut statute that governs the contents of complaints filed in civil actions requires that there be a statement in the complaint of whether the damages sought are greater than $15,000. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap898.htm#Sec52-91.htm The references in the report to the parties "seeking more than $15,000 in damages" merely indicate that the parties complied with that statutory requirement in drafting their pleadings. It doesn't give any indication of the actual damages sought by either party.

The parents brought a civil suit against the defendant (the guy in jail), his countersuit was a part of his response to their lawsuit. They chose to file suit first and should expect a defense against it and should be prepared mentally to go through it all over again, if they weren't they should have left it alone.

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.

Criminal courts are for punishing the perpetrator. Civil courts are for making the victim whole again. Big difference.

Example. some guy takes a sledgehammer to my bike in a fit of rage. He goes on trial and is convicted. He does some jail time and pays a fine to the state. But...I am still out a bike. What about me? I did nothing wrong and I have no bike. Should I really be expected to shell out the cash to buy a new one? His jail time and fine does nothing for me as the victim. Suing him civilly for the replacement value of my bike makes the situation even-steven.

Criminal courts have to do with the state or the fed. The victim really has nothing to do with it other than as a potential witness. The punishment for the crime is between the government and the perpetrator. The civil suit is between the victim and the perpetrator. they are two completely separate entities. So no double jeopardy. It is only double jeopardy when the government comes after you twice.

Now clearly, there is no amount of money that can replace a human being. However, that doesn't mean they don't attempt to put a value on it anyway.

Criminal courts are for punishing the perpetrator. Civil courts are for making the victim whole again. Big difference.

Example. some guy takes a sledgehammer to my bike in a fit of rage. He goes on trial and is convicted. He does some jail time and pays a fine to the state. But...I am still out a bike. What about me? I did nothing wrong and I have no bike. Should I really be expected to shell out the cash to buy a new one? His jail time and fine does nothing for me as the victim. Suing him civilly for the replacement value of my bike makes the situation even-steven.

Criminal courts have to do with the state or the fed. The victim really has nothing to do with it other than as a potential witness. The punishment for the crime is between the government and the perpetrator. The civil suit is between the victim and the perpetrator. they are two completely separate entities. So no double jeopardy. It is only double jeopardy when the government comes after you twice.

Now clearly, there is no amount of money that can replace a human being. However, that doesn't mean they don't attempt to put a value on it anyway.

Good explanation... now how do we deal with the issue of the perpetrator not going to jail because the state isn't sure whether a crime has been committed or not... because a bicycle was involved. The bicycle is viewed as a toy, so the representative of the state (DA) determines that toys are not subject to the same laws as motor vehicles.

Do you still have a civil case... if so, how, the perp was never convicted... what proof do you have that damages were done, by this specific person?

slowandstudy, I understand it but I don't see why you can't make that part of the criminal sentencing phase. Talk about streamlining the process...

Because if if the defendant is not convicted there should really be no reason for you to go to trial for a civil suit is there. I mean if I didn't do it, why should you have the right to sue me for something I couldn't be convicted for and if I am convicted the plaintiff should be made whole through my sentencing. That's all I'm saying...

And I didn't say it was double jeopardy, I said it was like double jeopardy.

Good explanation... now how do we deal with the issue of the perpetrator not going to jail because the state isn't sure whether a crime has been committed or not... because a bicycle was involved. The bicycle is viewed as a toy, so the representative of the state (DA) determines that toys are not subject to the same laws as motor vehicles.

Do you still have a civil case... if so, how, the perp was never convicted... what proof do you have that damages were done, by this specific person?

If you destroy my toy train set you will have to pay for it in civil court. toy, vehicle, whatever...doesn't matter.

Good explanation... now how do we deal with the issue of the perpetrator not going to jail because the state isn't sure whether a crime has been committed or not... because a bicycle was involved. The bicycle is viewed as a toy, so the representative of the state (DA) determines that toys are not subject to the same laws as motor vehicles.

Do you still have a civil case... if so, how, the perp was never convicted... what proof do you have that damages were done, by this specific person?

The lack of a criminal conviction doesn't necessarily mean that the accused did not cause the damage, only that the accused did not cause the damage in a way that meets the requirements for a criminal conviction.

Criminal and civil liability have very different standards of guilt.

If I have a stroke while driving and crash into the side of your house, I have committed no crime, but remain civilly liable for the damage I caused.

I might be charged with a criminal violation based on an officer on the scene believing that I was actually drunk, but then successfully defend against the criminal charge by proving I was not drunk, but suffering from a sudden and unexpected medical condition.

Being acquitted of the criminal charge would not free me from financial responsibility for the damage.

...
And I didn't say it was double jeopardy, I said it was like double jeopardy.Dog chasing it's tail.