Italia6

Step 1: Kill a kid riding a bicycle.
Step 2: Sue his parents.

https://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...-helmet_149928

calamarichris

This guy's going to be the Belle of the Cellblock when word gets around in his prison.

rangerdavid

Wait a minute. so the guy hits and kills a kid who is riding a bike without a helmet. He gets convicted, sentenced and is serving time. The kids parents sue him in a civil action and the guy files a counterclaim defending himself claiming contrib due to the fact the kid wasn't wearing a helmet.

AND YOU WANT TO BLAME THE LAWYER?

rangerdavid

Are you seriously that ignorant of the legal system? do you seriously not know that contrib is a defense in a negligence action? do you not know that anyone has the right to defend themselves? don't you realize that it is probably the guy's vehicle insurance company who is providiing legal representation in this matter?





my gosh..........

rangerdavid

then there was this quote:


Directing a question to Weaving, she asked, “Can you just leave us alone and serve your time?”


Freaking moron, she sued him and wants him to leave her alone????




PEOPLE ARE STUPID!!!!




In my town it is illegal to ride a bike without a helmet. The police would have charged the kid, and the parents.



But ohhh, just leave us alone....... Litigous asses.

bonz50

serious question, as I don't know much about the legal system... is there a law mandating that the kid was required to wear a helmet?? if not, how are the parents negligent?

dstrong 

FWIW...the helmet wouldn't have made a difference. They need to let it go. And what does "...for more than $15,000" mean? A ga-gillion dollars? It seems like a strange statement to throw out.

rfmarotti

rangerdavid nailed it. OP misses the point entirely. Then again, so did the victim's mother

Stephen and Joanne, then sued Weaving for more than $15,000 in damages. . . . Joanne Kenney asked, “Can you just leave us alone and serve your time?”

wut?

rfmarotti

there doens't need to be "a law" for someone's actions or inaction to be negligent.

crhilton

That may be material in deciding the case, but I don't think there has to be a law in order to attempt to sue for it. rangerdavid makes an excellent point: This guy didn't instigate it, he's filing a countersuit. That's perfectly normal.

I think the OP, and myself (although I had the sense to shut up and wait), got suckered by our useless news media into getting upset over this. This is far from being worthy of being upset. And the "journalist" who wrote this story should be smacked upside the head.

In the future I'm confining myself to getting upset over court decisions. It seems to filter out a lot of crap that the court systems do a fine job of handling. Getting upset over filings seems to be the path to constant anger and paranoia.

rfmarotti

yes.

JamieElenbaas

Ahem... BS title: The d'bag is filing himself, There is no lawyer on his side.

echappist

Rangerdavid, serious question here. Couldn't have the boy's parents used tort law to seek civil damages?

Is there something about prison sexual assault that particularly amuse you?
+1. It's called pro se.

Edit: mods, why is that the four letter words that means the same as sexual assault is banned? Makes no sense.

rangerdavid

dstrong, many jurisdictions, including mine, require only "notice pleading", so you dont have to specify an exact amount when you file your complaint, you only have to allege an amount "in excess of $15,000 for the court you filed in to have jurisdiction over the case. You can specify your exact amount later.

rangerdavid

sure, if they didn't include a claim for wrongful death perhaps they could have, but the deep pocket here is probably with the guys insurance, if he has any. therefore, I'm assuming they sued for negligence for some reason in order to get insurance coverage. there may be a provision in the policy that specifies what is covered and what is not.



Perhaps there are other attorneys here on BF from that jurisdiction who can answer that question more accurately that I did.

patentcad

If you're unhappy with the civil tort system we can always go back to the time honored historical way of resolving these disputes.

Johnny Law

trust me! i would have sued him for more then 15k for hitting my kid and killing him!

sbxx1985 

Restitution would have been ordered pursuant to the criminal case and conviction. The parents, in their suit, must be seeking damages outside of the scope of restitution.

So, in theory, they started it by filing the suit. The guy has the right to defend himself.

Johnny Law

nevermind, i remove my earlier post from this thread. (not litteraly, but mentaly dont look at it!) you guys are getting to deep into law for me.

Walter

The guy is, deservedly, sitting in jail for the next 9 years or so. Civil suits are the least of his problem.

If the guy is representing himself then I agree that lawyers have nothing to do with this but calling a mother who has lost a child because of an ******* stunt like what the perp was convicted for a "moron" is, well, moronic.

This will be in Advocacy and Safety before long. Lawyers, cars, helmets; those guys live for this kind of stuff.

patentcad

If you're so concerned about Safety you should give up cycling. Idiots. Complete friggin idiots.

ciocc_cat

It was probably a lot more gratifying for the winner and painful for the loser, but what's a little blood loss anyway?

Monty Python and the Holy Grail is one of my all-time favorite movies!

sbxx1985 

Flesh wound.

sleepy

Defending the turd in jail for getting sued? Noice!

Helmet or not, the poor kid would have died anyway.

unterhausen

agreed, a helmet is not going to save you if someone hits you going 80mph