Six months after 17-year-old Brandon Majewski was run down by a 42-year-old female SUV driver in a residential community north of Toronto, his 23-year-old brother was found dead from an overdose. His family believes it was “grief” that killed him. Now, the people who lost two sons in half a year have another problem: a million-dollar-plus lawsuit from the woman who was responsible for at least one of those deaths.
According to the Barrie Examiner,
Brandon, a spunky and handsome 17-year-old bike enthusiast, was out with two buddies at around 1:30 a.m. on Oct. 28, 2012, when they hopped on their bicycles to go for hotdogs.
Not long after, an SUV crashed into the boys on Innisfil Beach Road, killing Brandon and badly injuring his friend Richard McLean, 16, who suffered a broken pelvis and other serious injuries. His other pal Jake Roberts, 16, received only scratches.
Now the driver of the SUV – a former Innisfil resident – Sharlene Simon, 42, a mother of three, is suing the dead boy for the emotional trauma she says the crash has caused her. She’s also suing the two other boys, as well as the dead boy’s parents, and even his brother, who has since died. She’s also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.
Ms. Simon’s lawsuit alleges that the children were “incompetent cyclists”. Local police believe she was speeding at the time, doing approximately 90 km/h in an 80 zone. She claims that she never saw the reflectors on the bicycles.
Additional coverage from RT notes that
Simon was being followed in a separate car by her husband, a York Regional police officer, and did not undergo a breathalyzer test, since police did not believe she was driving under the influence. Simon’s husband drove her home after the accident and no charges were filed.
Presumably “police” in this case means “the colleagues of her husband”.
Here at TTAC, we like to flatter ourselves that we can see both sides of every story — but it’s hard to generate too much sympathy for Mrs. Simon here.
I had to check my calendar to see if it was April 1st. This has to be mistaken, she is lucky she hasn`t had her ass sued.
Hopefully this will shine a light on the police even in a fatal traffic accident helping each others families out rather than serving the public.
She was sued. The family sued her for $900K.
Good, I hope they got their money.
Is that all?
If you don’t reform the court system, we’ll continue to live in a ridiculous, litigious society where the best “get rich quick” scheme is filing a frivolous lawsuit in hopes of settling for a fraction of a huge sum of money.
It sounds so simple, doesn’t it? “Let’s reform the court system!”. Fine. How? More specifically, how can it be reformed is such a way that it automatically weeds out obviously bad suits from those that have merit?
Oh, wait, that’s what a Judge is for. If it was me being sued over something outrageous, I’d have my attorney move for dismissal or summary judgement. If I were the Judge (and assuming that there aren’t any reasons not to), I’d dismiss it with prejudice so that it couldn’t come up again. See? No court reform required!
This story, sad as it is, is nothing but red meat.
I’m sure nobody ever tried to move for dismissal of a frivolous case, yet big settlements for hot coffee or people that jumped off bridges have occurred. Look at who the current regime is stacking the benches with, and you’ll realize that the system isn’t going to start policing itself, at least if you were trying to be serious about this issue. This case is filed in Canada though, so let’s see if they’re doing a better job.
You’re right, of course. There are bad judges. But severely limiting the either the right to sue or the max cap on damages (the most common remedies proposed by the reform it crowd) is far more dangerous, giving yet more power to those that already have it.
To be fair, that whole “outrageous” hot coffee lawsuit happened because the coffee was nearly boiling, and the lady had 3rd degree burns on her rear and …inner thigh. I’d be a little peeved too.
She spilled her coffee on herself. If you see anyone else as being responsible, your opinion is not my concern.
Coffee needs to be ~200 degrees to be brewed.
Can’t handle that, ask for ice.
Actually, the original hot coffee suit was more than merited. From what I’ve read McD’s were told more than once by many that their coffee is served too hot. They were doing it on purpose too so that customer wouldn’t ask for refills because it would take too long to wait for it to cool down. So when they got sued they totally deserved it.
Syncromesh is absolutely right. McDonalds did deserve the big verdict. If you want to find out the true facts of the case, watch the documentary “Hot Coffee” which is now streaming on Netflix.
brenschluss – the temperature of the water used to /make/ coffee is generally 200 degrees Fahrenheit (depending on the technique used). However, it is cooled by the beans and apparatus and is generally /served/ between 155 and 175 (even when kept on a heating element). McDonalds was serving their coffee at the time at 195 to 205. Have you measured the temperature of the coffee you drink?
I don’t think I’ve stuck a thermometer in a cup I’m about to drink from, but I have definitely measured temps close to pouring, and they’ve been plenty hot. Anyway I’m not sure the difference in how 175-degree vs. 190-degree coffee feels on your lap is very large anyway. It’s gonna hurt.
Geeze – people who bring up the McDonald’s coffee case have little actually understanding of it.
It was hardly frivolous as McDonald’s was proven to have super-heated its coffee (well above restaurant industry standards) which is why the victim suffered serious 3rd degree burns which required skin grafts.
The victim in the case offered to settle for $20k (to cover medical costs) but McDonald’s refused to do so.
Based on that and the fact that there had been over 700 hundred complaints about burns from McDonald’s coffee (including other cases with 3rd degree burns) – the jury awarded the victim $200k in compensatory damages which was reduced to $160k due to 20% negligence attributed to the victim.
The jury then awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages (about 2 days of coffee sales for McDonald’s) to teach McDonald’s a lesson.
The trial court then reduced the punitive damages to $480k and then the parties settled for an undisclosed amount which was probably a good bit below that sum.
Anyhow, one can file a lawsuit for pretty much anything (should look at the type of lawsuits corporations file against each other) – just a bit surprised that the woman driver was able to find a lawyer willing to file such a case (figuring the lawyer got a nice retainer).
Most likely, this lawsuit will be tossed out by a judge with a reprimand to both the woman and her attorney.
Their argument was that McDonalds coffee was too hot at 180-190 degrees. Since most people don’t know anything about coffee, that flew. I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that magic is real if my audience is a bunch of toddlers.
If you learn how to make a cuppa Joe properly, guess what, it should be near 200 degrees. Calling 180-190 “superheated” is nothing but bullsh!t. If I dump my French press on my lap, I’m going to the hospital.
Note that many other burn suits against selling beverages at the same temperature have been dismissed, McD’s hasn’t lowered the tempurature, and it’s in line with every other business that sells hot coffee plus NCA recommendations.
I promise I’m not a barista- but I do care about coffee. McD’s had a crappy lawyer, and coffee should be hot.
I’m with brenschluss. Some people will believe anything, and it isn’t by accident.
“Current regime”? Most of the crazy shit that’s come from the SCotUS recently is due to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito –all Reagan and Bush (W.) appointees.
“Current regime”? Most of the crazy stuff that’s come from the SCotUS recently is due to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito –- all Reagan and Bush (W.) appointees.
” “Current regime”? Most of the crazy stuff that’s come from the SCotUS recently is due to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito –- all Reagan and Bush (W.) appointees.”
there you go , using _facts_ again ~ what are you , some kind of Liberal or Progressive who cares about the FACTS ?! .
-Nate
sorry, there are too many bad judges to simply let things stay the way they are.
One such is the judge who approved the sale of a widow’s home over a $6.00 USD deficit in property taxes. The home then solf for half of what it’s worth.
A real human being would’ve pulled their wallet and paid it off. The real culprit is “LIBERALISM”.
I read that one, or maybe something similar – It was actually $600 in back HOA dues. Granted, in this case the lady hadn’t paid the HOA in over 6 years before they put a lein on the property, and had apparently been ignoring her mail or throwing stuff out until the subpoena came.
At that point it was too late and the legal ball was already rolling. Granted, if you fail to pay your dues for 6+ years, I think you deserve your fate. It’s too bad there isn’t a cure for stupid.
Easy, have a system where the loser pays the winners legal bills. That would end all frivolous law suits.
That system exists. It’s called the “English rule” of costs, and it applies in every common law country in the world – except the US.
Has anyone noticed that this is in Toronto, which not only has a completely different courts than the US, but also a different government?
Wait, is Toronto another country?
This sounds like an American suing like an American. Is Canada taking legal lessons from the USA???
You can always move, run for office, go to law school, work hard and become a judge. But I guess whining about imaginary problems is easier. And the court system involved in the case in the story is the Canadian Court system. Much different from this exceptional system we have in the USA where frivolous suits are filed because surgeons remove the wrong leg or other part of the body and the patient should just forget about it.
Judges have the right to dismiss suits. Don’t you believe in the Constitution?
Huh? Who knew there were self absorbed litigious a$$hats in Canada too?
How about ask for forgiveness and leave the family you destroyed alone.
Canada is a country full of asshats. They are just so self righteous they don’t know it!!!
@ jjister6….Really?…..Do you feel better now? Yup, we have our share of a$$ hats. We also have a fair share of smug, pompous, self righteous, dick heads. We even got millionaire racists.
I can assume that the USA has none of the above?
We have plenty. My guess is that bad people are fairly evenly distributed around the world.
I would like to know what the cyclists were wearing so that they could be seen at night. I see a lot of people cycling at night in Cambridge wearing dark clothes and no lights. People who cycle at night need to make sure they’re visible. (And people who drive at night need to be aware there are nuts who cycle in dark clothes at night.
But the lawsuit reminds me of the story that defines the Yiddish word, chutzpa. A man is on trial for killing his parents. “Have mercy on me!” he tells the court. “I’m an orphan!”
There are scum born everywhere. It’s not even their fault they are born that way. Rather, it is the fault of those supposedly less scummy, to sit there like dumb stooges, for letting a culture and system so singlemindedly favoring scum at the expense of all others, fester on forever.
WTH ?! .
I guess this is how she deals with her guilt .
-Nate
Seems like a serious breach of public trust not to give the wife a breathalizer. There is a fatality involving a motor vehicle at 1:30 am!!!! As a police officer, you should assume alcohol may have been a factor under those circumstances. Not a lot else you can do at those hours. This is just sickening.
Lawsuit aside, you also have to wonder what the boys were doing going out for muchies on bikes at 130 am.
“Lawsuit aside, you also have to wonder what the boys were doing going out for muchies on bikes at 130 am.”
Why? In Canada you’re free to bike ride at any time, day or night.
Apparently being a normal Teenager isn’t the norm for everyone here .
-Nate
gamper is probably insinuating they were on drugs. From his comments about the woman and the brethalyzer, he believes that simply being out at 1:30am is a pretense for being wasted.
Where there is smoke there is usually fire. There was a death involved, crossing t’s and dotting i’s might be called for. It doesnt take an experienced law enforcement officer to arrive at those conculsions. Its true the act of driving or biking at any time of day or night is not criminal, but be a realist. Niether of us were there, so just saying maybe a little police work to determine fault might have been in order….and that should include the involvement of drugs or alcohol in these circumstancees.
Was raised by strict old school European parents. When I was 17 in the early 60s, and wanted to stay out late at night my Dad told me, “at your age, nothing good happens after midnight, you’re staying home”.
In Ontario you are required to have front and rear lights when riding a bicycle at night.
This is more important than people think. I’m not sure what it is like in Toronto, but I live in NYC and cyclists rarely have lights, often ride against traffic on one way streets and constantly run red lights. I’ve narrowly missed my fair share of delivery men and cycling enthusiasts who were blatantly disregarding traffic laws. I’ve mentioned it to a few friends in the legal profession and they have all said that if I had hit one I wouldnt be liable and could sue their estates for damages to my vehicle. I’m all for sharing the road, but cyclists need to follow traffic laws for everyone’s safety.
It’s not great in Toronto. As a cyclist I can attest to the attitude that a lot of cyclist take: that they’ve the moral high-ground. ARC and TCC are pretty bad about this; they’ll fight helmet laws on the grounds that cars, well, are bad.
I know this sounds terribly reactionary, but I’ve born witness to enough really awful cyclist behaviour–and some equally nasty justifications for said behaviour–that I quit TCC out of spite and disgust.
That said, suing someone whose kids you killed for emotional distress takes some gumption.
She was driving in an 80 zone. As in; pretty decent visibility. If the bikers jumped into the road from behind something, that is one thing, but if they were riding along the road and she “didn’t see them”, she wouldn’t have seen pedestrians, either. Whom I believe, even in Soviet Canuckistan are allowed outside the home at night sans headlights.
Young inner urban cyclists tend to ride aggressively, because it doesn’t take that many scrapes to realize getting hit at sub 30 is rarely all that big a deal. And is perhaps worth the adrenalin kick. Even notoriously holier than thou SF bike messengers, don’t have for habit of riding opposite traffic on expressways.
In part what makes cyclists behave like they do is the feeling of invincibility. And it’s not just the court of law. Just look at the public mood in the comments. I’m glad at least someone counters.
@nels2727: I suppose there’s Toronto and Toronto, just like there’s New York City and there’s New York City: Both have their hectic downtowns, and both have their idyllic suburbs.
your “…often ride against traffic on one way streets and constantly run red lights” sounds like downtown bike couriers; three kids going out for hot dogs is more suburbia.
In my experience living in central Toronto, there are good cyclists and bad cyclists – just as there are good drivers and bad drivers.
This incident didn’t take place in Toronto. It happened on a rural road, so there were no streetlights, and the driver should have been using her high-beams, which would have highlighted the reflectors that nearly every bicycle I see has.
I am from time to time a pedestrian, cyclist and driver. And whichever mode I am in, I notice (and despise) the poor behaviour of those in the other modes…..
CRConrad, I’ll note in passing (tongue somewhat in cheek) that “idyllic suburb” seems to me an oxymoron….
If it is expected to administer a breathalyzer to the SUV driver because it was 1:30 AM, then it is reasonable to think that it is possible that the teenagers may also have been impaired. If so, that does change the dynamics of the situation a bit. However, that’s doubtful given “she claims that she never saw the reflectors on the bicycles.” That statement (in a vacuum) implies that if she had seen the reflectors, the accident might have been prevented, and that doesn’t jive with the notion that the kids were riding under the influence and caused the unsafe situation.
Having read up on this a bit in another article, she may not have been able to see the reflectors, but apparently she could see that they did not use their brakes properly ( the basis for the poor driving by the cyclist BTW) also from the hi way traffic code a front light is apparently required, but either a rear light or reflector is okay ( though not wise).
There was also a photo of the son on a bike with a gas tank and engine ( and no lights) so not having been there who knows what he was actually driving.
It was said they were riding three abreast, in dark clothing, the one boy was killed, one was almost crippled but is recovering ( but is still not fully recovered) and the third had less serious injuries. Should they have been out on their bike a 1:30 at night on an unlit road on a misty night. Probably not, but at the same time the driver of the SUV should not have been speeding ( she admitted to going 90km/hr in an 80 zone) in these conditions either.
Since none of us were there we will never really know what happened, there are all sorts of conspiracy theories about it ( apparently the husband was not an officer of the cores that did the investigation, and there is a 29 page report about the accident). Also the husband is also suing the families ( it is the dead boy himself, the parents, his now dead brother, the injured boys, the parents of the injured boys that are all being sued by these people), so although there are two sides to this story ( and lawsuits on nothing sides), it really needs to be settled in a different way. Also the driver’s insurance company would be paying off the dead/ injured children’s parents, while the drive’s law suit would have to be paid by the families themselves.
“Seems like a serious breach of public trust not to give the wife a breathalizer. ”
Yup, smells bad to me but you never know… maybe the police just had some weird policy and procedure when it comes to this sort of thing.
For example: Once upon a time back in 2012, some staties (FHP) didn’t bother with a breathalyzer on an underage drinker who had left a cyclist for dead. Their reasoning? Too much time had passed since the accident to make the breathalyzer admissible in court so it’s not worth the bother. I don’t agree with this reasoning.
Now why had so much time passed (an hour or two) since the wreck? Ah, good question- the timeline works like this- daughter is on her way home late at night, hits cyclist (whose own license revoked for DUI, oh my), daughter flees the scene and heads home, dad takes car (smashed windshield and all) to the police, and meantime mom takes daughter to McD’s (surely not to work off the booze). The Sheriffs, however, made daughter do the breathalyzer and she blew a .117… legal outcome uncertain. Daughter is out on bail for about a month, but fear not, the story takes a turn for the better. Daughter gets caught red-handed by the Gulf Breeze Police (who, in spite of their national reputation, are capable of more than just busting 5-10 over speeders) and blows a .15, daughter gets charged and goes to jail.
Sometimes the cops really screw the pooch but then sometimes the bad people get what’s coming to them in the end.
Thanks for reading ;)
She was informed the best defense is a good offense.
I read this a few days ago and am still a bit bewildered. I think most people would find other ways of dealer with their emotional trauma rather than suing the families of the people they killed. Strange behavior.
“Police DID NOT BELIEVE she was intoxicated.”
Yup… they didn’t believe she was. They KNEW she was. Sweep it under the rug, can’t bear to embarass one of their own. I have zero doubts, but alas it cannot be proven.
Oh well, this isn’t new. No one watches the watchmen.
One thing I can’t stand though, is that vehicular murders do not carry the same weight as when the perp is using a weapon other than a car. If I was drunk and shot 5 random people because of “poor judgment,” the punishment would be much much worse than if I was drunk and ran a stop sign into someone’s minivan.
…unless of course I suffered from affluenza or FOPitis. Then I just get a free pass.
Drugs in the Majewski family so an overdose. Late-teenage kids, one of them a Majewski, out at 1:30 AM so there’s a good chance they were a tad chemically altered. If the driver was speeding by 10 kph in an 80 that’s %12.5 or ~56 mph in a 50 mph zone. I’d say this is less than cut and dried.
Oh, wait… it was some dumb, fat b1tch? Guilty!
PS: a bunch of ~17 yr. olds is “children”? That’s worthy of Jehmu Greene.
The police involvement is new to me and a real eye-opener. That’s definitely worth a lot of scrutiny. Honestly this should have been dealt with as a police-involved incident, which would have brought in the Provincial Police or RCMP.
That said, TTAC does itself and its readers a big disservice by some classic yellow journalism: making sure we know the driver’s a woman; not pointing out that she *is* being sued, and that her suit is a countersuit (the family is also suing the locality, but apparently not the police); mentioning reflectors without pointing out that (caveat: per police reports) the kids’ bikes had no useful reflectors, and no lights. Also in calling the kids “children” when they were in fact late teen.
Of course, I should probably bask in the moral glow of TTAC editors, who have NEVER gone 6 mph over the speed limit on country roads…
Thanks for better articulating my own thoughts.
Hey! I only go 80 mph down a rural road with my lights off when the moon is full…and it’s a paved county highway, not a township gravel…and it’s not my vehicle.
All true statements, but the point of journalism is not to educate or exhaustively inform us. Their job is to create a story that sells ads (or generates clicks). Should we blame them, or perhaps should we view their work product with the proper perspective and use the matter between our ears to make sense of it?
I just don’t think we know enough to form conclusions on this situation, but this article left out quite a bit of information that is available. Did the families of the teenagers sue first? That supports a counter suit provided she knows she wasn’t responsible. There is every chance that these kids weren’t visible. Just the other day I had a 40+ year old customs pilot try to needle me for having reflectors on the bicycle I was about to ride on a bar tour that would go on well after dark. If people my age are still so stupid about being visible on their bikes, what are the chances that these teenagers prioritized maximum visibility over looking cool?
The speed being discussed is a non-factor in my book. 6 mph over is rounding error. OTOH, her husband is a cop. Was this speed calculated based on modeling the accident? On reading her car’s ECU? On her word?
Sobriety. I’ve read one report that a field sobriety test was administered and passed. I don’t trust the police. Just last night I saw a story about how they came to someone’s house and shot their dog. It turns out it was the wrong house in the wrong town. I also saw another cop say a woman was lucky because the cop who violated her rights didn’t rape her like other cops do. Bad cops are giving imaginary cops a bad name. For me, that’s the wild card. This lady could be a virtual Nancy Pelosi, or she could just have had an accident with terrible results for which she was sued by some crummy parents.
You went on a bicycle bar tour and you think a lack of reflectors is the big lapse in judgement?
You wear being paralyzed by fear like a badge of honor. Good luck; the world will only get scarier.
It’s better then being paralyzed by a SUV.
This world desperately needs a plaintiff-killing service.
A less violent alternative: a thrice-divorced, sloppy, yet outspoken motivational speaker might be all she needs to change her mind.
Right. I’d give her an attitude adjustment in my van…
…DOWN BY THE RIVER!
Very few of the multitude of problems facing our rapidly declining society couldn’t be solved by the swift application of bullets to the backs of certain skulls.
Yup, this lady didn’t “think things through”, she has made herself a target of almost everybody, the comments here being an example. Emotional stress is about to get very real for her indeed, I imagine.
One can only hope, and she’ll only have herself to blame for that.
Show me evidence of any “rapid decline”. From the dawn of man, someone has always lamented the “rapid decline”. There is no rapid decline. Humanity started at the bottom floor, there’s no where to go but up. However, once a few of us manage to get a rung or two up, the rest of us manage to pull them back down. People have always been this way and I do not expect them to change.
In short, there’s a sizable portion of the population that simply doesn’t deserve getting “a rung or two up.” At least in the U.S. we’ve done far too much to empower the lesser masses, to the point they now have the ability to force decisions and policies that are clearly against the country’s best interests.
No great society has ever survived by pandering to the whims of its lowest common denominator.
No great society has ever survived.
Kenmore is right, but pardon me if I’d like to see my country be the exception. Sadly, we’re likely already too far down the path of bread, circuses, and Obamacare.
Kenmore is right, but pardon me for preferring to see my country be the exception. Sadly, we’re likely already too far down the path of bread, circuses, and universal healthcare.
In my Business Law 101 class, one thing I took away was “anybody can sue anyone for anything at any time.” This lady must have been in that class with me.
If I’m riding my bike on the road, I use flashing lights front and rear, and wear bright clothes and a helmet. Always. All today’s driver distractions have even pushed me onto bike paths, mostly. You cannot expect much from today’s drivers, but riding at 1:30am? Not me,bro
Most roads are no places for cyclist; and we have huge problems with them riding the rural roads in hoards where I live.
I have a pretty nice bike and use to ride a lot more then I do now. I stay mainly on bike trails, paths, etc. I have decent lights front and back, but still, the road is no place for recreational riding.
If not roads, then where? Around here there are no “bike paths”. We do have a few multi use paths, but they are heavily used by pedestrians, and aren’t an appropriate place for cyclists who are typically going 15 – 25 mph or more.
Also, I think you want the word “hordes”, not “hoards”.
Any and all roads are a place for cyclists, other than multi-lane limited access roads with minimum speed limits over what a cyclist can maintain.
I’ve been bicycle commuting since 1969, follow traffic laws in the same manner as I would in a car, motorcycle or scooter (not all cyclists run red lights wholesale), and I’ll be damned if I’m going to be ghettoized into a system of bicycle-only trails. My tax dollars pay for those roads, too, so you’d better get used to the idea that I’m not going away.
Yes, I run proper lighting, don’t dress specifically for riding a bicycle (kinda defeats the purpose if you’ve got to change clothes when you get off the bike), and don’t wear a helmet. Actually hate those things.
And the road is a proper place for any kind of riding: Recreational, business, commuting, bar hopping, etc. Its just up to the cyclists to remember their under the same laws as the drivers. And ESPECIALLY visa versa.
And, any and all roads are a place for my kid to ride his power wheels truck! Hell, if grown men can clog up traffic and impede the world with their 6 mph granny gear crawl, why can’t my kiddo do the same do the same in his electric vehicle? I pay my taxes and built those roads!
So now the Canadians are becoming as litigious as we [ US ] are ? Since when ? So much for that Canadian sense of Fair Play – Egalitarianism – and Politeness . All our bad [ and stupid ] habits now migrating up to the great white north . Oh well . Maybes its our way of saying thanks for them sending Justin Bieber our way .
Sarcasm aside though . This story is part and parcel of the eventual Decline and Fall of Western Civilization .
Since this is in Canada, the judge will throw this out of court if it ever gets that far. Ridiculous lawsuits like this are pretty uncommon here.
Brother ! Do I ever hope you are right ! My faith in our neighbors up north is on the verge of waning severely because of this story . A good legal booting outta court as well as legally slapping this ___ upside the head once or twice [ and watching her throw her money away in the process ] would go a long way to restoring it
Fingers most definitely crossed on my part
But err … please do take Justin Bieber back before our USCIS is forced to send him back ! Bieber being a step too far on y’alls part in my opinion [ lol ]
@gtrslngr….Sorry guys, when we sent Bieber down to you folks, we didn’t include any warranty”s.
We do, however have a “no return” policy on damaged goods.
@ mikey – Good one ! Though sorry to be the bearer of bad news for y’all … but ….. errr …. the USCIS ( US Immigration ) is now less than one step away from deporting the little slime [ He was given final notice yesterday . One more strike and he’s out ] And seeing as how he is one of yours … guess who gets stuck with him … ;-)
Well … unless of course y’all can figure a way to dump Bieber Boy on Putin’s doorstep . I’m sure Vlad would love to add Bieber to his current list of human ‘ treasures ‘
My recommendation ? Ship him off to Putin . You don’t need his antics anymore than we do . Especially his automotive antics .
its gets worse- the husband and wife left the scene after the accident- leaving the witnesses to provide first aid etc….the police officer husband never provided any first aid help
‘One thing continues to trouble her, she said, is why she and other witnesses were forced to remain at the scene for hours, until 5:30 a.m., as police conducted their investigation, while the driver of the vehicle and her husband were allowed to go home.
“That never sat right with us,” Lachance said. “It was very troubling … we always wondered why.”’
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/04/20140426-124526.html
The Toronto Sun provides a few more details. For one thing, the family of the cyclists is suing the driver for funeral expenses etc. I’m not sure, but the driver is probably counter-suing. The second detail is that it was drizzly dark night with bad visibility. The only reflectors may have been on the pedals. The kids were also riding 2 abreast on a 50 mph road.
Look, I’m an avid cyclist and I would avoid that road even in the daylight. Second, I won’t ride at night without rearward pointing strobe lights. If it’s drizzling, I’m not going out.
So, the kids did something incredibly stupid, the kids family files suit against the driver, then the driver counter sues. If any of you were were on a dark road 50 mph at night in drizzle, do you think you could have avoided these cyclists while they were riding two abreast? If they sued you for hitting them, would you have countered?
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/25/driver-that-struck-teen-suing-dead-boys-family
There’s no need to file a ridiculous counter-suit. She should defend herself against the suit that has been filed against her, and let the rest go.
Since counter-suits usually get combined into a single case, the jury will skin her alive (if it gets that far) and even the most level-headed judge is going to have problems not throwing the proverbial book at her.
“If any of you were were on a dark road 50 mph at night in drizzle, do you think you could have avoided these cyclists while they were riding two abreast?”
Huh? Yes, I do think so. You are not supposed to be overdriving your headlights – if you can use your brights, you do. If you can’t, you reduce speed so you’re not overdriving your low beams.
What if is was an animal? Or a tree blew down? Or the road flooded? Or a recliner fell off of somebody’s pickup truck? Forget the legalities – as a driver you’re not supposed to run into stuff while driving.
Where did we get the idea that everything that might be in the road at night is going to have a light or a reflector on it? Where is that guarantee written – do you have a copy of it in your glove compartment?
>> Where is that guarantee written – do you have a copy of it in your glove compartment?
Ontario Highway Traffic Act 62(17). The cyclists were also violating HTA 147 – Slow moving traffic travel on right side.
It was a cyclist she hit – not an animal or sofa.
The question I was responding to, as I cited, was:
“If any of you were were on a dark road 50 mph at night in drizzle, do you think you could have avoided these cyclists while they were riding two abreast?”
My answer is yes, I do think so. If you sincerely don’t think there is a reasonable expectation that a motorist should be able to answer this in the affirmative, then maybe none of us should be driving at night.
Two thumbs up and a rousing +1 . Finally the voice of reason arises in and amongst a phalanx of blame shifting , excuses and ill placed emotions .
I know I can. I’ve done it lots of times. And will continue to do so in the future.
Then again, being a cyclists, I tend to give cyclists the same respect as I would motor vehicle drivers. Which, I’ve noticed, a lot of car drivers seem to be incapable of.
As a York Region police officer, her husband was out of his jurisdiction in Innisfil, so any investigating officers wouldn’t be his colleagues (I wouldn’t rule out a bit of professional courtesy though).
And Innisfil is reasonably sleepy and rural. Sensibly, you do not want to be on a bicycle, in Innisfil, on a road with an 80km/h limit, at 1:30AM. This woman is disgusting for suing, but I’m not sure this is your typical “reckless motorist mows down innocent cyclist” story, although I don’t know if I’d suggest the teens were neccesarily under the influence either (I grew up across the lake from Innisfil – even without chemical influence, it’s not uncommon to be bored in the nether hours and itching to go anywhere but there).
What is a minor doing out at 1:30am? And it seems like they didn’t have lights of the bikes, safety vest, or probably anything but a small reflector, at best, that comes with the bike.
If I was driving a car on the road at 1:30am, with no lights, and somebody hit me, how would that be handled? What if I was on a motorcycle? Is a bicycle not suppose to adhere by the laws when riding on the road?
Now does this excuse the way the driver is handling this?
It sounds like the driver might be countering the families lawsuit.
Two minors, out riding a bicycle at 1:30am on a dark road, inclement weather, no lighting, were putting their own lives and that of others at risk. What if the woman swerved and hit a oncoming car? A tree? Killed herself, or another motorist?
If I was in this woman’s shoes, and were being sued, I would counter and sue the ever living hell out of these negligent parents too. Why in the hell would the parents, teenagers or not, even let their kids do something so dangerous?
Of course, if I’ve learned anything, it’s that people in whole use very little of a thought process to call judgement on these things and react to the first headline and feelings they have.
Where are you getting the idea that minors can’t be out at 1:30am?
>> Where are you getting the idea that minors can’t be out at 1:30am?
http://www.ottawapolice.com/en/community/parent_zone/parent_curfew.aspx
Actually, I think the kids were 17, so this law wouldn’t apply. But, for under 16, it would apply.
Going by most localities do have curfews. Still, at age 17, unless they were traveling to or from a job, there is no reason for anyone that young to be out and about, especially riding bicycles on dark high-speed roads with no lights.
When I was 17, 1:30AM was when Things Got Started.
“Curfews” were met with going to live somewhere else for a bit.
@mcs: Going for fast food isn’t “loitering”. HTH!
@crconrad – @mcs: Going for fast food isn’t “loitering”. HTH!
Correction, 79(6) would allow the police to arrest them “any place the public has access” – that would include the road.
mcs “79(6) would allow the police to arrest them “any place the public has access” – that would include the road”
what statute are you referring to?
Riding a bike down the road is not loitering, by any definition.
@ect “Riding a bike down the road is not loitering, by any definition”
There is another statue that covers being out in public – 79(6). It doesn’t apply to this situation anyway since the kids were 17.
“If I was in this woman’s shoes, and were being sued, I would counter and sue the ever living hell out of these negligent parents too. Why in the hell would the parents, teenagers or not, even let their kids do something so dangerous? ”
Yeah because the parents haven`t suffered enough by having two dead children. As a parent I hope I never have to suffer that loss.
When a child dies of overdose, that says something about the parents.
No. “Suffered enough” is not equivalent to being on the same side of justice.
wsn, I don’t know the circumstances of the overdose, but there are generally two ways it happens:
a) accidental overdose on narcotics
b) suicide by overdose of legal drugs
It could very well have been the latter, caused at least in part by grief over the accident.
The article didn’t mention “suicide”.
A suicide would have been obvious, even if it’s by overdose.
Oh jeez….this hits so very close to home for me. Two years ago the teenage son of one of my closest friends – actually just about 50 km S of where this took place – was involved in a similar incident. He and a friend were riding their bicycles late and night when he was struck and very badly injured (terrible broken bones, critical internal injuries) by someone driving an SUV (not that the vehicle is relevant – the similarities just kind of spooked me).
I am happy to report that he has made a nearly complete recovery, but it has been a long, long road with a pile of surgeries for him and incredible suffering for him and his family.
My daughter will never ride a bicycle after nightfall if I have anything to say about it. Holy crap, what a tragedy.
@ MCS ” So, the kids did something incredibly stupid, the kids family files suit against the driver, then the driver counter sues. If any of you were were on a dark road 50 mph at night in drizzle, do you think you could have avoided these cyclists while they were riding two abreast? If they sued you for hitting them, would you have countered?”
I hope I’d not be speeding or even doing the speed limit of a dark , winding road in the rain .
No , I would not counter sue , I’d at the very least offer to pay for a funeral and yes , I’d be ashamed for killing a Child for the rest of my life .
-Nate
Yes, I think I could have avoided them. Anyone in full control of their vehicle could have avoided them. Yes, its dangerous, to ride at anytime, let alone at 1:30 am. But if it was rainy, and dark and the roads were slick, she should have slowed to a safe speed. End of story…
“Sharlene”
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/92/92cgreen1.phtml
Dial 1-500-HARASSS. The extra S is for extra harassment.
Phil Hartman was always excellent at playing sketchy attorney types. Lionel Hutz was always a favorite.
Irregardless of how avoidable (or not) the accident was, this lawsuit was a horrible, horrible, idea. If the case gets in front of a jury (which I doubt), there’s simply a 0% chance she wins; any defense attorney that is not utterly asleep will have no problem whatsoever working the jury into a righteous froth to rule against her. Her lawyer is simply wasting his time, and she’s going to come out of this looking like a complete a$$.
“Irregardless”…?
As a member of POEM (the Professional Organization of English Majors), it’s my duty to point these things out.
This bitch should be glad she isn’t dealing with me. She personally
and the local police and DA would be facing multi-million dollar lawsuits
which would leave them ultimately penniless and on the street living in
applicance boxes.
Rabble roused and ready, Cap’n Jack, Sir!
Ms. Simon, My name is Frank Galvin, and I represent the decedant’s estate as well as his parents. This deposition is scheduled for 8 hours, and we’ll need all 8 hours, so lets get started. (2 hours of agonizing background questions) Fun time starts now!
I’m sure your counsel has informed you that your testimony here will likely be included as in a motion for summary judgment to dismiss this matter, and since it is filed with the Court, is considered a public document that can be disseminated freely to the public.
Ms. Simon, have you ever been arrested? If yes, what for? (10 follow ups) Ms. Simon, have you ever been accused of a crime involving moral turpitude? (please be yes), Ms. Simon, do drink alcohol? (I’ve reserved an 1hr for this – she’s going to testify as to every drink she’s ever had in the past 20 years and every bad choice made from that). Ms. Simon, are you or your husband having any present financial difficulties?
Well, if I’ve done my job, we’ve established she’s a former / washed up party girl who has been pinched a few times, made some poor life choices, and hopefully seeks a financial gain because she and the hubby’s credit line is tapped out because of that new kitchen addition and unanticipated legal fees.
Now for the fireworks, and it ain’t going to pretty. Ms. Simon, lets talk about your damages for “emotional trauma.” Here comes the real nasty, vile questions concerning her mental health. Since she alleges the accident caused the emotional distress, I have to make sure there is not a pre-existing causal factor, like any form of abuse that happened in the past, where she was treated and who she saw, her psych meds, actions that occurred while she was decompensating or depressed. Some real embarrassing responses are going to come out here. The kleenex box is going to be emptied really quick, and I’ll be so kind as to let her “take a few minutes” to pull herself together before I ask another twenty follow up questions stemming from some unfortunate instance in her past. I’ll make a vague promise to her counsel that I only have a few more questions, but whoops, forgot to ask about recreational drug use during this time. Uh oh….here comes another ten questions about what she did when she was sniffing the ya-yo back in college. “What fraternity house did this occur?”, “Do you recall the names of the males that were with in the bedroom?” Ooops more tears, and embarrassment because her cop husband is here for “moral support” and she hasn’t told him half of this stuff. Boy, he looks like he wants to kill me. Now, we’ll circle back and cover anything that missed in the earlier session withe real damaging disclosures that have come now.
Time to let opposing counsel somehow rehabilitate his client. He’ll mention settlement walking out the door. I’ll request rush copies of the transcript.
Yes, and then the judge would warn you two questions in, and then hold you in contempt as you continue. Courtrooms are a little different then they look on TV, they have rules, the rules are there for very good reasons, and there are career-ending consequences if you continue to break them.
Now, outside your fantasy, a woman hit three bicyclists at night. She was ruled not at fault for the collision, because she probably wasn’t.
She’s facing a considerable lawsuit. It doesn’t have much chance of succeeding in front of a judge, but it will be very costly to defend. The best defense in this case is a counter-suit. The counter suit doesn’t have a good chance either, but it allows both sides to negotiate, then drop their suits.
Norton,
We’re at a deposition, different rules. As long as the question, or line of questioning is reasonably related to the subject matter, claims or defenses, its fair game. If she is drinker its relevant, if she has a history of mental issues then that goes to her claim. Civil depositions where a plaintiff alleges “emotional distress” can get nasty and embarrassing. I’ve counseled my clients to settle on occasion after explaining that the defense counsel will ask them in excruciating detail all matters relevant to their irritable bowel syndrome.
Yes, and the original suit would face similar long, pointless depositions regarding the habits of the dead kid and his friends. Facebook probably has a few pictures of the kid with a bong or a fake gun, like it does for every dumb 17-year old, and that will lead to endless stupid questions.
Deposition will never happen, as the attorneys for both parties will explain just how expensive it is, and how unlikely it is to gain them anything.
Two pointless disputes cancel each other out, while wasting a minimum of the legal system’s time. The system works, sort of.
The depositions will happen, the insurance companies are paying the freight on the discovery (mom and dad’s homeowners policy and her auto policy). Once the ins. companies are in the mix, its guaranteed that there will be depositions.
@Norton I: “Yes, and the original suit would face similar long, pointless depositions regarding the habits of the dead kid and his friends. Facebook probably has a few pictures of the kid with a bong or a fake gun…”
1) He was a 17-year-old kid on a bike; she’s an adult driver of a SUV. One kind is pretty much required to be doing foolish things; the other is legally required not to.
2) She’s alive, suing the family of the kid she killed; he’s dead, being sued by the driver who killed him.
My money, if we were betting on how this will read in front of a jury, would be on his lawyer, not hers.
Congratulations Rob Ford because Sharlene Simon has just superseded you as the worlds most notorious Canadian.
Quite an accomplishment.
There’s always two sides to a story…
http://www.reddit.com/r/rage/comments/23y9g2/this_is_fucking_disgusting_xpost_from_rwtf/ch216m3
@ Vega.
Yup, that would be the side Jack never considered.
Yup, that would be the side of confabulation.
Read down the page, and besides the places where the author admits to minor mistakes, you’ll see the more significant ones where he claims that he himself doesn’t actually buy that — it’s just an “It *might* have gone down like this…” piece, but most facts, as he himself admits in the comments, actually speak against that.
Gee, I sure hope the woman will be alright.
“no charges were filed”
So the crash was investigated, and it was determined that there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute Sharlene Simon.
Yet despite that, the parents are suing her, anyway.
And you’re upset that she’s filed a countersuit in response? Why aren’t you upset about a lawsuit having been filed against Simon when it couldn’t be established by the police investigation that she was negligent?
I haven’t read the police report (and I’m sure that you haven’t, either), but you might want to consider the possibility that the victim was the cause of the crash. If he didn’t take adequate measures to be visible and was traveling in the roadway where he could be struck by other traffic, then I could see how he may have been at least partly at fault for the crash.
I too haven`t read the police report, but it hardly seems an exhaustive investigation if they didn`t bother to use a breathalyser. Surely her cogency is important.
Maybe suing her was incorrect, but it is much more understandable for the bereaving parents to do that than the person who hasn`t lost anyone and may (I repeat) may be the reason for that loss.
Breathalyzers are not used routinely in the US, either. There needs to be suspicion of alcohol impairment before they can be used; the Fourth Amendment protects against tests without cause.
A few seconds spent with my friends at Google would indicate that it is similar in Ontario. Drivers who appear to be sober aren’t tested.
And I see no reason to suppose insobriety.
I read this as “kid on a dark bike late at night on a 50mph road got hit because he was effectively invisible, even with a reflector”.
The road was, per the grieving parent, wet, after all – and that means lots of reflections, and it’s easy to miss a bike reflector.
Lack of mention of lights on the bike makes me sure there was no rear light – and from experience I’ve seen how easy it is to not see a bike, even on a slower road, without a rear light, even under good conditions.
(The “right to make mistakes” the dad suggests in his comments at the news article is … well, understandable because of his loss, but untenable.
“Mistakes” on a highway can *get someone killed*, and if we read the same comments begging for a right to make mistakes if the “mistakes” had been his kid killing someone while DUI’d in a car, well, we WOULDN’T have sympathy, would we?
Bad choices were made [riding on that road at 1:30am without lights, in the rain or on a wet road], and a bad outcome happened, seemingly with no *greatly culpable* fault on either side.
And a countersuit, while it has “bad optics” makes perfect practical and legal sense.
Sucks, but that’s life.)
that’s true, but I think if it is 1:30 am in the morning and there happens to be a dead and critically injured cyclist, it should be regardless… it might would have been beneficial in this case to stop hearsay commentary and save everyone some grief
I’m a bit of a cynic so I would immediately assume that the “investigation” went the driver’s way because her husband is in the force.
And yes, it’s certainly possible that the kids contributed to the crash, but it doesn’t sound like they caused it. The vehicle coming up from behind is generally at fault unless the other vehicle jumps into its path. At most, their contribution would cause the parents’ lawsuit against the SUV driver to fail. I can’t see it resulting in the parents having to pay her.
That. And also, the whole story reminds me that Trayvon thing, where jack baruths of the media rushed to tell us how big bad white brutally murdered a poor litte teenager. Then it turned out that all the hideous NBC racists forgot that -man is very common in Mexico (see Guzman), that Zimmerman was half-black, and that a neighbourhood thug was in the process of beating him to death when he got shot, because he assaulted a CCW holder by miscalculation. It’s amazing how easily the media can bend the story any way they like. I’m not going to be duped by journalists ever again.
Yup, you sure bought all the neocon twisting of that story.
Wow, there are horrible sleazy lawsuits that make you lose all hope in humanity like this up north, too? I thought all Canadians were nice! Except hockey fans…which is pretty much all Canadians…OH NO I THINK I BROKE MY MIND…
Yes, and the original suit would face similar long, pointless depositions regarding the habits of the dead kid and his friends. Facebook probably has a few pictures of the kid with a bong or a fake gun, like it does for every dumb 17-year old, and that will lead to endless stupid questions.
Deposition will never happen, as the attorneys for both parties will explain just how expensive it is, and how unlikely it is to gain them anything.
Two pointless disputes cancel each other out, while wasting a minimum of the legal system’s time. The system works, sort of.
It is generally a good policy to withhold comment on civil suits, especially when they appear to be “murderer versus innocent family”.
Jack, if the unthinkable had happened to one (or more) passengers in your recent accident, how would you feel if news articles referenced nothing but your Maximum Street Speed articles?
Cop + cops wife > that says it all.
Yep, just like kid + kid’s overdosed dead brother.
He overdosed what, six months later?
He’d had time to develop the whole fricking drug habit in response to kid brother’s death.
Wear ANSI/CSA HiVis on the bike. Class 3 prismatic good to go.
I’ll play devil’s advocate a bit…..would everyone feel the same about the situation if the kids were driving a car?
For example, what if the kids were driving a car with no lights in those weather conditions, driving in the lane improperly and weren’t wearing any seatbelts (the kids didn’t have helmets on)? Would everyone still feel the same?
I ‘m just wondering if the level of outrage would be the same if they were car drivers rather than cyclists.
Our litigious society is exactly why I carry a million dollar umbrella policy (they’re quite reasonable you know, less than $200 a year for mine).
First with all the facts I have about what happened that night I’m gonna make an intelligent comment concerning this story.
Next I’m gonna have a commercial airliner circle a football field at 30,000 ft while I look out the window and ref the game.
+1.
Jack Baruth:
“Here at TTAC, we like to flatter ourselves that we can see both sides of every story — but it’s hard to generate too much sympathy for Mrs. Simon here.”
Don’t kid yourself, you’re no better than Fox News for one-sided, yellow journalism.
The fault is difficult to asses because the police didn’t investigate the accident in an attempt to protect “one of theirs”. Police world wide are guilty of this.
but the real story is who is telling this sorry woman that she will win the suit?
yes it’s the ambulance chaser.
I have been driving in all conditions on roads around the world for close to 50 years and the simple rules still stand. You drive according to the conditions . If a wall appears before you ..do you drive into it and then say that the wall is poorly lit or was placed in dangerous place?
of course you don’t,but transpose that wall for three cyclists and do you then blame them for suddenly appearing in front of you ?
looking ahead is a simple part of driving .if you cant see ,you either slow right down or stop.
If you are so drunk your spouse has to follow you home in a police car yo should never have been driving in the first place and if you kill someone because your reflexes are dulled by substances yo took,then the grief and trauma you feel is the punishment you deserve , and I hope it stays with you for life.
This isn’t true.
What you’re not hearing from the TTAC piece is that there was an investigation, the woman was cleared of wrongdoing and that the countersuit is likely a legal tactic in order to get the original plaintiffs (family of the deceased) to drop their meritless claim.
But hey, this is Jack Baruth’s TTAC so it’s likely fair and balanced.
She was “cleared” by cops at the scene.
The same scene where her husband, the cop, also was.
That’s how “cleared” she was.
Quote from the National Post:
– A collision reconstruction team from the South Simcoe Police Service investigated the crash; their 26-page report found that the “lack of visibility” of the cyclists “was the largest contributing factor,” and that on a dark overcast night, “the driver of the Kia did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to make an evasive reaction.”
The report says police consulted with a local Crown prosecutor, who told them there was “absolutely no reasonable prospect of conviction and that no charges should be laid.” –
But hey, feel free to bulldog this with your view from the nosebleeds.