I used to think people from Canukistan were mostly sane.

[Amazon 7]

But now.... comeon... really......

Someone needs to get slapped into reality

[rifleman 70]

Oh FFS!

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[shropshire 0]

Fucking Hell.. I thought the lunacy would stop at the border.... clearly not :-(

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JohnMitchell 16]

shropshire

Fucking Hell.. I thought the lunacy would stop at the border.... clearly not :-(

Plenty of crazy to go around. The Daily Sun shows me that.

Really sad thing. Yes, that woman might have been totally in the right and those boys totally wrong. But really, suing? That's just bent.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Yeah the optics are completely off. I do think she is actually countersuing though.

There is more to the case. Hur husband is a cop and may have been following her home. She may have been intoxicated. She may have been allowed to leave and go home before any tests were done. Cops may have been looking out for cops. She wasn't the one to call 911.

No charges were brought. So now the family is suing civilly, I believe she launched the countersuit as part of her defence.

The whole thing is fucked really.

[cruelpops 0]

It's called a preemptive strike. Essentially the woman's attorney is assuming that the decedent's family will file a civil suit against her. So, in order to get in front of it - they file their civil suit first. It then turns into a legal swinging dick contest and the person with the most cash to burn on legal fees wins.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

As Skydekker says, there's more to the story.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/30/driver-who-struck-cylcing-teens-sued-to-protect-herself-lawyer-says

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/25/driver_who_struck_teen_suing_dead_youth.html

When I left Canada 25 years ago these sorts of suits were unheard of, mainly because you could only sue for actual damages (not to "punish" an alleged wrongdoer) and actual damages were almost always covered by insurance. Most provinces had "no-fault" auto insurance, where you insured yourself against damages. If someone was "at fault" that was left to the criminal justice system to sort out. I wonder what has changed, legally, in the intervening time? I don't think the Canadian people will be at all well served by an American-style sue-happy mentality.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[aphid 0]

GeorgiaDon

As Skydekker says, there's more to the story.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/30/driver-who-struck-cylcing-teens-sued-to-protect-herself-lawyer-says

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/25/driver_who_struck_teen_suing_dead_youth.html

When I left Canada 25 years ago these sorts of suits were unheard of, mainly because you could only sue for actual damages (not to "punish" an alleged wrongdoer) and actual damages were almost always covered by insurance. Most provinces had "no-fault" auto insurance, where you insured yourself against damages. If someone was "at fault" that was left to the criminal justice system to sort out. I wonder what has changed, legally, in the intervening time? I don't think the Canadian people will be at all well served by an American-style sue-happy mentality.

Don

On the surface, it's possible the actions from the families of the decedents are driven by insurance companies attempting to recover losses the insurers may have incurred through payouts to the surviving family/parents.

The counter-suit may simply be the result of an ambulance-chaser (yes, we have some of those here ) preying on the fears of the driver and attempting to keep any settlement from the first actions as small as possible.

Just a guess on my part.

ETA: While the links are probably factually correct, both of those media outlets do have a reputation for tabloid-style journalism.