Choose a side (motorist suing dead cyclist's family)

[waltappel 1]

From http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSEIC55622520080125:

Quote

Spanish driver sues dead crash cyclist for damage
Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:37am EST

Businessman Tomas Delgado says 17-year-old Enaitz Iriondo caused $20,500 of damage to his Audi A8 in the fatal 2004 crash in La Rioja region, the El Pais newspaper reported.

Delgado, who has faced no criminal charges for the incident, wants a further 6,000 euros to cover the cost of hiring another vehicle while his car was being repaired, El Pais said.

The youth had been cycling alone at night without reflective clothing or a helmet, according to a police report cited by El Pais.

His family won 33,000 euros compensation from Delgado's insurance company after the firm acknowledged he had been driving at excessive speed and this could have contributed to the incident, El Pais reported.

"I'm also a victim in all of this, you can't fix the lad's problems, but you can fix mine," Delgado told the newspaper, ahead of a January 30 legal decision on his suit.

The family said they had previously pitied Delgado for the guilt he must feel at killing their son but were now disgusted that his greatest concern appeared to be money.

"This was the final straw, a kick in the teeth," the youth's mother Rosa Trinidad told El Pais.

For many in the US it's a non-starter. Insurance would pay for the car damage and the insurance company would do whatever they want. For those drivers carrying liability insurance only, though, it might be a different story.

Personally, I think the driver is probably well within his rights but no doubt it is adding more pain to an already-painful situation. I'll side with the driver on this one but not wholeheartedly.

Walt

[shropshire 0]

If he was shown to be driving excessively fast and contributed to the accident (as stated) - he should get fuck all (but neither should the family) - Life's tough sometimes, deal with it.

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

[DJL 235]

They don't say if either was actually at fault and in fact say that Delgado's speed was a contributing factor. So, I don't see how he's justified.

Next going after the family (not the insurance) is just sick.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[BillyVance 34]

Well since both were at fault in their own way - motorcyclist not wearing reflective clothing or helmet; while the Audi driver was speeding, if the driver didn't sue, I would have a hard time choosing sides. So why did he not get a citation for speeding?

If he's got the money to buy an Audi A8 (a 2008 model goes from $70K to $120K) he's got the money to pay for the repairs. If he was living beyond his means and can't afford the repairs, that's his own damn fault.

Sorry, but his tactlessness in suing the cyclist's family swayed my opinion against him.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[waltappel 1]

Quote

They don't say if either was actually at fault and in fact say that Delgado's speed was a contributing factor. So, I don't see how he's justified.

Next going after the family (not the insurance) is just sick.

I'm assuming there are local laws that required to cyclist to wear a helmet and have reflective clothing and or lights at night. The wording of the article leads me to believe that *both* the motorist and cyclist were considered to be at fault. Since the family got a settlement from the driver's insurance company, he's probably going after the family becaused he thinks he was not solely at fault and is pissed off and wants to "teach them a lesson".

I'd like to see an example made of *both* of them if for no other reason to raise awareness of the potential consequences of stupidity on the part of motorists, cyclists, and parents.

Walt

[waltappel 1]

Slightly off-topic here, but let's take the example of parents screaming bloody murder because their kid(s) got on an internet porn site. Should the kids, parents, and/or wesite owners be penalized?

My view is that the harshest punishment should be reserved for the parents for letting their kid(s) on the internet unsupervised and then refusing to accept responsibility for the consequences.

If the parents of the cyclist *knew* their kid was riding at night without a helmet and reflective clothing, then his blood is on their hands too. Should they not be penalized along with the driver?

Walt

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

They don't say if either was actually at fault and in fact say that Delgado's speed was a contributing factor. So, I don't see how he's justified.

Next going after the family (not the insurance) is just sick.

I'm assuming there are local laws that required to cyclist to wear a helmet and have reflective clothing and or lights at night. The wording of the article leads me to believe that *both* the motorist and cyclist were considered to be at fault. Since the family got a settlement from the driver's insurance company, he's probably going after the family becaused he thinks he was not solely at fault and is pissed off and wants to "teach them a lesson".

I'd like to see an example made of *both* of them if for no other reason to raise awareness of the potential consequences of stupidity on the part of motorists, cyclists, and parents.

Walt

Interesting point... I'll be surprised if the judge rules in the audi driver's favor though.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Slightly off-topic here, but let's take the example of parents screaming bloody murder because their kid(s) got on an internet porn site. Should the kids, parents, and/or wesite owners be penalized?

My view is that the harshest punishment should be reserved for the parents for letting their kid(s) on the internet unsupervised and then refusing to accept blame for the consequences.

If the parents of the cyclist *knew* their kid was riding at night without a helmet and reflective clothing, then his blood is on their hands too. Should they not be penalized along with the driver?

Walt

Well yeah you make a good case here. I have no idea how well the parents raised that kid, they could have done everything right and the kid still fucked up. It does seem like his parents allowed him to participate in a dangerous activity. But did they tell him to wear the appropriate apparell and he secretly took them off?

I know that my kids are not going to get a motorcycle when they get their drivers license. They'll get to drive a car or truck with reasonable crash test performances, but they'll have to earn the privilege to drive in the first place. Got to make sure their head is screwed on right.

This is harder than I thought when I first read the story. I can understand the driver's frustration at the family for getting the insurance payout when he didn't get any, but he still should have sued the insurance company instead. This sucks all around.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[FreeflyChile 0]

I'm kind of in the middle on this one.

Assuming that there are rules requiring a helmet, reflectors, etc. then the cyclist is partly at fault. That the cyclist died has nothing to do with the damage to the Audi. If the cyclist had lived, the Audi would be just as wrecked.

My thing is, I don't think the driver should win because the insurance company should have included this bit in what they were settling with the family.

[lawrocket 3]

Choose a side? Do you know what I do for a living?

It comes down to which side chooses ME.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Billy, why do you keep talking about motorcycling? This was a bicyclist.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If he's got the money to buy an Audi A8 (a 2008 model goes from $70K to $120K) he's got the money to pay for the repairs.

'fault' has zero to do with 'need'

this is COMPLETELY unrelated to either position (as is whether the kid lived or died - this a completely separate case of who is responsible for repairs to the car only)




the right answer is to try to get the money from the insurance company(ies) involved - making personal is just a dickhead thing to do

I'm behind the driver, but not with how he's going about it. He should sue the insurance, not the other family

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[shropshire 0]

<>

In the U.K, I believe that he would not need to sue his insurance company ... he'd just claim BUT would loose his No Claims Bonus (if it was not protected) so his premium could be higher next year... BUT if his insurance comany thought that he'd been [partially] to blame, he may have a problem.

Also he's a shit for suing the family.. how can they be held respoinsible for the actions of their 17 year old kid..

He should just suck it up. I'm sure that I'd be pissed off about the state of my car but would just sulk and not make the families loss any worse than it is already.

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

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Billy, why do you keep talking about motorcycling? This was a bicyclist.

I stand corrected. I assumed it was a motorcycle, considering how much the damage cost.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The day the family filed against the motorist (via his insurance co.) was the day this became all about money. He was seventeen, he did not (in all likelihood) have dependents.
Fault needs to be alloted by the court as 50-50 or 60-40 or something. Then each side needs to pay their share of the costs of the other's damage. As for the family being sued, I am sure they are being sued as the beneficiaries of the estate (and that juicy little 33,000 Euro payout).
BTW just because the insurance company didn't argue the speed issue, that does not mean it is an accepted fact in court.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Also he's a shit for suing the family.. how can they be held respoinsible for the actions of their 17 year old kid..

In California minors (16-18th birthday) have a provisional drivers license - the parents are committing to being responsible for any damages caused by their teenage driver. If they won't commit, the kid has to wait. And in a general sense, parents are responsible for their dependents.

The damages do seem very high for a car on cyclist accident. He would have had to kill the kid and then lose control and run into something solid, I'd imagine.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

he had been driving at excessive speed

and you're siding with the driver? WTF?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[DJL 235]

Quote

Quote

They don't say if either was actually at fault and in fact say that Delgado's speed was a contributing factor. So, I don't see how he's justified.

Next going after the family (not the insurance) is just sick.

I'm assuming there are local laws that required to cyclist to wear a helmet and have reflective clothing and or lights at night. The wording of the article leads me to believe that *both* the motorist and cyclist were considered to be at fault. Since the family got a settlement from the driver's insurance company, he's probably going after the family becaused he thinks he was not solely at fault and is pissed off and wants to "teach them a lesson".

I'd like to see an example made of *both* of them if for no other reason to raise awareness of the potential consequences of stupidity on the part of motorists, cyclists, and parents.

Walt

That's kind of a stretch of an assumption. Was it a crossing situation? Was the bike stopped in the road? It was at night but there wasn't any mention of headlights. Also this was Spain. Things are pretty slack in Spain. In my highly regulated state of VA the reflective clothing is only recommended. A helmet wouldn't have anything to do with causing the collision.

I think those lines was just sideline adjectives and don't bear on anything legal. I'm not leaving it to a reporter to makes sense of it, how often do they get any (like skydiving) accident right?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 3,073]

Need more details.

Around here you don't need a helmet or reflective clothing, and you need only a light at night. Report doesn't say whether or not he had one.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Quote

he had been driving at excessive speed

and you're siding with the driver? WTF?

It's one of those situations where ya' just hold your nose and pick the lesser of two evils--not unlike the most recent US presidential election.

Why should only *one* of the involved parties be considered accountable when it doesn't look like only one was at fault?

Walt

[waltappel 1]

Here's a little tidbit but still, nowhere near enough info:

From http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm:

Spain adopted a mandatory helmet law for cycling outside of cities in 2004. Helmets are not compulsory in towns and may be removed while climbing steep hills.

Walt

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Spain adopted a mandatory helmet law for cycling outside of cities in 2004. Helmets are not compulsory in towns and may be removed while climbing steep hills.

Heh, it was only a few years ago that the Tour de France mandated helmets to the finish line. Before that, they were only allowed on the last climb to a summit finish. And before that, riders choice, though it did cost one guy the title, giving it to LeMond.

[Richards 0]

Since he was speedng he should get nothing. That said, I have no problem with a motorist sueing a bycyclist or a pedestrian who's carelessness causes an accident which damages the drivers car even if that pedestrian was harmed. Too many pedestrians and bycyclists take this "right of way" to extremes and take no responsibility for their actions and flagrantly cause near misses all the time because they put all the burden on the driver.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Too many pedestrians and bicyclists take this "right of way" to extremes and take no responsibility for their actions and flagrantly cause near misses all the time because they put all the burden on the driver.

+1

I rarely see bicyclists offering basic traffic courtesy, let alone following rules. Especially messengers, but ordinary looking people as well. As a pedestrian at least you can shift your stance and pretend you don't see them and they'll swerve at the last minute. Not much you can do if you're in an automobile...I've found they're immune to reason.

A friend of mine died that way trying to cut off a truck. Not sure what she was thinking.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 3,073]

>That said, I have no problem with a motorist sueing a bycyclist or a
>pedestrian who's carelessness causes an accident which damages the
>drivers car even if that pedestrian was harmed.

The evidence presented so far indicates that the driver was careless, not the biker.

>Too many pedestrians and bycyclists take this "right of way" to extremes
>and take no responsibility for their actions and flagrantly cause near
>misses all the time because they put all the burden on the driver.

The burden belongs on both; both have an equal right to the road, and both have the burden to obey traffic laws. In this case, the driver was violating the law. If the biker was as well, then both were at fault, and neither pays the other. If the driver alone was at fault, then he pays for everything.