Woman Hits/Kills Child Cyclist and Sues His Family (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

This thread has been lawyered

This thread was created about a lawsuit. Suck it up.

 

[bigbottom]

And I was in the midst of typing when that showed up - she may have gone home. She may have gone to a hospital. She may have gone to a park to cry and scream at God. Who knows? Whatever happened, if my wife had been involved in a fatal accident and wasn't being charged, as soon as they finished questioning her, I'm taking her out of there too. It's a traumatic event.

From the Toronto Sun

"Simon’s husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle."

Well, that may be a Canadian newspaper, but is it reputable?

 

[Henry Ford]

And I was in the midst of typing when that showed up - she may have gone home. She may have gone to a hospital. She may have gone to a park to cry and scream at God. Who knows? Whatever happened, if my wife had been involved in a fatal accident and wasn't being charged, as soon as they finished questioning her, I'm taking her out of there too. It's a traumatic event.

From the Toronto Sun

"Simon’s husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle."

Fair enough - again, as soon as I can, I'm getting my wife out of there. It's not indicative of a massive coverup between the police, the ambulances, and the freemasons to keep this family off the radar.

 

[Henry Ford]

And I was in the midst of typing when that showed up - she may have gone home. She may have gone to a hospital. She may have gone to a park to cry and scream at God. Who knows? Whatever happened, if my wife had been involved in a fatal accident and wasn't being charged, as soon as they finished questioning her, I'm taking her out of there too. It's a traumatic event.

From the Toronto Sun

"Simon’s husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle."

Well, that may be a Canadian newspaper, but is it reputable?

The Toronto Sun? Yes.

 

[bigbottom]

Your argument with respect to the husband appears to be that it's appropriate not because it's a valid or legitimate claim, but because it's a tactical legal maneuver. However strategic, I imagine some people find that distasteful.

That's not my argument. My argument is, these are legitimate injuries she may well have never sued on because there were a lot of people affected and hurt by this incident, but once they sued her, she is entitled to - and should - enforce her rights so that the Court recognizes that everyone was hurt in this tragedy.

Why are you talking about the wife? Our exchange was about the husband suing the dead kid's estate for $100,000.

Because loss of consortium and related expenses are a derivative claim?

Yeah, I feel comfortable stating that it's a BS claim, even at this early stage. It is asserted for the very reason you suggested.

His wife hasn't worked, and may not have driven, since the accident. I think that's a legit loss of consortium claim.

And that's why you're a plaintiff's lawyer and I'm a defense lawyer. A husband bringing a six figure loss of consortium claim against the family of the child his wife killed is unconscionable in my mind. It would make me nauseous to bring such a claim. That's why I don't have the stomach for that practice.

 

[fantasycurse42]

And I was in the midst of typing when that showed up - she may have gone home. She may have gone to a hospital. She may have gone to a park to cry and scream at God. Who knows? Whatever happened, if my wife had been involved in a fatal accident and wasn't being charged, as soon as they finished questioning her, I'm taking her out of there too. It's a traumatic event.

From the Toronto Sun"Simons husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle."

Fair enough - again, as soon as I can, I'm getting my wife out of there. It's not indicative of a massive coverup between the police, the ambulances, and the freemasons to keep this family off the radar.

Don't understand why she was allowed to leave the scene fairly quickly with her husband while witnesses were there for 4 hours. That just makes no sense.

 

[Henry Ford]

And that's why you're a plaintiff's lawyer and I'm a defense lawyer. A husband bringing a six figure loss of consortium claim against the family of the child his wife killed is unconscionable in my mind. It would make me nauseous to bring such a claim. That's why I don't have the stomach for that practice.

Quite the opposite. It's her defense attorney who's bringing this countersuit.

 

[Gr00vus]

Also, why wasn't she charged with something?

 

[bigbottom]

And that's why you're a plaintiff's lawyer and I'm a defense lawyer. A husband bringing a six figure loss of consortium claim against the family of the child his wife killed is unconscionable in my mind. It would make me nauseous to bring such a claim. That's why I don't have the stomach for that practice.

Quite the opposite. It's her defense attorney who's bringing this countersuit.

Perhaps, I should put this another way, I'm a defense lawyer who doesn't sue people for personal injury, whether as a claim in the first instance, or as a counterclaim against a dead child's family. I don't have the stomach for THAT practice.

 

[Henry Ford]

And I was in the midst of typing when that showed up - she may have gone home. She may have gone to a hospital. She may have gone to a park to cry and scream at God. Who knows? Whatever happened, if my wife had been involved in a fatal accident and wasn't being charged, as soon as they finished questioning her, I'm taking her out of there too. It's a traumatic event.

From the Toronto Sun"Simons husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle."

Fair enough - again, as soon as I can, I'm getting my wife out of there. It's not indicative of a massive coverup between the police, the ambulances, and the freemasons to keep this family off the radar.

Don't understand why she was allowed to leave the scene fairly quickly with her husband while witnesses were there for 4 hours. That just makes no sense.

I don't know the Canadian legal system, but after any fatality I'm aware of in the U.S., the participants are questioned and sent away to the hospital, the police station, or elsewhere so the investigators can put together a theory and view of the case. I don't think I've ever read a police report following a major car accident where any of the parties were on scene for four hours.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Is there any way I can sue you people?

 

[Gr00vus]

Is there any way I can sue you people?

What do you mean "you people?"

 

[bigbottom]

Also, why wasn't she charged with something?

There's only two viable options:

1) She didn't commit a crime.

2) There was a cover-up.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on the former, rather than the latter, based on what has been reported. I still find the countersuit by the woman and her husband nauseating, though perhaps legally advisable (I'll defer to the lawyers who sue people for this kind of stuff).

 

[Henry Ford]

And that's why you're a plaintiff's lawyer and I'm a defense lawyer. A husband bringing a six figure loss of consortium claim against the family of the child his wife killed is unconscionable in my mind. It would make me nauseous to bring such a claim. That's why I don't have the stomach for that practice.

Quite the opposite. It's her defense attorney who's bringing this countersuit.

Perhaps, I should put this another way, I'm a defense lawyer who doesn't sue people for personal injury, whether as a claim in the first instance, or as a counterclaim against a dead child's family. I don't have the stomach for THAT practice.

So if one of your longstanding clients was being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that wasn't his fault, you wouldn't assert his injuries in a counterclaim?

 

[fantasycurse42]

And I was in the midst of typing when that showed up - she may have gone home. She may have gone to a hospital. She may have gone to a park to cry and scream at God. Who knows? Whatever happened, if my wife had been involved in a fatal accident and wasn't being charged, as soon as they finished questioning her, I'm taking her out of there too. It's a traumatic event.

From the Toronto Sun"Simons husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle."

Fair enough - again, as soon as I can, I'm getting my wife out of there. It's not indicative of a massive coverup between the police, the ambulances, and the freemasons to keep this family off the radar.

Don't understand why she was allowed to leave the scene fairly quickly with her husband while witnesses were there for 4 hours. That just makes no sense.

I don't know the Canadian legal system, but after any fatality I'm aware of in the U.S., the participants are questioned and sent away to the hospital, the police station, or elsewhere so the investigators can put together a theory and view of the case. I don't think I've ever read a police report following a major car accident where any of the parties were on scene for four hours.

If she was going anywhere outside of her home, she should've been provided transportation. I.E. hospital; ambulance - police station; police car.

She went home with her husband as others much less involved in the accident were on the scene for many more hours.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Is there any way I can sue you people?

What do you mean "you people?"

Potential Canadians

 

[Henry Ford]

And I was in the midst of typing when that showed up - she may have gone home. She may have gone to a hospital. She may have gone to a park to cry and scream at God. Who knows? Whatever happened, if my wife had been involved in a fatal accident and wasn't being charged, as soon as they finished questioning her, I'm taking her out of there too. It's a traumatic event.

From the Toronto Sun"Simons husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle."

Fair enough - again, as soon as I can, I'm getting my wife out of there. It's not indicative of a massive coverup between the police, the ambulances, and the freemasons to keep this family off the radar.

Don't understand why she was allowed to leave the scene fairly quickly with her husband while witnesses were there for 4 hours. That just makes no sense.

I don't know the Canadian legal system, but after any fatality I'm aware of in the U.S., the participants are questioned and sent away to the hospital, the police station, or elsewhere so the investigators can put together a theory and view of the case. I don't think I've ever read a police report following a major car accident where any of the parties were on scene for four hours.

If she was going anywhere outside of her home, she should've been provided transportation. I.E. hospital; ambulance - police station; police car.

She went home with her husband as others much less involved in the accident were on the scene for many more hours.

Or as I like to call them "unbiased witnesses."

 

[fantasycurse42]

And I was in the midst of typing when that showed up - she may have gone home. She may have gone to a hospital. She may have gone to a park to cry and scream at God. Who knows? Whatever happened, if my wife had been involved in a fatal accident and wasn't being charged, as soon as they finished questioning her, I'm taking her out of there too. It's a traumatic event.

From the Toronto Sun"Simons husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle."

Fair enough - again, as soon as I can, I'm getting my wife out of there. It's not indicative of a massive coverup between the police, the ambulances, and the freemasons to keep this family off the radar.

Don't understand why she was allowed to leave the scene fairly quickly with her husband while witnesses were there for 4 hours. That just makes no sense.

I don't know the Canadian legal system, but after any fatality I'm aware of in the U.S., the participants are questioned and sent away to the hospital, the police station, or elsewhere so the investigators can put together a theory and view of the case. I don't think I've ever read a police report following a major car accident where any of the parties were on scene for four hours.

If she was going anywhere outside of her home, she should've been provided transportation. I.E. hospital; ambulance - police station; police car.She went home with her husband as others much less involved in the accident were on the scene for many more hours.

Or as I like to call them "unbiased witnesses."

Call them whatever you want. They thought it was odd that the parties involved were gone in a short time and they were there for four hours.I do too.

ETA: weird that they left together, not to a police station or hospital

 

[bigbottom]

And that's why you're a plaintiff's lawyer and I'm a defense lawyer. A husband bringing a six figure loss of consortium claim against the family of the child his wife killed is unconscionable in my mind. It would make me nauseous to bring such a claim. That's why I don't have the stomach for that practice.

Quite the opposite. It's her defense attorney who's bringing this countersuit.

Perhaps, I should put this another way, I'm a defense lawyer who doesn't sue people for personal injury, whether as a claim in the first instance, or as a counterclaim against a dead child's family. I don't have the stomach for THAT practice.

So if one of your longstanding clients was being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that wasn't his fault, you wouldn't assert his injuries in a counterclaim?

In this particular instance, I would file a motion to withdraw before bringing a BS loss of consortium claim against a dead kid's family (when my client's wife killed the kid). The fact that I think it's a BS claim is a part of why I would seek to withdraw (having to live with myself is another reason). Folks have a right to have their legal rights protected, but they don't have a right to my services, longstanding client or otherwise. But I don't do personal injury work anyway, so I wouldn't be representing a longstanding client in this instance.

 

[Gr00vus]

Also, why wasn't she charged with something?

There's only two viable options:

1) She didn't commit a crime.

2) There was a cover-up.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on the former, rather than the latter, based on what has been reported. I still find the countersuit by the woman and her husband nauseating, though perhaps legally advisable (I'll defer to the lawyers who sue people for this kind of stuff).

O.k., I'm clueless as to legal matters - I guess in Canada they have these:

• dangerous driving causing death
• criminal negligence causing death
• failure to stop for police causing death
• street racing causing death
• impaired driving causing death
• hit and run driving causing death

So she didn't get charged under the 1st, 2nd or 5th because there was no immediate evidence?

 

[bigbottom]

Also, why wasn't she charged with something?

There's only two viable options:

1) She didn't commit a crime.

2) There was a cover-up.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on the former, rather than the latter, based on what has been reported. I still find the countersuit by the woman and her husband nauseating, though perhaps legally advisable (I'll defer to the lawyers who sue people for this kind of stuff).

O.k., I'm clueless as to legal matters - I guess in Canada they have these:

• dangerous driving causing death
• criminal negligence causing death
• failure to stop for police causing death
• street racing causing death
• impaired driving causing death
• hit and run driving causing death

So she didn't get charged under the 1st, 2nd or 5th because there was no immediate evidence?

No idea. I guess she should have at least been given a speeding ticket. Perhaps she was.

 

[Henry Ford]

And that's why you're a plaintiff's lawyer and I'm a defense lawyer. A husband bringing a six figure loss of consortium claim against the family of the child his wife killed is unconscionable in my mind. It would make me nauseous to bring such a claim. That's why I don't have the stomach for that practice.

Quite the opposite. It's her defense attorney who's bringing this countersuit.

Perhaps, I should put this another way, I'm a defense lawyer who doesn't sue people for personal injury, whether as a claim in the first instance, or as a counterclaim against a dead child's family. I don't have the stomach for THAT practice.

So if one of your longstanding clients was being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that wasn't his fault, you wouldn't assert his injuries in a counterclaim?

In this particular instance, I would file a motion to withdraw before bringing a BS loss of consortium claim against a dead kid's family (when my client's wife killed the kid). The fact that I think it's a BS claim is a part of why I would seek to withdraw (having to live with myself is another reason). Folks have a right to have their legal rights protected, but they don't have a right to my services, longstanding client or otherwise. But I don't do personal injury work anyway, so I wouldn't be representing a longstanding client in this instance.

If you think it's B.S., then of course don't file it. But none of us here have the full facts of this case, we have what sounds good scrolling across a Facebook feed. If the family has been dropping flaming bags of dog #### on their front door or calling and screaming 'murderer' into the phone when she picks up, or otherwise destroying this woman's life further, and she's alleginh that they've been spreading unfounded rumors about hrr culpability in order to help their case, I think it's a different scenario.

 

[parasaurolophus]

If this was 50 years ago where everybody wasn't so sue happy, I would find this appalling. But considering she was about 99.9% likely to be sued I dont have an issue with it. I would have to imagine going on the offensive for something that was not her fault puts her in a better spot than trusting that the parents of the kids will not sue her.

If her motivation in this is that she truly feels she got the worst of this then I support lynching her.

 

[Christo]

What a pathetic human being. The entire town should turn on her.

She was driving - by all evidence 100% sober, not texting, on a roadway at 1:30 a.m. and three teenagers were bicycling three across on the road, illegally, didn't have the proper illuminating or reflective equipment, and couldn't be seen. What's she supposed to do, just fork over the million dollars they're suing her for?

What 'evidence' says she was 100% sober? He police officer husband rushed her home before that could be determined.

There was a roadside sobriety test according to the police report, which registered zero alcohol in her system. Where are you getting the "whisked her home" story from? The lawsuit that was filed by the family?

There was a witness there that said the husband took the wife home soon after the accident.

Did she follow them?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

 

[Ookie Pringle]

What a pathetic human being. The entire town should turn on her.

She was driving - by all evidence 100% sober, not texting, on a roadway at 1:30 a.m. and three teenagers were bicycling three across on the road, illegally, didn't have the proper illuminating or reflective equipment, and couldn't be seen. What's she supposed to do, just fork over the million dollars they're suing her for?

What 'evidence' says she was 100% sober? He police officer husband rushed her home before that could be determined.

There was a roadside sobriety test according to the police report, which registered zero alcohol in her system. Where are you getting the "whisked her home" story from? The lawsuit that was filed by the family?

There was a witness there that said the husband took the wife home soon after the accident.

Did she follow them?

That's been addressed.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

How does anyone know that she was speeding?

 

[Henry Ford]

How does anyone know that she was speeding?

The police report. She admitted it at the scene

 

[Henry Ford]

If this was 50 years ago where everybody wasn't so sue happy, I would find this appalling. But considering she was about 99.9% likely to be sued I dont have an issue with it. I would have to imagine going on the offensive for something that was not her fault puts her in a better spot than trusting that the parents of the kids will not sue her.

If her motivation in this is that she truly feels she got the worst of this then I support lynching her.

She was already being sued.

 

[Frank Drebin]

And I was in the midst of typing when that showed up - she may have gone home. She may have gone to a hospital. She may have gone to a park to cry and scream at God. Who knows? Whatever happened, if my wife had been involved in a fatal accident and wasn't being charged, as soon as they finished questioning her, I'm taking her out of there too. It's a traumatic event.

From the Toronto Sun"Simons husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle."

Fair enough - again, as soon as I can, I'm getting my wife out of there. It's not indicative of a massive coverup between the police, the ambulances, and the freemasons to keep this family off the radar.

Don't understand why she was allowed to leave the scene fairly quickly with her husband while witnesses were there for 4 hours. That just makes no sense.

I don't know the Canadian legal system, but after any fatality I'm aware of in the U.S., the participants are questioned and sent away to the hospital, the police station, or elsewhere so the investigators can put together a theory and view of the case. I don't think I've ever read a police report following a major car accident where any of the parties were on scene for four hours.

If she was going anywhere outside of her home, she should've been provided transportation. I.E. hospital; ambulance - police station; police car.

She went home with her husband as others much less involved in the accident were on the scene for many more hours.

Why should she have been provided transportation? And who better to provide it than her husband? And if her husband "whisked her away from the scene" then how could he have been one of the investigating officers? Seems like they were out of his area anyway, if the witness is to be believed...didn't he allegedly ask her where they were?

 

[Henry Ford]

And without question, I understand the knee jerk reaction to this countersuit. But I have a serious problem with the media screaming that she filed suit against the family in the headline, and referencing the family's petition like it's the definitive word on the case. They filed suit first, and her story is vastly different. If she's right, she And her family are fully justified.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

And without question, I understand the knee jerk reaction to this countersuit. But I have a serious problem with the media screaming that she filed suit against the family in the headline, and referencing the family's petition like it's the definitive word on the case. They filed suit first, and her story is vastly different. If she's right, she And her family are fully justified.

Maybe if she apologized to the family for running over the son and then leaving the scene before all the pieces of the puzzle could be put together,there wouldnt be a need to even have a petition.

 

[Henry Ford]

And without question, I understand the knee jerk reaction to this countersuit. But I have a serious problem with the media screaming that she filed suit against the family in the headline, and referencing the family's petition like it's the definitive word on the case. They filed suit first, and her story is vastly different. If she's right, she And her family are fully justified.

Maybe if she apologized to the family for running over the son and then leaving the scene before all the pieces of the puzzle could be put together,there wouldnt be a need to even have a petition.

Maybe. And maybe if the family didn't start spreading rumors about her that she contends are untrue, that would have been more likely.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

And without question, I understand the knee jerk reaction to this countersuit. But I have a serious problem with the media screaming that she filed suit against the family in the headline, and referencing the family's petition like it's the definitive word on the case. They filed suit first, and her story is vastly different. If she's right, she And her family are fully justified.

Maybe if she apologized to the family for running over the son and then leaving the scene before all the pieces of the puzzle could be put together,there wouldnt be a need to even have a petition.

Maybe. And maybe if the family didn't start spreading rumors about her that she contends are untrue, that would have been more likely.

But shes the one that holds the answers they want...its on her ...if the petition is the only way to get her to act then it is what it is...but it all starts with her.. Shes suing so she doesnt have to answer those questions ...its called deflection

 

[Christo]

And without question, I understand the knee jerk reaction to this countersuit. But I have a serious problem with the media screaming that she filed suit against the family in the headline, and referencing the family's petition like it's the definitive word on the case. They filed suit first, and her story is vastly different. If she's right, she And her family are fully justified.

Maybe if she apologized to the family for running over the son and then leaving the scene before all the pieces of the puzzle could be put together,there wouldnt be a need to even have a petition.

Maybe. And maybe if the family didn't start spreading rumors about her that she contends are untrue, that would have been more likely.

But shes the one that holds the answers they want...its on her ...if the petition is the only way to get her to act then it is what it is...but it all starts with her.. Shes suing so she doesnt have to answer those questions ...its called deflection

You really don't understand lawsuits, do you?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

And without question, I understand the knee jerk reaction to this countersuit. But I have a serious problem with the media screaming that she filed suit against the family in the headline, and referencing the family's petition like it's the definitive word on the case. They filed suit first, and her story is vastly different. If she's right, she And her family are fully justified.

Maybe if she apologized to the family for running over the son and then leaving the scene before all the pieces of the puzzle could be put together,there wouldnt be a need to even have a petition.

Maybe. And maybe if the family didn't start spreading rumors about her that she contends are untrue, that would have been more likely.

But shes the one that holds the answers they want...its on her ...if the petition is the only way to get her to act then it is what it is...but it all starts with her.. Shes suing so she doesnt have to answer those questions ...its called deflection

You really don't understand lawsuits, do you?

shes suing for slander...i get it...but read between the lines

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

shes suing for slander..

Did I miss this part?

 

[Das Boot]

And I was in the midst of typing when that showed up - she may have gone home. She may have gone to a hospital. She may have gone to a park to cry and scream at God. Who knows? Whatever happened, if my wife had been involved in a fatal accident and wasn't being charged, as soon as they finished questioning her, I'm taking her out of there too. It's a traumatic event.

From the Toronto Sun

"Simon’s husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle."

Well, that may be a Canadian newspaper, but is it reputable?

The Toronto Sun? Yes.

Papa says, "If you see it in THE SUN it's so".

 

[BustedKnuckles]

shes suing for slander..

Did I miss this part?

i read that shes being called a drunken drug addict and other nice things. Shes emotionally stressed ,im sure shes getting lambasted on the news ,the internet and in public (just like in this thread)

 

[Henry Ford]

And without question, I understand the knee jerk reaction to this countersuit. But I have a serious problem with the media screaming that she filed suit against the family in the headline, and referencing the family's petition like it's the definitive word on the case. They filed suit first, and her story is vastly different. If she's right, she And her family are fully justified.

Maybe if she apologized to the family for running over the son and then leaving the scene before all the pieces of the puzzle could be put together,there wouldnt be a need to even have a petition.

Maybe. And maybe if the family didn't start spreading rumors about her that she contends are untrue, that would have been more likely.

But shes the one that holds the answers they want...its on her ...if the petition is the only way to get her to act then it is what it is...but it all starts with her.. Shes suing so she doesnt have to answer those questions ...its called deflection

You really don't understand lawsuits, do you?

shes suing for slander...i get it...but read between the lines

Counter suing. She was already being sued. She will be questioned.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

shes suing for slander..

Did I miss this part?

i read that shes being called a drunken drug addict and other nice things. Shes emotionally stressed ,im sure shes getting lambasted on the news ,the internet and in public (just like in this thread)

So she's suing the dead kid's family for slander? Is that what you're saying?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

shes suing for slander..

Did I miss this part?

i read that shes being called a drunken drug addict and other nice things. Shes emotionally stressed ,im sure shes getting lambasted on the news ,the internet and in public (just like in this thread)

So she's suing the dead kid's family for slander? Is that what you're saying?

shes suing for emotional stress ...if you believe its because she feels bad for killing the son and has to live with that pain i guess thats a possiblity

 

[Henry Ford]

shes suing for slander..

Did I miss this part?

i read that shes being called a drunken drug addict and other nice things. Shes emotionally stressed ,im sure shes getting lambasted on the news ,the internet and in public (just like in this thread)

So she's suing the dead kid's family for slander? Is that what you're saying?

shes suing for emotional stress ...if you believe its because she feels bad for killing the son and has to live with that pain i guess thats a possiblity

If you were driving a train and it hit a jumper, would you feel emotional distress?I fully agree that the parents here feel more emotional distress than the driver. But if it wasn't at all her fault, and it was the kids' fault, why are we going to jump on her for countersuing?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

shes suing for slander..

Did I miss this part?

i read that shes being called a drunken drug addict and other nice things. Shes emotionally stressed ,im sure shes getting lambasted on the news ,the internet and in public (just like in this thread)

So she's suing the dead kid's family for slander? Is that what you're saying?

shes suing for emotional stress ...if you believe its because she feels bad for killing the son and has to live with that pain i guess thats a possiblity

Do you know what "slander" is?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

shes suing for slander..

Did I miss this part?

i read that shes being called a drunken drug addict and other nice things. Shes emotionally stressed ,im sure shes getting lambasted on the news ,the internet and in public (just like in this thread)

So she's suing the dead kid's family for slander? Is that what you're saying?

shes suing for emotional stress ...if you believe its because she feels bad for killing the son and has to live with that pain i guess thats a possiblity

If you were driving a train and it hit a jumper, would you feel emotional distress?I fully agree that the parents here feel more emotional distress than the driver. But if it wasn't at all her fault, and it was the kids' fault, why are we going to jump on her for countersuing?

No...i would kick that jumper in the head as i went by him

 

[BustedKnuckles]

shes suing for slander..

Did I miss this part?

i read that shes being called a drunken drug addict and other nice things. Shes emotionally stressed ,im sure shes getting lambasted on the news ,the internet and in public (just like in this thread)

So she's suing the dead kid's family for slander? Is that what you're saying?

shes suing for emotional stress ...if you believe its because she feels bad for killing the son and has to live with that pain i guess thats a possiblity

Do you know what "slander" is?

Edgimacate me

 

[Christo]

shes suing for slander..

Did I miss this part?

i read that shes being called a drunken drug addict and other nice things. Shes emotionally stressed ,im sure shes getting lambasted on the news ,the internet and in public (just like in this thread)

So she's suing the dead kid's family for slander? Is that what you're saying?

shes suing for emotional stress ...if you believe its because she feels bad for killing the son and has to live with that pain i guess thats a possiblity

Do you know what "slander" is?

Edgimacate me

Pearls to swine

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Also, why wasn't she charged with something?

Because the Canadian legal system is a joke.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

shes suing for slander..

Did I miss this part?

i read that shes being called a drunken drug addict and other nice things. Shes emotionally stressed ,im sure shes getting lambasted on the news ,the internet and in public (just like in this thread)

So she's suing the dead kid's family for slander? Is that what you're saying?

shes suing for emotional stress ...if you believe its because she feels bad for killing the son and has to live with that pain i guess thats a possiblity

Do you know what "slander" is?

Edgimacate me

Pearls to swine

before

 

[Spin]

Don't know what made me think of this story this morning, but I couldn't find any updates maybe I just suck at the Google. Was this ever resolved? What was the end result?