The Chainlink

Driver sues cyclist *she killed* for $1.35 million in damages

Toronto Sun

Still in the throes of agony from losing their son in a vehicle crash, the parents of young Brandon Majewski are now reeling after they learned the woman who struck and killed him is suing their dead child.

...

Brandon was struck from behind by an SUV and killed while his friend Richard McLean, 16, was seriously injured with a broken pelvis and other bones. His other pal Jake Roberts, 16, was knocked off his bike but sustained only scratches.

...

In a statement of claim filed with the court, Simon is claiming $1.35 million in damages due to her psychological suffering, including depression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress. She blames the boys for negligence.

“They did not apply their brakes properly,” the claim states. “They were incompetent bicyclists.”

...

A South Simcoe Police report shows Simon admitted that she was driving at 90 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on the two-lane road. She claims she didn’t see the boys or any of the orange-red pedal reflectors. The impact of the collision cracked the windshield of her SUV, dented the bumper, a headlight was busted, the roof where Brandon hit was dented and scratched and a side mirror dangled by its wires.

Views: 1329

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thank you for reminding me why I don't usually comment on these types of threads. The family of the dead boy is suing the driver. I assume (but don't know) that the driver's suit is a counterclaim. Illinois is a modified comparative negligence state; i.e. an injured party may recover damages only if he/she is less than 50% at fault for the injury or damages. I know nothing of Canadian law or if it differs by province. Whether defending the lawsuit brought against her by the parents, or prosecuting her own suit against the parents, many of the same elements will be at issue; i.e. what were the factors on both sides of the equation which resulted in this tragedy. The lawsuit is about dividing up insurance company money. The outcome of the lawsuits will not bring the 17 year old back from the dead.

Sarah D. said:

The point is that the driver did the killing and the not helping and the blaming and now the suing. This is crazy that we - anyone - would even be arguing her side. Is it cool for someone to kill a car driver if they are doing something wrong as they use the road? Then, get away with it -- then, get paid for it?

xo

Anytime.

Kevin C said:

Thank you for reminding me why I don't usually comment on these types of threads. 


You may not hear from lawyers with much soon. We are trained not to say anything until we know anything and at present we don't know enough other than there was an accident. We tend not to speculate, or at least we don't do so out loud. . As regards the "counter-suit" we don't know much about that either. I will say that making claims back and forth is all part of the process and I don't put a lot of meaning it until it all sorts out. I will say that my interest is peaked and I want to know what happened and what will happen with the litigation.  I don't know who is right, who is wrong, who is greedy and who is just doing their job. I will sit and wait until we know more. I might spout off then.


dan brown said:

i am not a lawyer (nor a famous author) but I would guess this is good  bait for a counter-suit.

any lawyers in the house ???

Fair response. We all hate to hear about cyclists being killed by drivers. It's natural to want to vent that frustration. That being said, there's a lot we DO NOT KNOW about the facts of this case. I hate the very idea of this lawsuit, but I couldn't fairly express an opinion on what is or isn't fair about it until there are more facts available.

David Barish said:


You may not hear from lawyers with much soon. We are trained not to say anything until we know anything and at present we don't know enough other than there was an accident. We tend not to speculate, or at least we don't do so out loud. . As regards the "counter-suit" we don't know much about that either. I will say that making claims back and forth is all part of the process and I don't put a lot of meaning it until it all sorts out. I will say that my interest is peaked and I want to know what happened and what will happen with the litigation.  I don't know who is right, who is wrong, who is greedy and who is just doing their job. I will sit and wait until we know more. I might spout off then.

Thank goodness we have a free-press, that can speculate invite speculation until they are blue in the face. 


David Barish said:


You may not hear from lawyers with much soon. We are trained not to say anything until we know anything and at present we don't know enough other than there was an accident. We tend not to speculate, or at least we don't do so out loud.  

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service