#11
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
On Nov 16, 10:04*am, "MikeWhy" wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote: On Nov 15, 10:33 pm, Tom Sherman _ wrote: Silly to believe that a foam bicycle hat would have prevented the death of a cyclist struck by a motor vehicle traveling near 80 mph. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2...ce04d871f0c366.... The driver is a malicious headcase who is saying whatever comes to mind to counter the parents' lawsuit. My question is why the parents are bothering to sue the guy. *If he has insurance, the insurer should have responded to the parents' lawsuit, and not the guy. *The insurer also would have paid policy limits and called it a day. If he has no insurance, I doubt he has substantial assets. A suit may be required to get UM/UIM benefits under the parents' own policy. I repesented a big manufacturer of alcoholic beverages in a lawsuit filed by a prisoner who claimed that booze caused him to turn to a life of crime. *I think the complaint was written in green crayon. *It was dismissed in the trial court and actually ended up on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The court dismissed without even hearing oral argument, which is a rarity. *I guess they did not want to deal with transporting the plaintiff from prison to the court house for a stupid argument. -- Jay Beattie. They're not all *entirely* groundless. The child died in the hospital from brain injuries the following day, The article does not make that claim. Why do you? |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
On Nov 16, 11:29*am, landotter wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:04*am, "MikeWhy" wrote: Jay Beattie wrote: On Nov 15, 10:33 pm, Tom Sherman _ wrote: Silly to believe that a foam bicycle hat would have prevented the death of a cyclist struck by a motor vehicle traveling near 80 mph. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2...ce04d871f0c366... The driver is a malicious headcase who is saying whatever comes to mind to counter the parents' lawsuit. My question is why the parents are bothering to sue the guy. *If he has insurance, the insurer should have responded to the parents' lawsuit, and not the guy. *The insurer also would have paid policy limits and called it a day. If he has no insurance, I doubt he has substantial assets. A suit may be required to get UM/UIM benefits under the parents' own policy. I repesented a big manufacturer of alcoholic beverages in a lawsuit filed by a prisoner who claimed that booze caused him to turn to a life of crime. *I think the complaint was written in green crayon. *It was dismissed in the trial court and actually ended up on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The court dismissed without even hearing oral argument, which is a rarity. *I guess they did not want to deal with transporting the plaintiff from prison to the court house for a stupid argument. -- Jay Beattie. They're not all *entirely* groundless. The child died in the hospital from brain injuries the following day, The article does not make that claim. Why do you? It actually says "...suffered severe head and internal injuries..." but does not specify of what he actually died. I dunno about you, but if I'm hit by a car traveling 60+ MPH with nothing between me and the car/ground save normal clothing, I'll be surprised if I live, helmet or no helmet. nate |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
landotter wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:04 am, "MikeWhy" wrote: Jay Beattie wrote: On Nov 15, 10:33 pm, Tom Sherman _ wrote: Silly to believe that a foam bicycle hat would have prevented the death of a cyclist struck by a motor vehicle traveling near 80 mph. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2...ce04d871f0c366... The driver is a malicious headcase who is saying whatever comes to mind to counter the parents' lawsuit. My question is why the parents are bothering to sue the guy. If he has insurance, the insurer should have responded to the parents' lawsuit, and not the guy. The insurer also would have paid policy limits and called it a day. If he has no insurance, I doubt he has substantial assets. A suit may be required to get UM/UIM benefits under the parents' own policy. I repesented a big manufacturer of alcoholic beverages in a lawsuit filed by a prisoner who claimed that booze caused him to turn to a life of crime. I think the complaint was written in green crayon. It was dismissed in the trial court and actually ended up on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The court dismissed without even hearing oral argument, which is a rarity. I guess they did not want to deal with transporting the plaintiff from prison to the court house for a stupid argument. -- Jay Beattie. They're not all *entirely* groundless. The child died in the hospital from brain injuries the following day, The article does not make that claim. Why do you? I made no claim. I paraphrased from the article linked. From the article: [[... suffered severe head and internal injuries, broken bones and lacerations. He was declared brain dead the next day.]] |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
On Nov 16, 11:04*am, "MikeWhy" wrote:
They're not all *entirely* groundless. The child died in the hospital from brain injuries the following day, not of massive internal trauma at the scene. It did not say that. Perhaps it's true, but it's not in that article. There is room to speculate that a helmet might have or could have made a difference. Perhaps - if you're a person who doesn't understand that the helmet certification test is for a mere 14 mph impact; and doesn't test, let alone certify, for rotational effects. Expecting a bike helmet to make a difference in an 83 mph impact really is magical thinking! - Frank Krygowski |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
On Nov 17, 8:49*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:04*am, "MikeWhy" wrote: They're not all *entirely* groundless. The child died in the hospital from brain injuries the following day, not of massive internal trauma at the scene. It did not say that. *Perhaps it's true, but it's not in that article. There is room to speculate that a helmet might have or could have made a difference. Perhaps - if you're a person who doesn't understand that the helmet certification test is for a mere 14 mph impact; and doesn't test, let alone certify, for rotational effects. Expecting a bike helmet to make a difference in an 83 mph impact really is magical thinking! - Frank Krygowski Regardless of great or small helmet expectations, the facts appear to be that all parties were negligent to some degree. Cyclist for allegedly "playing" on the road rather than cycling sensibly, and not wearing a helmet where it was unlawful not to, parents for allegedly allowing it, and driver for allegedly speeding (though he claims he wasn't), in particularly unsafe conditions. Note, there is no evidence that Weaving was weaving down the road at 83mph. The only comedy is that the drivers name (Weaving) goes hand in hand with his multiple DUIs. It's sad to loose a young life and should be used as a wakeup call to others to cycle sensibly, obey road laws, and if that means wearing a helmet, to do so. JS. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
On Nov 16, 2:49*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:04*am, "MikeWhy" wrote: They're not all *entirely* groundless. The child died in the hospital from brain injuries the following day, not of massive internal trauma at the scene. It did not say that. *Perhaps it's true, but it's not in that article. There is room to speculate that a helmet might have or could have made a difference. Perhaps Yes? if you're a person who doesn't understand that the helmet certification test is for a mere 14 mph impact; and doesn't test, let alone certify, for rotational effects. Forget the "if you're a person..." Certification by itself may or may not be an issue, probably not. The issue of the helmet itself and the nature of the injury is probably more relevant. Expecting a bike helmet to make a difference in an 83 mph impact really is magical thinking! The helmet issue by itself is probably not determinative of the outcome of the legalities but does it not appear to be the focus of the suit, despite the emotional suggestion of the cited article. That at least notes that another issue was that the parents allowed the victim "to play out in the middle of Rt. 69." Again, maybe not determinative, but hardly irrelevant. If the driver had only been going the speed limit the kid might have still have died without there being so much opportunity for appeal to emotions about his conduct. DR |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
On 11/16/2010 10:29 AM, landotter wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:04 am, wrote: Jay Beattie wrote: On Nov 15, 10:33 pm, Tom Sherman _ wrote: Silly to believe that a foam bicycle hat would have prevented the death of a cyclist struck by a motor vehicle traveling near 80 mph. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2...ce04d871f0c366... The driver is a malicious headcase who is saying whatever comes to mind to counter the parents' lawsuit. My question is why the parents are bothering to sue the guy. If he has insurance, the insurer should have responded to the parents' lawsuit, and not the guy. The insurer also would have paid policy limits and called it a day. If he has no insurance, I doubt he has substantial assets. A suit may be required to get UM/UIM benefits under the parents' own policy. I repesented a big manufacturer of alcoholic beverages in a lawsuit filed by a prisoner who claimed that booze caused him to turn to a life of crime. I think the complaint was written in green crayon. It was dismissed in the trial court and actually ended up on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The court dismissed without even hearing oral argument, which is a rarity. I guess they did not want to deal with transporting the plaintiff from prison to the court house for a stupid argument. -- Jay Beattie. They're not all *entirely* groundless. The child died in the hospital from brain injuries the following day, The article does not make that claim. Why do you? Because "MikeWhy" is a Liddite™. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
On Nov 17, 10:53*am, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote: On 11/16/2010 10:29 AM, landotter wrote: On Nov 16, 10:04 am, *wrote: They're not all *entirely* groundless. The child died in the hospital from brain injuries the following day, The article does not make that claim. Why do you? Because "MikeWhy" is a Liddite™. Ooer - Antihelmetarianism! "He was declared brain dead the next day." I'd hazard a guess his body was alive on life support, then declared brain dead and life support removed. Did he die of brain injuries or because life support was removed? JS. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
On Nov 16, 1:49*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:04*am, "MikeWhy" wrote: They're not all *entirely* groundless. The child died in the hospital from brain injuries the following day, not of massive internal trauma at the scene. It did not say that. *Perhaps it's true, but it's not in that article. There is room to speculate that a helmet might have or could have made a difference. Perhaps - if you're a person who doesn't understand that the helmet certification test is for a mere 14 mph impact; and doesn't test, let alone certify, for rotational effects. Expecting a bike helmet to make a difference in an 83 mph impact really is magical thinking! This is the benefit of the MHL for under-16 year olds in Oregon. You cannot use the non-use of a helmet as a defense in a lawsuit. In fact, you cannot use the non-use of a helmet as a defense regardless of the age of the rider: 814.489: Use of evidence of lack of protective headgear on bicyclist. Evidence of violation of ORS 814.485 or 814.486 and evidence of lack of protective headgear shall not be admissible, applicable or effective to reduce the amount of damages or to constitute a defense to an action for damages brought by or on behalf of an injured bicyclist or bicycle passenger or the survivors of a deceased bicyclist or passenger if the bicyclist or passenger was injured or killed as a result in whole or in part of the fault of another. [1993 c.408 §8] -- Jay Beattie. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
On Nov 16, 6:31*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
814.489: Use of evidence of lack of protective headgear on bicyclist. Did you by any chance look at the law in CT? Just curious if you know if there is a MHL and/or a similar defense exemption. And wondering if the argument is just a generalized lack of parental due care as exemplified by factors including non-use of the helmet. DR |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Isn't this getting ridiculous? | Patrick Lamb | General | 62 | December 3rd 08 04:55 AM |
ridiculous conditions | Andre | Racing | 9 | August 7th 08 01:00 PM |
Most ridiculous saddle ever? | Gooserider | General | 13 | December 12th 06 09:59 PM |