Ridiculous Lawsuit

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/2010/11/14/news/doc4ce04d871f0c3669075801.txt?viewmode=fullstory

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

'Weaving has five drunken driving arrests since the late 1990s on his
record, four of which resulted in convictions. He was not charged with
drunken driving in the Kenney case.'

IF necessary, the trial may be found online. The above doesn't support
'83 mph' but indicates the jury's willingness to vote guilty.
Maybe....

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:40:04 -0800 (PST), kolldata
wrote:



'Weaving has five drunken driving arrests since the late 1990s on his
record, four of which resulted in convictions. He was not charged with
drunken driving in the Kenney case.'

IF necessary, the trial may be found online. The above doesn't support
'83 mph' but indicates the jury's willingness to vote guilty.
Maybe....

An article that I read said that he was passing another car at 80 mph.

On Nov 16, 12:33*am, 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/2010/11/14/news/doc4ce04d871f0c366...

Foam hat laced with a St. Christopher medal, for sure.

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.

http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/1...ar/?ref=sports

In rec.bicycles.tech 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.

Maybe they expect him to have assets in the future, or want to make
sure he never has any. A nice substantial, nondischargable judgement
is a pretty good way the guy never has any form of transport other
than his feet.

--
sig 43

On Nov 16, 8:06*am, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:40:04 -0800 (PST), kolldata

wrote:

'Weaving has five drunken driving arrests since the late 1990s on his
record, four of which resulted in convictions. He was not charged with
drunken driving in the Kenney case.'

IF necessary, the trial may be found online. The above doesn't support
'83 mph' but indicates the jury's willingness to vote guilty.
Maybe....

An article that I read said that he was passing another car at 80 mph.

Not enough info in the article referenced to decide who to sympathize
with, if anyone. It's easy to imagine that *both* assertions may be
correct - that the driver was driving recklessly *and* the victim was
riding carelessly. Certainly see enough examples of both on a regular
basis.

The bit about the helmet surely is irrelevant, however, and insulting
to include.

nate

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, not of massive internal trauma at the
scene. There is room to speculate that a helmet might have or could have
made a difference.

On 11/16/2010 11:00 AM, N8N wrote:
On Nov 16, 8:06 am, wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:40:04 -0800 (PST), kolldata

wrote:

'Weaving has five drunken driving arrests since the late 1990s on his
record, four of which resulted in convictions. He was not charged with
drunken driving in the Kenney case.'

IF necessary, the trial may be found online. The above doesn't support
'83 mph' but indicates the jury's willingness to vote guilty.
Maybe....

An article that I read said that he was passing another car at 80 mph.

Not enough info in the article referenced to decide who to sympathize
with, if anyone. It's easy to imagine that *both* assertions may be
correct - that the driver was driving recklessly *and* the victim was
riding carelessly. Certainly see enough examples of both on a regular
basis.

Sort of felt the same way at first. I've had kids jump off the sidewalk
in front of me both when cycling and when driving. But the thing is, in
both cases, I, first of all, saw the kid, and secondly was going at a
speed that allowed me to avoid him. It doesn't sound like this driver
was either paying attention or going at a speed safe enough to avoid the
kid.

The people that I think are really at fault there are the ones that
allowed him to keep driving after 5 arrests and 4 convictions for DWI.

The bit about the helmet surely is irrelevant, however, and insulting
to include.

+1.