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?

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

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.]]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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