Woman who struck cyclists, killing one, now suing them for stressshe's suffered

Per AMuzi:
As I mentioned I'm not an
attorney so I wondered why one needs a pistol in a
helicopter. Mysteries abound.

And why there was a round in the chamber... and why the safety was
off....


But in the coffee woman's case there was a history of people getting
burned really, *really* badly - and the photos of the woman's burns made
me sick - by McDonald's coffee. Not by other retailer's coffee... just
McDonald's.

IIRC, McDonald's perceived some economic advantage in serving their
coffee much, much, *much* hotter than anybody else's and their legal
department decided that economic advantage outweighed the whatever legal
actions went against them.

In the woman's case, she was old, retired, and close to broke. She
needed money to pay for the extensive ER treatment she received. That's
all she was asking McDonald's for: some help with the medical bills.

Then McDonalds' told her to take a hike and lawyers got involved...
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:39:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/26/2014 11:20 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 09:18:58 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per John B.:
Well, why not? After all, someone buys buy a cup of hot coffee and
proceeds to spill it in their lap then they sue the coffee seller.

Watch the movie "Hot Coffee". The complexity of the situation goes
way, way, way beyond the sound bytes you hear on the news media.

I read what was said to be the trial record and it stated that the
woman bought a cup of hot coffee and then spilled it in her lap.


Unlike attorneys we just don't see the nuance.

A police officer blew a .40+ hole in his left hand as he was
leaving his surveillance helicopter, moving his weapon from
the flight vest to his regular holster. Some would see this
as negligence on S&W's part. As I mentioned I'm not an
attorney so I wondered why one needs a pistol in a
helicopter. Mysteries abound.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...iel-dominguez/

Probably because there is a police regulation that officers are to be
armed :-)
I believe that in some areas police officers are considered to be on
duty at all times and carry a weapon even when in civilian clothes.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:43:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/26/2014 12:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 6:18:58 AM UTC-7, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Watch the movie "Hot Coffee". The complexity of the situation goes
way, way, way beyond the sound bytes you hear on the news media.

True, although "Hot Coffee" was produced by a trial lawyers association
and was more or less a preemptive strike on jury pools. Nonetheless, the
case is generally misunderstood and trotted out as evidence of lawsuits
run amok, which it is not. I have seen far stupider cases - ...

Of course, the existence of stupider cases doesn't prove Stella's coffee
case wasn't stupid!

-and paid to settle them since the cost of trying a stupid case can be
more than an extortive settlement.

We've all heard such tales. In our village, a clumsy young girl
climbing on a jungle gym fell and broke her arm. The family sued the
school system, since it was a school playground that wasn't locked up
after hours, and of _course_ anything that a kid can climb is obviously
an unconscionable hazard. (You know, like trees.) The rumor is the
winnings paid off the family house.

_The Atlantic_ magazine, current issue (April 2014) has a cover story on
the consequences of such craziness and overprotection.

Of course, the kid on the cover is wearing a very safe hat. Plus elbow
and knee pads. Plus pillows. And holding his mom's hand. That cover
photo is viewable as a thumbnail at the very bottom of the article online:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/...-alone/358631/

Strange how the U.S. has changed. When I was a kid if you got hurt
playing in the school yard I suspect your folks would have tried to
hush it up as you weren't supposed to be in the school yard when
school was out.

I suspect that had you tried to sue, the court would likely have ruled
in favor of the school.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, April 25, 2014 6:04:14 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
I wonder which sided will win?





Excerpt:



"An Ontario woman who struck three teenage boys on their bicycles, killing one, now is suing the kids' families for more than $1 million for the stress she's suffered as a result of the accident.



Before your head explodes, you should also know she's being sued by the teens' families, but I'll leave it to you to decide who's more deserving."



Snip



"Sharlene Simon was driving down a country lane in Simcoe County north of Toronto around 1:30 a.m. on Oct. 28, 2012, when she suddenly came on the three teens riding abreast returning from a local coffee shop.



Unable to stop in time, she plowed into the group, killing 17-year-old Brandon Majewski and seriously injuring 16-year-old Richard McLean. Their friend Jake Roberts, also 16, escaped with only scratches, QMI Agency reported..



Last December, a lawyer for Simon filed a statement of claim in Ontario Superior Court naming the estate of the dead teen and the families of his friends, alleging the driver "has sustained and will sustain great pain and suffering," including " a severe shock to her system" as a result of the crash, Postmedia News reported.



Simon is claiming $1.35 million because, according to her claim, "her enjoyment of life has been and will be lessened" by the accident.



[ Related: Vancouver cyclist sued by driver after collision ]



Simon is herself the target of a $900,000 suit by the families of the victims that alleges Simon was speeding, intoxicated or texting at the time of the accident.



Neither side's claim has been proven in court.



It's not clear from the news reports which suit landed in court first. Lawyer Brian Cameron, acting for the victims' families, told QMI Agency their suit was mainly to recover medical and funeral costs.



Still, he was stunned at Simon's suit, which also names the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.



"In all of my years as a lawyer, I have never seen anyone ever sue a child that they killed," Cameron told QMI Agency. "It's beyond the pale."



Simon's suit alleges the boys were negligent by riding three abreast on the darkened road and for not wearing clothing that would make them visible to drivers. Two of the bikes had what police called "minimal reflectors," and none of the boys were wearing helmets, the claim says, according to Postmedia News.



"They're kids," Brandon's dad, Derek Majewski, told Postmedia News. "They're allowed to make a mistake."



Postmedia News said the 26-page accident report by the South Simcoe Police Service concluded the cyclists' lack of visibility "was the largest contributing factor," which, combined with the darkness of the overcast night, meant Simon "did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to take an evasive action.""



Read more he



https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...210417955.html



Cheers

Glancing at the replies in this thread it's again interesting to see how quickly many topics morph into something nearly totally unrelated to the original topic's post. Perhaps that is part of the reason moderated bicycling forums are taking over from Usenet?

Cheers

On 4/27/2014 3:10 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:


When we used to visit relatives in Germany, I was always impressed by
the amount of fence-less open space and publicly-available walking
trails/paths.

Many years ago, my wife, daughter and I toured Ireland by bike. One of
the amazing sights was the Cliffs of Moher:
http://www.studenthandouts.com/Geogr...s-of-Moher.jpg

No fences. You could get as close as you dared.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 15:17:43 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per AMuzi:
As I mentioned I'm not an
attorney so I wondered why one needs a pistol in a
helicopter. Mysteries abound.

And why there was a round in the chamber... and why the safety was
off....

Well :-) The round was in the chamber so that you could pull the
trigger and it would go BANG!

It is said that those who carry a gun as part of their duty can get
very upset when they pull the trigger and it doesn't go bang :-)

The article said it was an Smith & Wesson .40 cal. If it was the M & P
model it has no separate safety. It has a sort of double jointed
trigger somewhat like a Glock and the gun is always safe except when
the trigger is pulled.



But in the coffee woman's case there was a history of people getting
burned really, *really* badly - and the photos of the woman's burns made
me sick - by McDonald's coffee. Not by other retailer's coffee... just
McDonald's.

IIRC, McDonald's perceived some economic advantage in serving their
coffee much, much, *much* hotter than anybody else's and their legal
department decided that economic advantage outweighed the whatever legal
actions went against them.

In the woman's case, she was old, retired, and close to broke. She
needed money to pay for the extensive ER treatment she received. That's
all she was asking McDonald's for: some help with the medical bills.

Then McDonalds' told her to take a hike and lawyers got involved...

Yes, I know.

But is the fact that one is old and retired sufficient justification
to just go out and grab some money form someone else?

I'm old and retired. Can you help with my medical bills? How about I
drop by your house this evening and you can give me a million or so?

Obviously, being old and retired, as I am, if you tell me to "take a
walk" it is sufficient grounds to sue.

And by the way, re Macdonald's coffee:

In McMahon v. Bunn Matic Corporation (1998), Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous opinion affirming
dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer
Bunn-O-Matic, finding that 179 degree hot coffee was not "unreasonably
dangerous"

In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the
temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards.

The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent
coffee burn cases.

Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175 - 185°F.

The executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America
reported that the standard serving temperature is 160 - 185 F

Retailers today sell coffee as hot or hotter than the coffee that
burned Stella Liebeck.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 6:39:14 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

snip

And by the way, re Macdonald's coffee:

In McMahon v. Bunn Matic Corporation (1998), Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous opinion affirming
dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer
Bunn-O-Matic, finding that 179 degree hot coffee was not "unreasonably
dangerous"


I would sue Bunn if their machine *didn't* make coffee way hot.

In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the
temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards.

The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent
coffee burn cases.

The negligence, IMO, in the famously controversial McD case was:

A) Material too hazardous at drive thru window...

B) Container too flimsy for hazardous material...

C) Both A and B each drastically compounded the problem with
the other.

Probably inadequate informed acceptance of risk in chain of
custody transfer (handoff at window). This would be virtually
impossible to mitigate without a more suitable container. Even
if every server clearly communicated the coffee was scalding
hot, they would also have to advise that the container was
extremely flimsy, which just isn't happening.


Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175 - 185�F.

The executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America
reported that the standard serving temperature is 160 - 185 F


I dunno. At Starbucks I seem to get a cognizant, broad array
communication at handoff of extremely hot coffee. They seem to
be intelligently looking for *my* cognizance of the hazard I am
accepting. At McDonalds I get a kind of spaced out, "Here you
go." *Maybe* a sincere, "Have a nice day." (But still space
cadet as far as risk responsibility goes.) Not dissing McD -
that's just the nature of their respective lines of business.

Starbucks paper cups conduct heat to your sensory digits. Yes,
they use those insulating sleeves, but you still get the sense
of the heat more than McD's styrofoam (and they're more rigid...
and real coffee places tend to double the cup if you insist on
receiving it dangerously hot.

http://www.businessinsider.com/starb...ra-hot-2013-12

Retailers today sell coffee as hot or hotter than the coffee that
burned Stella Liebeck.

Well then, it would seem that they're taking a risk, wouldn't
it. Let's hope for the sake of everyone involved that they're
mitigating the hazard.

I know! Billboards! We'll educate everyone to be competent
hot beverage handlers ;-) Then we can blame the victims and
feel all right about it.

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:35:30 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, April 25, 2014 6:04:14 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I wonder which sided will win?











Excerpt:







"An Ontario woman who struck three teenage boys on their bicycles, killing one, now is suing the kids' families for more than $1 million for the stress she's suffered as a result of the accident.







Before your head explodes, you should also know she's being sued by the teens' families, but I'll leave it to you to decide who's more deserving."







Snip







"Sharlene Simon was driving down a country lane in Simcoe County north of Toronto around 1:30 a.m. on Oct. 28, 2012, when she suddenly came on the three teens riding abreast returning from a local coffee shop.







Unable to stop in time, she plowed into the group, killing 17-year-old Brandon Majewski and seriously injuring 16-year-old Richard McLean. Their friend Jake Roberts, also 16, escaped with only scratches, QMI Agency reported.







Last December, a lawyer for Simon filed a statement of claim in Ontario Superior Court naming the estate of the dead teen and the families of his friends, alleging the driver "has sustained and will sustain great pain and suffering," including " a severe shock to her system" as a result of the crash, Postmedia News reported.







Simon is claiming $1.35 million because, according to her claim, "her enjoyment of life has been and will be lessened" by the accident.







[ Related: Vancouver cyclist sued by driver after collision ]







Simon is herself the target of a $900,000 suit by the families of the victims that alleges Simon was speeding, intoxicated or texting at the time of the accident.







Neither side's claim has been proven in court.







It's not clear from the news reports which suit landed in court first. Lawyer Brian Cameron, acting for the victims' families, told QMI Agency their suit was mainly to recover medical and funeral costs.







Still, he was stunned at Simon's suit, which also names the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.







"In all of my years as a lawyer, I have never seen anyone ever sue a child that they killed," Cameron told QMI Agency. "It's beyond the pale."







Simon's suit alleges the boys were negligent by riding three abreast on the darkened road and for not wearing clothing that would make them visible to drivers. Two of the bikes had what police called "minimal reflectors," and none of the boys were wearing helmets, the claim says, according to Postmedia News.







"They're kids," Brandon's dad, Derek Majewski, told Postmedia News. "They're allowed to make a mistake."







Postmedia News said the 26-page accident report by the South Simcoe Police Service concluded the cyclists' lack of visibility "was the largest contributing factor," which, combined with the darkness of the overcast night, meant Simon "did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to take an evasive action.""







Read more he







https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...210417955.html







Cheers



Glancing at the replies in this thread it's again interesting to see how quickly many topics morph into something nearly totally unrelated to the original topic's post. Perhaps that is part of the reason moderated bicycling forums are taking over from Usenet?



Cheers

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

the information SR posted questions responsibility for an accident. Responses are to that question.

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:11:42 PM UTC-7, x wrote:
On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:35:30 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


snip

Glancing at the replies in this thread it's again interesting to see how quickly many topics morph into something nearly totally unrelated to the original topic's post. Perhaps that is part of the reason moderated bicycling forums are taking over from Usenet?



the information SR posted questions responsibility for an accident. Responses are to that question.


IMO, a big part of responsibility in the OP case is with the...
(drum roll, please... ) car culture, wherein drivers _default
assumption_ is the only thing to contend with on the road is
other cars.

Sure it's still the driver's responsibility to assay a clear
path before barging into it, but in practice nothing much
dares hang out in the road, and inanimate objects of any
consequence are rare out there, too, so in practice a clear
path down the road is substantially safe to assume. Hans
Monderman recognized this problem.

And yes, it *will* be distressing for her, and yes, the kids
(and/or their parents) were negligible in just being there.
(Please understand I do not use "negligible" in the legal
liability sense here, but rather the "place yourself in the
potential path of cars and you're at to get hit" sense.)

Doesn't mean I think there's the least bit of validity to her
case. My guess is that it's a knee jerk to "the best defense
is a good offense".

I'll bet the Dutch think we're genuine barbarians over here.

Dan O wrote:

Sure it's still the driver's responsibility to assay a clear
path before barging into it, but in practice nothing much
dares hang out in the road, and inanimate objects of any
consequence are rare out there, too, so in practice a clear
path down the road is substantially safe to assume. Hans
Monderman recognized this problem.

German law mandates that as a driver, you have to be able to stop within
the range that you can overlook, in case of narrow roads half of that
distance. If you cannot, you are too fast, no matter what speed limit
the road has; and liability for any accident is on you.

Still, as you say, most drivers assume a clear path...

hauke


--
Now without signature.