A little RO for Friday afternoon.
This is worse than the pants guy.
This occurs in Spain. A man drivig 100 in a 55 zone strikes a boy on a bike and kills him.
His insurance paid out for to the family for the death of their son.
Now the drive is sueing the family for the damage to his sports car done by the bike, (and their boy) and for the rental car he needed while his car was in the shop.
Can a judge just issue a ruling of ‘Suck my dick’?
That’s pretty outrageous.
Note that if the driver hadn’t been partially at fault, my opinion would change: if the accident was caused by the dead cyclist, and the driver was blameless, he could certainly sue, even though the cyclist was dead and it’s heartless and blah blah blah.
But when his own negligence was part of the reason for the accident? He ought to slink away in shame.
“Aspire mi pene!”
That should be “Chupa mi pene”, since chupa=suck, aspira=inhale.
Actually since it is in Spain the judge would probably say “Mamame la polla”.
Your mom’s a chicken?
HATE SPEECH!
When Spanish tourists first started coming to Cuba in large numbers this was one way in which we made fun of them, since for Spaniards polla=dick, and everywhere else in the Spanish speaking world polla is either chicken, or a good looking girl. Since many Spaniards were looking for cheap sex, some with men, some with women, you can imagine there was lots of opportunity for confusion.
Nitpick: he was driving an Audi A8, which isn’t a sports car, but a big luxury sedan/saloon.
And yeah, he was doing 100mph. He can suck the judge’s dick.
And this happens now and then:
I remember a guy in a tobacco shop yelling “Yo quiero dos putos Cubanos, grandes” while everybody stood around laughing their asses off. Of course the word he meant was “puros” for “cigars” is similar so I understand the mistake but I still laughed.
Why wouldn’t his insurance also cover the damage to his own car?
And if I were the parents in this case and the judge awards this guy the money I think I’d hand it over in nickels (or the nearest Euro equivalent - naahhh nickels…exchange that!)
And this might get me tarred and featherd but if he’d been driving 55 in a 55 he might even get some sympathy from me. I have almost crushed any number of university students just a few blocks from here when it’s already dark when I drive home. They* wear dark clothing and don’t wear any sort of reflectors, not even a backpack with that little strip, and they really do dart out across traffic from unexpected angles. It’s quite startling. I’m pretty sure I’d give up driving if I killed someone with my car, regardless of which of us was at fault.
They=the ones I routinely almost crush. There are some bicyclists in the neighborhood who do wear reflectors and helmets and light clothes and obey the traffic laws.
If he’d been driving 55, maybe his insurance company would have paid for the damage?
Every time I see something like this, the same to questions immediately come to mind:
Never forget, every frivolous, loopy, stupid, crazy, ridiculous, pathetic, embarrassing, unbelievably FUBAR in every way imaginable lawsuit had a lawyer that willingly took it up and a court that allowed it to go through.
Look, the world is full of morons, reprobates, dirtbags, and all-around jerkoffs, and nearly all of them are full of unreasonable demands. As long as no one satisfies these demands, there’s no problem. In the case of a throwaway lawsuit, there are two parties that could’ve said no and killed it cold. And neither did. And that’s inexcusable.
And I understand that there are cases that were presented to the public with lots of crucial details omitted (McDonalds scalding coffee case, anyone?), but this doesn’t look like the case here.
Not true. Many of them represent themselves. But every one is DEFENDED by a lawyer (small claims cases excepted). As you already noted often the public is not aware of all the facts so some so called kooky cases are not that kooky. Furthermore lawyers are just people like everybody else. Some good some bad some trying to get rich quick and some batshit crazy. Try to keep your broad brush in check. I know gnashing you teeth in ignorant self righteous anger and condemnation feels better, but still…
No, I think “inhale” is better, as it would be more likely to result in choking and death.
But it wouldn’t make sense in Spanish. Words don’t have the same connotative meaning in other languages.
I should think it is a felony to drive a saloon at 100 mph.
Especially because there’s sure to be some open bottles in there somewhere. 
Out of curiousity, is the driver really suing the family as it sounds?
I ask because I remember when I got rear-ended a few years back and some of my injuries showed up a while later. The driver who hit me was a really nice guy, and there were never any questions about fault or any of that. But his insurance company tried to say I was lying about my injuries, etc., so I retained a lawyer to fight with his insurance company.
Ultimately, “I” filed a lawsuit against “the other driver,” but all of the battling was between my attorney and the insurance company’s attorney. I just wonder if it’s the same type of situation, whereas even though this driver was at fault, he had insurance that would cover the damage to his car, and consequently, it’s actually his insurance company that is suing the other side to try to recover what they had to pay out.
Sorry if that didn’t make any sense – it does in my head, anyway.
They’ve got cars big as bars.