This American has one on both his children. It’s not much, basically enough to cover funeral cost should one of them die an untimely demise. Heck, at 12 bucks a year, I’d think a lot of parents would have life insurance policies on their kids.
Where would they serve process?
God Fucking Dammit!
I just got served with notice that this bitch is now suing me for “Unreasonable Enjoyment of Internet posting on message boards at plaintiff’s expense.”
This bitch is now suing people who discuss her case on the Internet claiming they are enjoying talking about it and so now she expects us to pay her.
What the fuck is the world coming to?
j/k
Sure, just keep declaring victory. That will work. I’m just sure that this tactic will win for them, after all just Googling the victims names has
Its hardly a conspiracy to have a police report be in error. Its also hardly in truther and birther territory to note that police often cover for each other’s mistakes.
You happily toss around the idea that the police report but it scarcely mentions the husband being on the scene, despite the fact that he would be a witness. Given that the husband is also suing the kid’s family you’d think that would be important.
Wait, if the road is too narrow for two cyclists to ride abreast safely, it’s also too narrow for one cyclist to ride safely? Because, I guess, 3’ + bicyclist width + bicyclist safe distance + bicyclist width = 3’ + bicyclist width? You failed math in high school right?
You are confusing “road” with “lane”, possibly because of the way Spiderman’s post was worded. On an 80Kph road, if there is enough room for a west-bound car to pass and east-bound car at speed, as there almost always is, there is room for a car to pass two cyclists abreast by using the other lane. In fact, a single cyclist riding near the fogline still requires the motorist to cross the centerline in order to be given their due clearance (cyclists should not be riding near the fogline, because drivers are less likely to notice them there).
If the car must give due clearance, and clearance requires encroaching into the oncoming lane, cyclists riding single-file are actually more of a danger than cyclists riding abreast. Three feet over the centerline is not somehow less of a risk than seven feet over the centerline, either way, the car is in the oncoming lane. With cyclists riding abreast, the car will spend less time in the oncoming lane.
Actually, I was in advanced math; you, however, must have failed reading comprehension. What I stated is that if the road are as narrow as you state, it is not safe to pass one cyclist (needing 5-6’ from the edge line, including 3’ safe passing distance). Therefore, does it matter if they are riding single-file or two abreast since it’s not safe to pass even one.
Hi neighbour.
Given the small town mentality around here, I wonder if the woman and her husband are being ostracized since both their names have been made public? The Social Media Jury has spoken. They will likely be “run out” of Innisfil.
From Chapter 85, “Nothing in this clause shall relieve a bicyclist of the duty to facilitate overtaking as required by section 2 of chapter 89.”
I interpret this as “Don’t drive in the middle of the road when traffic is coming”. Around here we do have bike lanes on the side of the road, even if they are regrettably narrow. Do they do it differently where you all are from?
Far as I know, she is already gone. The national stated that she was a former resident of innisfil.
Declan
Can you locate the accident site? I matched up the image from the article linked in the OP using street view to being just a little west of Thompson Street in Innisfil Beach Road. If that is where it happened, “dark country road” is most inapt, it might be a dark stretch, but it is in a suburban area. In US, the speed limit along a stretch like that would probably be 55 or 60 (less than 40mph).
I was just at the scene , about twenty minutes ago to take some pictures of the memorial and the road , both west and east.
It’s roughly half way between side road 10 and hwy 11. Bout two miles west from there is hwy 400 and that stretch of the road will see traffic moving at 110 kph plus, historically. The road is totally flat at that point, two standard size lanes, plus a lane sized shoulder on both sides, that is packed sand.
Declan
Generally speaking, bicyclists are given fair latitude in terms of lane positioning: they are not required to ride in ways that might endanger them (after all, suicide is mostly illegal). How you interpret what the law means may not line up with how lawyers and judges interpret it (though, in most cases, cyclists end up being treated a little below cockroaches as far as rights and respect). Riding in the lane (you probably view the right tire track as more or less equivalent to the middle of the lane) is sometimes necessary, even if it inconveniences motor vehicles.
I’ll make no argument regarding whether she was driving too fast for conditions, although it wouldn’t surprise me. And I am in no way defending her by saying the following, but:
The above stats totally do not match my experiences.
Yes, when I am standing at the bus stop before dawn, my flashlight can pick out a reflective road sign hundreds of yards/meters away, while I stare fixedly in that direction. But here in suburban Northern Virginia, we have a phenomenon of adults who ride unlit bicycles at night with only the minimal factory-installed reflectors, and those guys often loom suddenly out of the background at the last moment. Whether it’s dirt on their reflectors, a bad angle of approach, or that they get lost against a reflector-rich suburban environment, typically these guys are not visible at anything like 400-600 meters. More like 50 feet tops, often much less. I typically detect them only when they make a transit in front of a light source – not by any light they reflect at all.
I am not at all anti-bicyclist: I myself ride. But the Northern Virginia Ninja Bicycle Corps routinely scares the hell out of me as they shoot through stop signs and weave out into the flow of traffic without warning and with almost no visible lights or markings at all.
The police did not find probable cause that she was criminally culpable. That’s not quite the same thing as finding that she was “not negligent.”
Let’s assume for a moment that the woman was not negligent. She is suddenly faced with a lawsuit alleging that she is responsible for a death. Her attorney advises her that if the case goes to trial she will be on the hook for his fee even if she is completely vindicated (leave aside for a moment the likely fact that her insurance would pay the attorney.)
What else is she supposed to do?
I deal with the dark and clueless all the time and I manage to see them.
These kids were on an open road, no stop signs to run, no other distractions. If she had been paying attention, she would have seen them in her headlights in time.
And I’ve measured the distances by GPS on spotting shirts and reflectors. And it didn’t require staring fixedly on one point.
$900,000 funeral? Must have been quite an event.
…when you finish wiping the spittle from your face you should simply realize that I was right. You made the claim “This will never play well to anyone.” That claim was simply not true.
It isn’t enough to simply throw out the idea that the report was either in error, or that the police were covering for a mistake. And it isn’t enough to simply throw out the idea she was on a phone at the time, or that she was under the influence.
Those claims require evidence. Without evidence: the claims are as worthless as the rants of a truther.
Show us where the report was in error. Show us that the husband being on the scene warrants mention in an accident report. I’d be perfectly willing to accept there was a cover up if you could produce evidence that there was a cover up. But it appears that mud is being flung in the hope that some of it will stick. And at the moment all you are doing is flinging mud.
I still don’t understand why she’s suing the dead brother of the dead kid. Why is that necessary?
First of all you can stop with the immature game of pretending I am somehow rabid.
And yes, I was wrong. There are some people who are taken in by the nonsense claims that this is a legitimate lawsuit. Then again, some people think a driver has a right to sue for damages to their car after they drive through a red light and into a mass of pedestrians.
As I forgot to mention: simply googling the victim’s name gets at least 6 solid pages of articles about this woman’s chutzpah. She will be lucky if she doesn’t end up with a situation like that Spanish driver who sued for car damages after running over and killing a kid back in 2008.
Comparing me to a truther is nonsense. I will not claim that the DUI or texting claims have been proven in any way. I can merely state that there is a lot that stinks with the police report, the husband being on the scene and other factors. That does not make even remotely a truther as much as you would like to shove me into that box.
I am not in a position to prove anything. But that is what lawsuits bring out: evidence.
I can however point out a lot of things simply do not add up or stink to high heaven: the husband being on the scene and what he did (and did not do), the " Oh I was just 10kph above the speed limit’ routine. etc.
But even with all that, it doesn’t matter. If the victim’s family’s claims have no merit than they have no merit. End of story, end of case. Just a tragic event.
But here this woman not only sues the victim’s family for more than what they were suing for the loss of a child, but she also names the other victims as well. What did they do exactly? Oh, and as the family’s lawyer has pointed out: the suit isn’t against the family but against the child itself. A minor. Oh, and now the husband has his own special lawsuit in case as well.
Now mind you, in some worlds this might actually be a genius tactic. In this one? I don’t know Canada judges well enough but I suspect they would shut this down cold to prevent a perverse precedent.