Oh yes, because in America, getting hit by a car at even 45mph while wearing a helmet means survival.
Most people end up comatose just from being hit by a car going 20-25mph. This case is bullshit.
Oh yes, because in America, getting hit by a car at even 45mph while wearing a helmet means survival.
Most people end up comatose just from being hit by a car going 20-25mph. This case is bullshit.
Lol, it's a good argument to make if the Jurisdiction follows the legal theory of contributory negligence.
Aww, looks like Connecticut is not one of those states...
Pull your heads out of your fucking assholes for five seconds please. I prefaced what I said by saying the guy is in all likelyhood full of shit. HOWEVER, he claims to have been going the speed limit and that the child was jumping his bicycle into the middle of the street with no helmet on.
Clearly, if he was passing the other car and the kid was cycling with his friend, there are witnesses. If he's lying his case will go nowhere. Hell, if he's not lying the case will go nowhere do to bias.
That doesn't mean he has no right to pursue his case.
If they're specifically saying he was going about 83 mph I assume they did an accident reconstruction. He can claim he was going 45 mph all he wants, but they obviously have proof otherwise since he was already convicted.
Bike helmets are shit and will always be shit.
Whether he has a right to his case or not, his argument holds about as much water as telling someone they would have survived being hit head on by a 20-ton truck if they were wearing their seatbelt.
I fully believe this guy is a shitbag, because in this case its seems fairly obvious that after a fatal collision the police would have done a reconstruction, and even if they were off by 20mph or more (doubt it) he would still be way over the limit etc...
But
Don't always go off the headlines or what victims say, this case is different like I said, but again victims can lie also.
Try this headline on for size.
"Teenager hits disabled woman in wheel chair in high speed collision."
This headline refers to my brother. He was sued by a disabled woman's family because he hit her doing 70kph (posted speed limit).
What really happened though was she was crossing at an intersection without a cross walk, and in front of a line of cars stopped waiting to turn left. I guess her para-transpo bus (mass transit for the disabled where I live) never came and she decided to wheel herself across the street and home. When she popped out from the traffic, my bro was right there doing 70. He swerved and spun out and nicked her foot with the back half of his car. His car went flying off the road from the swerve.
Basically he would 100% have been fucked if it wasn't for an off-duty cop who happened to witness, and vouched for my brother saying that his evasive maneuver saved her life. So if that cop wasn't there I fully believe it would be my brother sitting in jail being referred to as a "shit bag who ran down a disabled person" for trying to clear his name.
You can't always immediately believe the vicitim.....
Should wear your helmet in a war zone
Also, the parents are fucking morons. "Inmates have too many rights" really? lol
""It's a constant reminder. Enough is enough. Can you just leave us alone and serve your time?""
You're suing him, he's just counter suiting. Pretty sure he can't leave you alone when he's in a legal dispute with you.
Responsibly jump your bike in the boundaries of your driveway to avoid traffic and get back to me on that.
The helmet is a complete grasp but he might be onto something if the kids were jumping their bikes into a 2 lane highway. But if didn't help him during his initial trial, I don't see how it would save him now.
I hope the driver wins the case just to show how retarded things have gotten.
I'm going to assume they are suing him over all the legal fees they have to pay along with emotional stress of having your kid killed. That's not unheard of at all and totally in their right, especially for legal fees.
That money comes from his insurance im guessing as well.
Oh, do you have to pay the prosecutors now?
Yes, it's certainly normal to add in your legal fees in a civil suit that you are pursuing.
That doesn't change the fact that suing someone and then throwing up the "We just want to put this behind us and move on, why are you doing this!?" card when the person attempts to sue you back is pretty hypocritical.
When did they sue him? I don't get whats hypocritcal about it at all. They want it to be over and done with, i.e they want the money for the settlement and then be done. Not have to go back to court for a countersuit. Now if they sued him again after the countersuit, that would be hypocritcal of them. It's not now.
I hate this suing culture that's spreading over the world, or at least in US and UK.
You know its a sad state of affairs when health and safety takes over general sense