#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
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/2010/11/14/news/doc4ce04d871f0c3669075801.txt?viewmode=fullstory -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
'Weaving has five drunken driving arrests since the late 1990s on his record, four of which resulted in convictions. He was not charged with drunken driving in the Kenney case.' IF necessary, the trial may be found online. The above doesn't support '83 mph' but indicates the jury's willingness to vote guilty. Maybe.... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:40:04 -0800 (PST), kolldata
wrote: 'Weaving has five drunken driving arrests since the late 1990s on his record, four of which resulted in convictions. He was not charged with drunken driving in the Kenney case.' IF necessary, the trial may be found online. The above doesn't support '83 mph' but indicates the jury's willingness to vote guilty. Maybe.... An article that I read said that he was passing another car at 80 mph. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
On Nov 16, 12:33*am, 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/2010/11/14/news/doc4ce04d871f0c366... Foam hat laced with a St. Christopher medal, for sure. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
In rec.bicycles.tech 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. Maybe they expect him to have assets in the future, or want to make sure he never has any. A nice substantial, nondischargable judgement is a pretty good way the guy never has any form of transport other than his feet. -- sig 43 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
On Nov 16, 8:06*am, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:40:04 -0800 (PST), kolldata wrote: 'Weaving has five drunken driving arrests since the late 1990s on his record, four of which resulted in convictions. He was not charged with drunken driving in the Kenney case.' IF necessary, the trial may be found online. The above doesn't support '83 mph' but indicates the jury's willingness to vote guilty. Maybe.... An article that I read said that he was passing another car at 80 mph. Not enough info in the article referenced to decide who to sympathize with, if anyone. It's easy to imagine that *both* assertions may be correct - that the driver was driving recklessly *and* the victim was riding carelessly. Certainly see enough examples of both on a regular basis. The bit about the helmet surely is irrelevant, however, and insulting to include. nate |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
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, not of massive internal trauma at the scene. There is room to speculate that a helmet might have or could have made a difference. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ridiculous Lawsuit
On 11/16/2010 11:00 AM, N8N wrote:
On Nov 16, 8:06 am, wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:40:04 -0800 (PST), kolldata wrote: 'Weaving has five drunken driving arrests since the late 1990s on his record, four of which resulted in convictions. He was not charged with drunken driving in the Kenney case.' IF necessary, the trial may be found online. The above doesn't support '83 mph' but indicates the jury's willingness to vote guilty. Maybe.... An article that I read said that he was passing another car at 80 mph. Not enough info in the article referenced to decide who to sympathize with, if anyone. It's easy to imagine that *both* assertions may be correct - that the driver was driving recklessly *and* the victim was riding carelessly. Certainly see enough examples of both on a regular basis. Sort of felt the same way at first. I've had kids jump off the sidewalk in front of me both when cycling and when driving. But the thing is, in both cases, I, first of all, saw the kid, and secondly was going at a speed that allowed me to avoid him. It doesn't sound like this driver was either paying attention or going at a speed safe enough to avoid the kid. The people that I think are really at fault there are the ones that allowed him to keep driving after 5 arrests and 4 convictions for DWI. The bit about the helmet surely is irrelevant, however, and insulting to include. +1. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Isn't this getting ridiculous? | Patrick Lamb | General | 62 | December 3rd 08 04:55 AM |
ridiculous conditions | Andre | Racing | 9 | August 7th 08 01:00 PM |
Most ridiculous saddle ever? | Gooserider | General | 13 | December 12th 06 09:59 PM |