= new reply since forum marked as read
The report also states: “No breathalyzer was performed. Although police say no alcohol was suspected and no charges were laid.
Simon’s husband, Jules Simon, a York Regional Police officer, was driving behind his wife that night, but little is mentioned about him as a witness in the police report. He pulled over when Brandon was struck and shortly after drove his wife home in his vehicle.
Even if the cyclists were foolishly riding three abreast, a driver who's exercising reasonable care (keeping a lookout and not speeding) would see them and not hit them.
In most jurisdictions, the victim's negligence (even "significant contributory negligence"
is no longer a bar to recovery. It merely diminishes the damages recoverable. I don't see any reason to fault the parents for bringing suit.
(or reaching the last quoted paragraph) that the kid was riding a bicycle. It does sound as if the boys were not properly outfitted for riding after dark - and I certainly encounter plenty on my commute who aren't. But suing a bicycle rider is much more likely to receive sympathy than blaming a similarly poorly improperly outfitted pedestrian - because - bicycles on the road, the exclusive purview of cars in the view of far too many.
From the opposite perspective, however, it is also interesting how much outrage was expressed in this thread based on the skewed reporting - which buries the fact that this suit is a response to being sued in the last 3 paragraphs (and even then does not make it clear that this is a responsive suit). ("Cameron has launched a routine lawsuit against the driver, mainly for medical and funeral costs on behalf of the boys and their families. He alleges Simon was speeding and may have been intoxicated and talking on her cellphone."
From another article the picture is a little clearer:
That claim, which is still winding its way through the legal system, alleges Simon was negligent: travelling at excessive speeds, failing to keep a proper lookout and operating while intoxicated and on the phone.
It also claims Simon’s husband, Jules, was negligent, knowingly allowing his wife to drive impaired.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/25/driver_who_struck_teen_suing_dead_youth.html
Very impressive explanation, Ms. Toad.
(or non-concrete claims) is because they have already had to pay to defend themselves for a year. Those are all out of pocket costs, even if they win. The only way to make themselves whole - just on the assumption that she truly is innocent - is to countersue for something that isn't being paid directly to a care provider (your "real monetary damages."
Not at all the same circumstances, but when I was in an accident that was the fault of the other driver all I wanted was (1) my car and (2) my out of pocket medical expenses covered. They insisted on paying the blue book value of my car and converting the title to a salvage title. In order to keep my car, I had to get an attorney involved. Once I got the attorney involved, pain and suffering were automatically added to the claims because that is the only way to recover money to pay his contingent fees. So fixing my car + under $1,000 for medical bills was converted into a claim for fixing my car + around $10,000. That is how the system works when insurance companies get stubborn.
That is apparently what is going on here. The boys' families have sued Simon for $900,000 - and the case has been going on for a year. The defense is being paid for by the Simons' insurance company. In order to stop the fee bleed, the insurance company needed to file claims on their side which will create enough money to cover the legal fees.
But - legal gyrations aside - assuming Simon is innocent - you don't think you might have legitimately been traumatized by the sight of a kid and bicycle flying over the hood of your car when you (still assuming she is innocent) had no idea there was even a bicyclist on the road; might be haunted by the deaths that you inadvertently caused; and might be struggling with the public allegations being made against you for more than a year accusing you of driving drunk - and perhaps feel the need to take a stand?
I have no idea which side is legally right - but I have no doubt both sides are suffering - and that both would prefer not to be in a public fight about this. It is too bad that the need to pay for the childrens' medical bills (the original suit) has put both families in the position of painting the other as evil.