Thursday, May 1, 2014

RCOB moment

Woman runs over kid and kills him.  Then she sued the kid's parents for pain and suffering:
ALCONA, ONT. - Still in the throes of agony from losing their son in a vehicle crash, the parents of young Brandon Majewski are now reeling after they learned the woman who struck and killed him is suing their dead child.
Sharlene Simon, 42, a mother of three, formerly from Innisfil Canada is not officially the worst human being on the planet.  Die screaming in a fire, Sharlene.


Sean D Sorrentino said...

Why do we assume that the newspaper is reporting fairly? They've never done so before.

Let's look at what was said in the report.

"The spunky, handsome, 17-year-old bike enthusiast was out with his two buddies on Oct. 28, 2012 when they hopped on their bicycles to go for hot dogs on a drizzly, dark night around 1:30 a.m.

“I know they should not have been out there that late,” his father said. “But they are good kids.”"

So they were out after midnight on a rainy night. There's no mention of lights (which are required) on the bicycles. You can be assured that had they been running bright bicycle lights, Dad would have said so.

"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."

So the parent of the child killed has sued the driver. No mention of whether this suit was filed before or after the driver's suit.

So let me pose a hypothetical scenario that would account for the behavior of the driver.

1. She's driving down the road at night in the rain at approximately 56 mph in a posted 50 zone.

2. She strikes two bicyclists in the dark with no lights in the rain.

3. Cops look at it and decide she's neither drunk nor criminally liable for the incident and release her.

4. Pissed off Mom and Dad sue driver.

5. She countersues for pain and suffering.

I would view countersuing the family for damage to my car and any incidental pain and suffering expenses plus lawyers fees as perfectly legitimate response to being sued by the parents of an idiot child who rides his bike in the street in the rain after midnight and gets run over.

I think that we need more information to determine if the driver is being an asshole or if she's got a legitimate reason for what she's doing.

Given how reporters stick to their narrative no matter how wrong it turns out to be, I have no hope of ever learning the truth. They've designated the idiot kid as the victim, leaving the driver as the villain no matter what the truth might actually have been.

Goober said...

I'm with Sean on this one.

There is definitely more to the story than meets the eye. let's look at some particulars:

The cops cleared her of any wrongdoing. She was not drunk. She was speeding, like Sean said, 56 in a 50, so not exactly beyond the limits of safe driving, and certainly not enough to convert a "no fault" accident into vehicular manslaughter or homiide, or what have you. No evidence that she was on her phone exists.

A 17 year old out at 1:30 in the morning rides his bike in front of her car and she hits him.

Later, after the cops clear her of any wrongdoing and send her home, she gets sued by the parents of the kid, who allege (without evidence) that she was drunk, speeding, and talking on her cellphone.

She decides to counter sue, which is actually a very good legal plan of action in this case.

Fact is, the grieving parents are sort of being asshats here. Grieving parents tend not to think clearly. But if a grieving parent comes after you in civil court, you've no choice but to take steps to defend yourself, and a counter-suit is often a very good tactic to do so.

This didn't happen in a vacuum. She didn't hit the kid, then decide that night to sue the parents of the kid for a free payday. She's just trying to defend herself in an awful situation.

Goober said...

The moral?

Further reinforcement that very little good happens outside the confines of your home after 11 pm, especially if you are a minor child.

juvat said...

Two interesting things mentioned in the article. No field sobriety tests were administered. Her husband was following her in another car. Oh and he's a cop.

ASM826 said...

Moral 2: Lights on your bicycle are a life and death matter.

Sean D Sorrentino said...

Juvat: I know that the story linked says that no field sobriety tests were conducted, but the police beg to differ.

"Larry Hurd launched a petition recently calling for an independent review of the South Simcoe police investigation. The petition, available online at, has garnered more than 11,000 signatures.

South Simcoe police officials say their own internal review of the crash investigation indicate that "standard procedures" were followed, including the on-scene investigation, visibility testing, mechanical testing of the vehicle, forensic scene mapping, sobriety tests and interview with the driver and independent witnesses.

On the morning of Oct. 28, 2012, police say a roadside screening device was used at the scene and alcohol was ruled out as a factor in the collision."

One of the witnesses complained that she was kept on scene until 5:30 AM, so no one could say they didn't spend the time necessary.

Of course, they could be staging an elaborate coverup to protect the wife of a cop, but absent any proof, and this happened over a year ago, I'm not inclined to question the police investigation.

Michael said...

in my town there is a 10pm curfew which makes it not only prudent for minor children to be kept in at o dark thirty but also the law. Letting kids bicycle at nite is not a wise decision. Sad that kids died, always is, but it is especially so considering it could have been avoided by common sense parenting. Like other commentators, we can't know the facts but I do not think we can judge this lady based solely on the media accounts.