Drunk Driver SUING Parents of Boy He RAN OVER And KILLED

:wtf:


<>


" HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A driver who's serving a manslaughter sentence for striking and killing a 14-year-old boy is suing the victim's parents, blaming them for their son's death because they allowed him to ride his bike in the street without a helmet.


Matthew Kenney's parents, Stephen and Joanne, sued 48-year-old driver David Weaving shortly after he was sentenced last year to 10 years in prison, accusing him in Waterbury Superior Court of negligence and seeking more than $15,000 in damages.


Weaving, who has a history of drunken driving convictions, responded months later with a handwritten countersuit accusing the Kenneys of "contributory negligence." He's also seeking more than $15,000 in damages, saying he's endured "great mental and emotional pain and suffering," wrongful conviction and imprisonment, and the loss of his "capacity to carry on in life's activities."



"It drags the pain on," said Joanne Kenney, a stay-at-home mom with two other children, ages 2 and 13. "It's a constant reminder. Enough is enough. Can you just leave us alone and serve your time?"


Prisoners nationwide file tens of thousands of court actions a year on allegations ranging from wrongful convictions to poor jail conditions to civil rights violations, according to federal judiciary data. But lawyers and victim advocates say it's not often that convicted criminals sue victims and their families.


Prosecutors say Weaving was recklessly passing another car at about 83 mph in a 45-mph zone when his car hit Matthew Kenney on Route 69 in the Waterbury suburb of Prospect on April 27, 2007. A jury convicted him in December 2008 of manslaughter and other crimes.


cont'

<http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLk4dFEMQUjI2-XKYd4IzMQ3lV1A?docId=f256dd857e7d460fb3437a211b93e305>

.

I'm home-bound most days, and only unpredictably able to get out of bed because of pain and fatigue. But I tell you I would find some way to get out of bed and into that court every damned day for a case like this one. If friends had to come in here and physically carry me to that court every morning, I'd be there!

:grr:

first, because there is most likely not a municipal law that all minors must wear bicycle helmets and second, because the accident was clearly his fault.

I think the judge will not be very kind to this asshole when he gets to court. I can't think of any judge in the world who would allow this stinking mess of a countersuit to be pursued.

how the heck do you know? There is such a law where I live. Not that that means this lawsuit isn't fucking absurd, of course.

There's also a law that says a person has to wear a seatbelt. If a person not wearing a seatbelt gets rear ended by a drunk driver going 90 in a 30 and the guy is killed, a lawsuit by the drunk driver would be equally ridiculous

so yes, that would be most likely, would it not?

Again, the judge is going to be very rude to this guy.

Anyone under the age of 16 must wear a helmet while riding a bicycle on a road traveled by motor vehicles.

21 states have state-wide laws regarding this.

Many municipalities in other states have local statutes as well.


http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx

http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm

I admit, I'm a bit of a speeder. I know my limits and my car's limits. 83 in a 45 isn't reckless. It's insane. Stupidly insane. Suicidal, almost. Anything you hit at 83 mph, be it man/woman/child/car/house/animal/tree/rocketship there's not going to be much left.

A kevlar helmet and full body armor wouldn't have even helped this poor kid.

are already written in the cards with these repeat offenders. It's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt or is killed.

no, no...don't do it. Don't admit to anything in public.

the poor child was a goner helmet or no helmet. the countersuit is insult added to injury.

Yep, I could swear that's what he said.

I won't type what I just said to my empty living room, but it wasn't very nice.

Hope that family finds peace, and this asshole serves every year of his ten year sentence. He deserves more.

This suit's probably going nowhere fast, especially since the plaintiff lost the criminal case

defending this nasty lawsuit. But they'll have to hire a real lawyer to handle the legal work, and that won't be cheap.

So they already have a lawyer, and I'd expect the lawyer's prepared, since countersuits are probably a common response to suits

In a number of circumstances, losers pay fees and costs, so if the jailed loses, he may be rather on the hook

So? There are still people suing over Obama's birth certificate.

We have these things called "courts". If you want to write down whatever insane shit tickles your fancy and file it in one, you, or anyone else is free to do so. Most stuff filed in courts goes absolutely nowhere. This guy's claim, like most stuff filed by inmates, won't go anywhere either.

There is, however, a concerted effort by insurance companies to promote these stories to convey the impression of "courts gone wild" just because some jackass, like a lot of jackasses, has discovered that insane crap can be filed in a court, and just as easily be roundfiled.

:eyes:

Just when I think I can't see any lower defense of the indefensible in reply to an OP, someone goes and lowers the bar all over again.

A prison inmate filed a handwritten complaint that is going to be thrown out just as fast as it came in the door.

If you think it is interesting or newsworthy, we can have a zillion threads on "stupid crap filed in courts", but inmate lawsuits are a dime a dozen.

I'm not "defending" anything, but it's as much front page news as "man picks nose at red light"

It's also a duplicate thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9560395

Because the OP couldn't be bothered to see if the story was already posted, which it was

at all?

I'll tell you why: it was something easy to piss on, about a topic you obviously resent being posted in the first place for whatever reason. So you did.

As I said, just when I think the bar can't get lowered any further on replies to OP's here, someone comes along and inches it downward.

And, actually, I didn't bother to unrec it until you reminded me.

Do I really have to read the same "insurance company pimps story about frivolous inmate claim that will go nowhere" thread twice?

By all means, go rec the other thread and post three more OP's.

I don't care that it's a duplicate thread: could care less. Hit "alert" and whine to the Mods, if it obsesses and bothers you so much.

:eyes:

It doesn't change the fact that you chose to piss in an OP just for, I don't know, the hell of it I guess. And because you could. Like I said: you have managed once again to lower the bar.

:shrug:

That sounds like a personal problem.... :eyes:

Ever heard of the hide thread function?



Edit: better modifier.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

down the road, and post your deep thoughts on the topics of the day elsewhere? :shrug:

We know why, but never mind.

"It's also a duplicate thread"

Instead of whining to me with your special-pleading tone, why don't you go ahead and follow proper procedure and hit "alert" if you're so bent out of shape about a "duplicate thread"? I'm not interested, and it's not my job in any event.

Yeah, I'm a paid troll for the powerful Drunks Running Over Kids lobby.

The real reasons are that you are anonymous, have a bur under your saddle about this topic for some reason, and feel no compunction about hitting "post message" and flaming away on a topic that you should, at the very least, acknowledge the very real pain of the family and absurdity of the "counter-suit" even if you think the story is un-newsworthy.

You chose not to - for the reasons I stated.

In the so doing, you again lower the bar. And are apparently proud of it.


Edit: spelling & clarity.

You link back to the same thread? Hm.

Noisy outrage by itself accomplishes very little

is knee-jerk fodder for the muddled classes, and they're always willing to jump on whatever bandwagon their masters want.

thus we have 19-year-olds who slept with 16-year-olds being forever branded as pedophiles surveilled for life & basically unemployable. thus we have "welfare reform". thus we have an out-of-control surveillance state.

they spend more outrage beating on some poor loser who never caught a break in his life than on the slimy pricks who are bankrupting the country & running the loser-producing factory.

Clearly a lot of people think access to the courts should be limited.

I can't tell if it is more ignorance or going along with the insurance company hype, but the message is always "we need to close the courthouse doors because some jackass filed a frivolous claim.

I really don't know if people think about where that leads.

It was about a tragic story, compounded by absurdity - the parents were the ones who sued him first, for crying out loud. No one has or had the slightest problem with that, of course. Which make your replies all the more laughable.

:shrug:

Since it wasn't - certainly not by the OP; nor in the story they linked - you just more or less made that shit up.

And you have the gall to opine on "ignorance"... :eyes:

'but the message is always "we need to close the courthouse doors because some jackass filed a frivolous claim'

Where, exactly, is that "message" anywhere in this OP?

Be specific, please. Thanks.

... :boring:

at least, fighting this hurtful claim. We had a crazy meth-addict with some legal skills file a civil suit against us. It was eventually tossed out "with prejudice" but we had to spend $5,000 to make that happen.

:shrug:

You are quite right, of course, and I, for one, regret that you had to go through that kind of nonsense plus losing $5,000 before it was all over.

Others, as you can see, not so much.

that the attacker missed a critical deadline -- so the case got tossed out on a technicality. Otherwise, we could have had another 6 months of legal bills.

Thanks for understanding. Lawyers might take lawsuits for granted. But for the rest of us, even if you win, they can be both expensive and traumatic.

financial & emotional costs. Those kind of narratives should never be dismissed with the kind of hand-waving arrogance we've seen displayed in this thread directed toward the victims of a wrongful tort. :thumbsup:

Don't worry, we're getting there.

putting words in other people's mouths or, failing all else, just making shit up, seems to be your preferred manner of participating in this OP. For whatever reason...

The person who wrote them had had his license suspended, but he was free to represent himself -- and so he did. Parts of the documents (the ones that were written while he was high) were almost gibberish. Our lawyer didn't make that an issue, because it was more cost-effective to go after him for the simple technical issues. But why was the judge turning such a blind eye to the situation?

If the claims were facially frivolous, and your guy didn't go for sanctions, then I have questions about your lawyer.

But, like I said, we'll eventually move to a "loser pays" system on the basis of insurance company hype, which will mean that nobody will pursue civil rights claims, consumer protection claims, or go after big corporations for environmental claims, because the potential downside risk will prevent it.

And then they will have won.

legislative improbability's (a "loser pays" system passing the U.S. Congress? Really? :eyes:), in a feeble attempt to mask your gross insensitivity in this thread to the family concerned?

:shrug:

Notice that the parents already sued him.

If he had counterclaims, it was incumbent on him to bring those claims in the original action. He didn't, and thus waived his right to bring claims arising from the incident.

His suit is barred on purely procedural grounds, and will be summarily dismissed without any consideration of the merit (of which there is none anyway).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

parents and if he has one, his spouse. For being irresponsible parents and an idiot spouse.

inmates have a lot of time on their hands and this is one of the ways they fill it.

"great mental and emotional pain and suffering"

maybe he should sue himself for having a touch of humanity
and then countersue himself for taking it all back with his " wrongful conviction and imprisonment, and the loss of his "capacity to carry on in life's activities."

He has all the requisite credentials.

this is the one I can safely reveal.

I think his sentence should have been MANDATORY of 1 year served for every mile he was over the limit. This would have made his sentence of 38 years, and the amount he would have to serve, with no parole until those 38 were served. I think this should be the sentence every asshole driving like a bat out of hell should get, with the major exception of those who are not only driving recklessly fast, but are also drunk--their sentence should be 100 years mandatory, no parole--ever.

I think so.

He's an asshole who obviously has little remorse for his actions.

And that $500 could turn into a further plus if they counter-counter sue. They are already suing him after all. Do they expect that the time they will spend in court will be zero minutes zero seconds?

If there is an expectation that the drunk does not deserve due process, or that a drunk driver cannot have a point to make, or that we should not listen to a point of anyone making a charge after a suit has been filed against them, fine, try and get that passed by lawmakers and the rest of us.

I can understand an unwillingness to be realistic when reality deals such a horrific blow, but the real will persists and a somewhat messy due process should lead to a better future for all involved than any knee-jerk prejudgemental action.

By failing to present his counterclaims in the original action, he waived them.

It takes all of five minutes, if that, to dismiss his claim.

"I'm sorry, sir, but your blood alcohol level shows that you have no respect for life and are a self-centered, dangerous, small-minded sack of shit who has no right to exist in this community, so I'm going to execute you now". Bang.

Then call the family and tell them they have 30 minutes to clean up the body and get the car out of the way.

The unfortunate 14 year old victim likely would have succumbed to his injuries even if he had worn a helmit.

The case should be dismissed immediately.

There won't be any "outcome", since his suit is barred by failing to raise counterclaims in the original action.

It is essentially dead on arrival, and will be thrown out purely on procedural grounds.

The point of this sort of story is to convey the impression that access to courts should be limited, and that there is a tremendous volume of frivolous lawsuits. These stories are promoted by insurance companies and other corporate interests that want to limit citizens' access to the courts, so that we can do away with those pesky civil rights and environmental claims.

"The point of this sort of story is to convey the impression that access to courts should be limited, and that there is a tremendous volume of frivolous lawsuits. These stories are promoted by insurance companies and other corporate interests that want to limit citizens' access to the courts, so that we can do away with those pesky civil rights and environmental claims."

Somehow, pointing out that his suit is procedurally barred is "offensive" to some folks.

helmet or no helmet, that poor kid never had a chance.

I also find it interesting that the drunk drivers name was Weaving.

I mean I live in the city and this is pretty common in the urban areas. People tend to ignore crosswalks and will cross if they think they can make it in time before the car passes thru. Sometimes I swear people are just wanting to play chicken. So to be honest, why can't the person crossing someplace illegal be held accountable for doing something dumbass like crossing the streets even when they see my car coming down the road.

But luckily for me I'm someone who only drives sober so usually I can slow down or move out of the way to avoid the hit. But a few times I came dangerously close and honestly, it was the pedestrian/biker's fault for not using crosswalks and waiting until it was clear to cross.

But seriously, the guy was drunk and if he/she was not drunk more than likely that child would be alive. I don't think a helmet would have saved the child. He/She was also driving 83 miles an hour which doesn't help his case either.