Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.145.167.92

Forum Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Message Too Old, No Replies

Driver who killed teen sues for damage to his car

teen "damaged" his car when the driver hit him...yes.

   
6:57 pm on Jan 25, 2008 (gmt 0)



"It's the final straw, a stab in the back," Iriondo's mother, Rosa Trinidad said, according to El Pais. "Before the lawsuit we thought the poor guy would find it hard to live the rest of his life with the thought of having caused our son's death.

[news.yahoo.com...]

11:21 am on Jan 26, 2008 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member quadrille is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



He probably has no choice; it's the insurance company.

A few years ago, a parchutist, on her first jump, landed on a helicopter as it was landing. Picture the scene.

A couple of years later, the helicopter owner sued the deceased's estate for the damage; it wasn't personal, they knew that she would have had parachutist's insurance, and they knew they had a reasonable case for negligence / poor training, and therefore could force them to pay up.

Tragically, I don't know the outcome!

But likely they won; sounds horrible, but that's insurance law for you.

4:08 pm on Jan 26, 2008 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



A motorcyclist runs over and kills a child in the UK. The motorcyclist is himself seriously injured in the encounter.

A year or so later he successfully claims compensation from the UK Government's Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund. A fund created to compensate victims of violent crime.

The motorcyclist's justification? The kid was playing chicken - repeatedly running across several lanes of heavy traffic. That was the crime. And it led to the motorcyclist being violently injured.

1:06 pm on Jan 27, 2008 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member essex_boy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Which is fair enough, the kid shouldnt have been doing what he was doing
9:36 pm on Jan 27, 2008 (gmt 0)



Which is fair enough, the kid shouldnt have been doing what he was doing

Looks like both did something they should not have been doing: 100 mph in a 55 zone vs. not wearing the reflective gear. Plus, one paid with his life. That seems more than even right there...

4:22 am on Jan 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member quadrille is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



You could be doing 25 mph in a thirty zone and still kill a stupid kid.

It's usually random selection, not dangerous driving, that selects the innocent driver who kills a chicken-run kid.

And if that driver *had* been dangerous driving, he wouldn't have got the compensation.