Blog
Conn. Driver Responsible for Fatal Accident Sues Parents
Watching the Today Show this morning, I was appalled – as were the hosts of the show, as far as one could tell – by the story of the Connecticut driver who is suing the parents of child he killed in a traffic crash. I had to stick around and see what the story was about, and sure enough the kid was on a bike. The story goes something like this: the driver is going 80mph in a 40mph or 45mph area (two-lane road fairly rural road, narrow paved shoulder), overtakes another car and hits and kills the 14-year old cyclist. The driver, with four prior convictions for drunk driving, is sent to jail for ten years for manslaughter and is now suing the parents of the kid for allowing him to ride without a helmet.
Yes, Connecticut has a helmet law (under 16). Yes, the DMV screwed up in letting this guy behind the wheel of a car in the first place. Of course a helmet would have had zero impact at that kind of speed. So the idea that a publicly-funded lawsuit could be brought against the child’s parents seeking $15,000 in damages for the emotional harm done to the driver is truly the stuff of fantasy – or certainly should be. And yet there it is.
Andy Clarke
League President
Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director.
Subscribe
November 16th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Um…right. The drunk driver should be counter sued by the parents for millions…then the driver should be dragged through the streets.
And any lawyer that takes the drunk killers case should be dis-barred and fined!
November 16th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
This make me feel sick.
November 16th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
If drivers licenses weren’t as sacred as the holy grail and they were taken away (permanently) more often maybe we wouldn’t have to deal with issues like this.
November 16th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Man bites dog, eh?
I’ve heard of more bizarre jailhouse lawsuits, but not very often. Presumably the manslaughter conviction, which required a jury to reach a unanimous decision beyond a reasonable doubt, sends a message that the state of Connecticut was obligated to send after Mr. Weaving’s (interesting choice of names) 4th DWI conviction.
Agree with Andy. I doubt a helmet would have saved a kid from the whole body trauma of an 80 mph impact. The family attorney might want to bring up that the damage from an 80 mph car impact is so horrific that the helmet is moot.
But regardless, the onus for the killing is on the motorist misusing the car. Sick. Really sick.
Sick.
November 16th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Frankly, this suit seems to be without merit. The driver was way over the limit in one or more ways and should have had his license revoked based on his priors. And I thought that my state, Wisconsin was lax on drunk driving! This plaintiff se3ems to believe that it’s an inalienable right to drive a car. If that’s the case, why do states bother to issue driver’s licenses?
November 16th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
While I share everyone’s anger with Weaving, and believe he should be incarcerated for a very long time, I am curious why this has become a hotly and largely inaccurately reported story at this time. Weavings “suit” actually is a counterclaim, and seems to have been filed in December, 2009. And sadly, the parents do share responsibility for their 7th grader not wearing a helmet and riding on a busy road in the dark on a foggy evening.
November 16th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Anyone find a copy of the original trial transcripts?
November 17th, 2010 at 1:17 am
This suit is mainly attempting to establish contributory negligence on the part of the decedent’s family. In most jurisdictions the doctrine of comparative negligence applies. It would seem then that the driver showed more negligence than the cyclist did.
November 17th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
[...] League of American Bicyclists & Bike [...]
November 18th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Some key points.
1. This is a CIVIL case for money. Not a criminal case.
2. The Estate of the boy sued the motorist for money. There is no indication if the motorist has insurance. If he does, his insurance lawyer will handle the case. Often, though, insurance lawyers will refuse to file these types of counterclaims against the estate. According to the articles I have read, the counterclaim was filed pro se [i.e., by the motorist personally, without a lawyer] and NOT by a lawyer.
3.We know NOTHING about the facts of this case at this point other than what has been reported in the media – reports which I’ve learned from personal experience are mostly inaccurate, politicized, sensationalized and written to sell newspapers, not accurately report actual “news”…
4. This action by the motorist claiming the cyclist screwed up is EXACTLY what INSURANCE COMPANIES do when defending motorists in virtually ALL the injury and death claims presented by cyclists…
I’ve handled more than 250 cases representing the injured cyclist [or his/her estate] against insurers. One thing is virtually universal —>THEY ALWAYS BLAME THE CYCLIST in some way for causing all or some of his/her injuries. They always claim the cyclist did something wrong – wasn’t riding far enough right, failed to signal, failed to have a “horn or other audible device” etc etc etc blahblahblah.
While this guy’s action of counterclaiming in this case is dramatic and blunt, it is precisely what insurance lawyers defending motorists do in much gaudier words – raising defenses of “comparative negligence” or “sudden emergency” as a matter of routine without any real facts to support them. If the guy HAS a lawyer, I can guarantee you that the lawyer raised many defenses, including a helmet defense if one is available under CT law – he/she just did it with more flowery language and rather than seek an award of damages against the estate, the lawyer would seek dismissal of the estate’s case…
I had one case, medical malpractice and assault by a chiropractor, in which the chiro was in jail, and lost his license, because he was inappropriately touching his patients, including my client. He had insurance. The insurance lawyer filed a response to the suit, but the chiropractor filed a counterclaim claiming my client owed him $29,000 for his chiropractic services… We settled eventually, and the claim was dismisssed, but it was definitely an eye-opener!
Bottom line, this story is a NON-story. In the land of the free and the home of the brave ANYBODY can sue ANYBODY for ANYTHING [the old saying is that "...anyone can sue the Bishop in Boston for Bastardy..."]. PROVING the claim has merit is a different matter.
The parties will develop the facts and file motions and the judge will make a decision as to whether the claims and counterclaims should be heard by a jury. Wake me up when THAT happens as then you’ll have some actual, real “news.”
Steve Magas
The Bike Lawyer
BikeLawye@me.com
November 18th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
And meanwhile, the guy will be safely in jail for a few more years instead of behind the wheel. That’s the noteworthy thing here, in a land where people kill with their motor vehicles with near-impunity.
November 20th, 2010 at 7:30 am
Well, here in Stevensville, Maryland our 14 year old grandson was killed while riding on the shoulder. A young woman missed the turn in to a shopping center (going 40 miles an hour on the shoulder) and hit him head-on. So what does Queen Anne’s County do? They put up signs “No Biking” on what seems to be a perfect bike lane.
Bob
January 8th, 2011 at 4:22 am
Thank you on an excellent post. I am a Dane enthusiast myself. We have some beautiful Great Dane Puppies for sale. Check them out!
March 14th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Thank you for this post as it has finally answered a few questions I had. I have added you to my RSS Feed for any further information you post.
April 1st, 2011 at 10:36 am
thank you is for article.
April 2nd, 2011 at 10:49 am
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/30/bicycle_case.html
If you have any doubt that the “blame teh cyclist” game isn’t played everywhere, read the stories surrounding the trial of Ed Miller in columbus, OH. In July, 2009 Miller and his buddy, TV personality Gabe Speigel, spent the night drinking and bar hopping, ending up at an after hours strip club til 5:15 am or so. They debated about calling a cab but figured Miller was fine to drive. On the way to Speigel’s house Miller hit and killed popular local cyclist Steve Barbour.
Miller, charged with aggravated vehicular homicide, has spent the entire trial putting BARBOUR on trial… steve was a transportation engineer, retired, a belt and suspenders guy who had multiple lighting systems on the bike. Miller claimed Barbour was “invisible” in dark clothes and no lights… oh yea, and Miller blew a 0.109% BAC an hour post crash, which the toxicologist said was 0.128%BAC at the time of impact. Miller argues the field sobriety and breath tests were not valid. Miller said Steve’s lights weren’t in use. Miller’s lawyer’s closing argument focused on Barbour arguing Wrong Place, Wrong Time, Wrong Clothes…hinting, but not outright saying, tht Steve should have been on a nearby bike path, not on the road…
The jury is out currently. they resume deliberations on Monday. Don’t ever think that arguments like the ones made in this CT case, and the ones made here in OH, are not made in virtually EVERY case, civil or criminal, where a cyclist is injured or killed.
Steve Magas
The Bike Lawyer
April 5th, 2011 at 8:33 am
and there you go… the Jury in the Ed MIller case comes back… hung… undecided… so the defense tactics worked here…
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/04/04/miller-jury-hears-howard-charge.html?sid=101
The wheels of justice not only turn slowly… sometimes they hit a rock and fall off… however, the judge set the matter for a re-trial starting June 20…
Steve Magas
April 22nd, 2011 at 2:39 am
Im very joyful to listen to this. That is very nice
.
May 26th, 2011 at 4:02 am
Good Post And Good Sharing ! Thank You So Much For Sharing !