There is a truly shocking lawsuit that has been filed in Toronto in which Sharlene Simon, 42, is suing Brandon Majewski, 17, (left) despite the fact that he died in a terrible accident that also seriously injured his friend, Richard McLean, 16, and hurt Jake Roberts, 16. Simon struck the boys from behind in her SUV and she is now claiming emotional damages stemming from the fact that the boys were “incompetent bicyclists.” She is suing the boys, their families, the city, and even the brother of one of the boys in seeking $1.35 million. While we have seen a couple of truly despicable lawsuits, this one just may set a new low among bottom feeders.
The boys had set out late a night for hot dogs along a country road some 90 miles outside of Toronto. Simon hit Brandon at 90 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on the two-lane road. McLean suffered a broken pelvis and other bones and Roberts was knocked off his bike. Simon’s husband, a police officer, was following behind her car.
Simon is the mother of three and claims that she suffers from epression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress. It appears that the death of this boy was not enough. She is suing him, his family, and his friends.
She says that she did not see their reflectors and that they were negligent in peddling their bikes.
The family of Brandon are not only dealing with his death but his brother Devon, 23, who had just graduated as a paralegal, died in the aftermath o the accident. The family said that he was dealing with overwhelming grief and accidentally overdosed on pills mixed with alcohol in his bedroom.
The families are suing Simon for allegedly speeding and causing the accidents. They also suggest that she had been drinking but that police did not require that she take a breathalyzer and her officer husband drove her home. I could well understand this accident not being due to negligence by Simon. Indeed, police seemed to attribute the claim on the bicyclists.
What I cannot understand is how she could sue these families which are still struggling with such a devastating loss. Even if this was a move to force the dropping of any claim by Simon, I cannot imagine filing such a claim. None of the reports indicate the name of the lawyer who filed against these families, but things must be pretty tight for cases to justify this lawsuit. It is not a frivolous lawsuit in the sense such a claim is recognized in the context of an accident. It is heartless however and likely to produce many pain for the families than damages for Simon. Even if the boys were at fault, she appears to have been reportedly speeding and failed to see the reflectors. That does not make for a good case for recovery.
Source: Toronto Sun
Well, better change the diaper too.
Lol! I gotta change my pants!!
Paul, you can’t be taken as a credible person if all you are capable of is unsubstantiated assertions. You should know that.
Annie – Perception is in the eye of the beholder. You really have to read what I type and attempt to understand it. Ipse Dixt back at ya!
Paul, They are open books aren’t they. Myself and a few others who just read this blog pee our pants sometimes. The stuff they say is not for primetime. They got some GREAT nicknames. I’ll share them w/ you offline sometime if you want.
Nick – one of problems with this blog is that you cannot contact others unless you are a GBer or former GBer.
Paul, Lol! I think it’s their first exposure to Latin. Their new word yesterday was “degrading.”
Nick – I must say I liked it better when somebody bought or found the Bartlett’s and we were getting fresh quotes all the time.
Paul, it wouldn’t need to be used so many times a day if it weren’t being done so many times a day. How is it that we all are capable of trying to back up our statements with other sources? Why would someone consistently engage in ipse dixit? I’m truly puzzled. Do you have any insight into why someone refuses or is unable to post links?
Annie – personally when I do not post a link it is either because I am in a real hurry or it just seems such common knowledge that you wouldn’t have to back it up. Where we are most guilty is when we make that personal call to authority. I plead guilty here and so should you. 🙂
Ipse dixit again. Why doesn’t the person making the assertion back up his assertion with a citation? Seriously how can someone expect everyone to do his research for him?
annie – you guys learn a new word and then you beat it to death. 😉
nick – you may enter into contracts, this is not unusual, where the loser pays costs and reasonable attorney fees. I have this setup with my tenants. A lot of contracts that you sign, but most fail to read, have this provision.
I misspoke. I meant to say I believe we are the only country w/o some type of loser pays. Please research it.
“The last I checked, we were the only country w/ contingency.” -Nick
http://legalfinancejournal.com/myths-about-contingency-fees/
“Let’s see how many of these we can debunk.
First, contingency fees exist in many other legal systems. Most Canadian provinces, for example, allow for contingency fee representation. In the United Kingdom, contingency fees have a long history, most recently being reaffirmed in 1990, again in 1995 and 2000, and eventually being relieved of much encumbering regulation in 2005. In South Africa, contingency fees have been legal since 1997, with some restrictions on the amount of the fee in relation to the total award.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_fee
Paul Schulte
Dredd – even for you that is a low shot.
===================
“That” is one of my favorite pronoun, adjective, adverb, conjunction, or idiom words in Sarah Palin’s lack of vocabulary.
Dredd – the important thing is you do not deny it was a low shot even for you.
Ed,
You don’t read so well do you.
Pardon me for pointing this out, but it IS in the headline and the opening paragraph: You said it was an Ohio SUV and the suit was filed in Ohio.
The boys are from a town about 50 miles north of Toronto, and the woman’s husband is a cop with the York Regional Police, from which we can assume that the woman is at minimum a Canadian resident. Why on earth would a suit be filed in Ohio, which has absolutely no jurisdiction in this case and is, in fact, in an entirely different country 432km away from the scene of the crime?
The answer is that it wasn’t – it was filed in Ontario.
In closing, I’m also frankly shocked that no one else noticed.
A modest proposal, and no, not Swift’s:
Lock the rest of the conflicts out in the exercise yard for two days and lower this pustule in with a crane and see what happens!
Even in Canada it would appear as if some animals are more equal than others.
Excerpted from the Toronto Sun:
Witness haunted by tragic bike accident
By Tracy McLaughlin, Special to QMI Agency
First posted: Friday, April 25, 2014 07:33 PM EDT | Updated: Sunday, April 27, 2014 03:33 PM EDT
One thing continues to trouble her, she said, is why she and other witnesses were forced to remain at the scene for hours, until 5:30 a.m., as police conducted their investigation, while the driver of the vehicle and her husband were allowed to go home.
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/25/witness-haunted-by-tragic-bike-accident
“They did not apply their brakes properly…” I assume she meant they didn’t brake so she didn’t see their brake lights? mmm, what bikes do YOU know of that have brake lights? and who would apply ANY kind of brakes if you heard a car coming up behind you?
anybody know if any of the 3 bikes had (battery) tail-lights, or more than pedal-reflectors?
Oh? and of course, for those who want this to be the fault of the bicyclists for not “following the rules of the road like any other vehicle” — I’ve been driving for 40 years under the assumption that RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH THE DRIVER IN THE REAR! Because the driver in the rear has the best view and should have the most time to take evasive action (or even just take their drunky little foot off the gas pedal!)
PS, the posted 80km is 50mph US; the alleged, reported 90km is 55.
HELMET, HEADLIGHT, TAIL-LIGHT, wheel reflectors, pedal reflectors. Don’t leave home without them!
Kraaken, You are quite sharp. Loser pays are the 2 words that make the attorney industry shutter. I have said here before I would have a loser pay system that allows a plaintiff to be absolved of paying attorney fees if they achieve a threshold. In other words, if a plaintiff loses, but the jury finds the defendant was 40% negligent, then that means it was a legit case and the plaintiff does not pay fees. But, this is the type case that would, hopefully @ least, find the plaintiff 98% negligent. In that scenario, the plaintiff pays ALL fees. Between the legit case and the scandalous case like this, I would have a scenario where the plaintiff pays half the fees.
The contingency fee system was founded in a worthy ethic that small people need a way to have the ability to confront large corporations w/ the wealth to hire big law firms. That was when judges would throw a case like this out the door and rip the plaintiff’s attorney a new a-hole. Those days, in large part, are a distant memory. I don’t know if Canada has a loser pays, but I think they do. The last I checked, we were the only country w/ contingency.
Sharlene Simon, 42, is a back door woman.
Dredd – even for you that is a low shot.
Actually buckaroo, as Mr. Keebler pointed out, this occurred in Canada. Now. That having been said, I have long thought that the answer to this litigious society would be a law that allows for lawsuits as ours does now, but if the plaintiff should lose the case, the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant the amount of money for which they were suing. In other words, it would make Plaintiffs think twice before something this stupid was filed.
I’m bewilder: In one situation we are presented with the proposition that all litigants deserve an attorney to present their case. Now in this case we have a situation similar but …….. ? Well, I think you might get my dilemma ?