Drunk Driver Suing Parents of Boy He Ran Over

[trippytaka]

You have GOT to be kidding me!

Only in America.

I will follow this case with great interest to see where it goes.

Drunk Driver

[Jim Goose]

Have read plenty of strange cases and this is one of those up there with sheer stupidity (If it makes it to civil court that is).....
Any self respecting person would know the sheer heart ache this would cause the family.
Then again, a lot of people lack any form of respect one way or another...

[Cooper69S]

topic heading is a bit misleading - driver wasn't charged with DD - point was he had previously been charged with DD 4 times or something, but was not found to be drunk in this instance.

He's probably suing them as retailation for suing him, but he's claiming innocence apparently...

Weaving insists he was driving the speed limit and wasn't acting recklessly when he passed another car in a legal passing zone and Matthew suddenly appeared in the road around dusk in wet, foggy conditions. He alleges Matthew and some friends were jumping their bikes off a ramp at the end of a friend's driveway and landing in the middle of the two-lane road.

In his lawsuit, Weaving wrote that had the Kenneys "complied with the responsibilities of a parent and guardian and the laws of this state and not allowed their son to ride his bicycle without a helmet and to play out in the middle of Rt. 69 ... this incident and Matthew's death would not have happened."

[SM1DY]

Well that's something different, the driver is a joke and the fact he's trying to shift the blame (or part thereof) to the parents is offensive.

[Crazy Dazz]

I don’t know… There’s insufficient information in the article, but I suppose we have to assume the US court got it right in convicting him? Yeah right.
The problem with “justice,” especially American style (where the Sheriff, DA, and Judge are often all elected) is that it is often driven by the need to seek vengeance against somebody for a horrible tragedy. Furthermore the last thing they want to do is point the finger at the supposed victim.
Several years ago, my Mum was on the jury of a young guy charged with manslaughter. An old lady at a T-junction pulled out in front of him, he locked it up and t-boned her, killing her. He wasn’t drunk or on drugs, and the evidence presented said that he wasn’t speeding. They acquitted him, but mum couldn’t understand why he even got charged? Somebody died, so somebody must pay? It’s quite probable that the accident had a worse effect on his life, than on the Lady’s family, and to top that off they want to send him to prison?
I’m not comparing the two cases. Just saying that it raises difficult questions.
On the other hand, had the guy been drunk (again) when he hit the poor kid (and the evidence said that a sober driver could have stopped) then I would have put him away for life. I believe that the punishment should fit the actual crime committed, not simply the tragic outcome.

As for suing the family, it sounds despicable but if I understand it right, it is basically a counter suit because they have sued him? Unfortunately that seems to be the way the US system works. IMHO I’m not in favour of civil action for criminal cases. The punishment handed down by the criminal court should be adequate.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

I don’t know… There’s insufficient information in the article, but I suppose we have to assume the US court got it right in convicting him? Yeah right.
The problem with “justice,” especially American style (where the Sheriff, DA, and Judge are often all elected) is that it is often driven by the need to seek vengeance against somebody for a horrible tragedy. Furthermore the last thing they want to do is point the finger at the supposed victim.
Several years ago, my Mum was on the jury of a young guy charged with manslaughter. An old lady at a T-junction pulled out in front of him, he locked it up and t-boned her, killing her. He wasn’t drunk or on drugs, and the evidence presented said that he wasn’t speeding. They acquitted him, but mum couldn’t understand why he even got charged? Somebody died, so somebody must pay? It’s quite probable that the accident had a worse effect on his life, than on the Lady’s family, and to top that off they want to send him to prison?
I’m not comparing the two cases. Just saying that it raises difficult questions.
On the other hand, had the guy been drunk (again) when he hit the poor kid (and the evidence said that a sober driver could have stopped) then I would have put him away for life. I believe that the punishment should fit the actual crime committed, not simply the tragic outcome.

As for suing the family, it sounds despicable but if I understand it right, it is basically a counter suit because they have sued him? Unfortunately that seems to be the way the US system works. IMHO I’m not in favour of civil action for criminal cases. The punishment handed down by the criminal court should be adequate.

Very well said, sounds like there is more to the story. The article for one has bought in the drivers previous record to sensationalise it yet the substance of his previous record appears to not apply in this circumstance.

Not saying I agree one way or the other, just that there is insufficient information to apply any form of opinion.

[chrisfpv]

Well said Dazz.