Claiming they were negligent for allowing their 14 year old son to ride his bike without a helmet. Because I'm certain that if the kid had a helmet on then the collision with his wreckless car going 80mph would have ended much differently.
-
Claiming they were negligent for allowing their 14 year old son to ride his bike without a helmet. Because I'm certain that if the kid had a helmet on then the collision with his wreckless car going 80mph would have ended much differently.
-
This jerk is a good example of someone who deserves to be dead. If he can't accept that he alone is to blame for the kid, there's really no reason to keep him around."Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill
"I only know what I hear on the news." - Dear Leader -
I hate to do this, but the guy isnt really suing for this, at least he didnt initiate it. The parents sued him for damages. He is claiming by way of a cross/counter claim that the paresnt were also negligent for allowing their kid to ride without a helmet. If he had not made this claim at the beginning of the suit he owuld have lost it. Having made it, he can always withdraw it before trial (as I would expect him to do, or at least to soft peddle it). It is pretty reprehensible, but I can understand why he did it.PLesa excuse the tpyos.Comment
-
And when creekster says "he" what he means is the attorney for the insurance carrier who is defending him under the terms of his policy. I'm storing this one away, this will form the basis of a good voire dire question at some point in the future.Originally posted by creekster View PostComment
Comment