Motorcyclist to sue family of teenager he killed

[sheffield501 10]

i think this absolutely stinks, the motorcyclist should be sued for wasting court time

[RockDrummer 10]

Originally posted by Cyclone

compensation is not 'benefiting financially' it's set to compensate for material loss, and for the pain and suffering.

 

Absolutely, but if I act like an idiot and suffer "material loss" and cause meself some "pain and suffering" should I be compensated for being a fool? Of course not.

 

Thing here is... This thread started out as Person A committing an offence, killing Person B in the process, then claiming compensation from Person B's parents. Now it's become 'well apportionment of blame might come out at 50/50, or 80/20, or who knows?' - my argument was based on the first scenario and the consequent waste of court time and money, so I thank you for the debate, which I genuinely enjoyed, but I shall gracefully retire from the thread until the facts are established.

 

(There must be something slightly outrageous about it though for it to have made the TV news...?)

[Guest]

I know absolutely nothing about this but have one point.

 

If someone kills someone and gets charged with Careless driving and speeding and receives only a token fine it would suggest to me that they were not entirely at fault for an accident. If the pedestrian was crossing a road correctly then surely they would have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving?

 

So it suggests to me that the pedestrian ran out into the road or wasn't paying attention and there was a witness to this.

 

just a thought.

[Siân 10]

So it suggests to me that the pedestrian ran out into the road or wasn't paying attention and there was a witness to this

 

Are you extending this to a hypothetical situation? There were no pedestrians involved - it was a (teenaged) car driver who was killed. There's a link further back in this thread that gives the story

[ADC_28 10]

I've just received a bit more information about this story. Apparently the motorcyclist is paralysed from the waist down which, I think you'll agree, adds another dimension to the situation.

 

Now we have the motorcyclist being knocked off and not being implicated in the death of the teenager who was driving without insurance and who has been blamed for the crash. The motorcyclist was speeding, that we know. And now he's spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Are we still going to vilify him for trying to get compensation?

[lucasdigital 10]

To sum up this (and almost every other 'shocking headline')thread -

 

Reactionaries - Taking the headline at face value and expressing their rage at the immorality and injustice of the supposed situation.

 

Fire and Brimstone Brigade - Not interested in facts really, these folks just enjoy a good verbal lynching.

 

Verses

 

Realists - Assuming that the facts of the original story are painted in shades of grey. Realising that journalists like to trim facts to make a more compelling news story. The realist tends to avoid emotive orations.

 

Devil Advocates - Jumping to the defence of the target of the "Fire and Brimstone Brigade", regardless of whether they are some poor sap, or a Chilean dictator.

 

These threads would be much more fun if the people who posted to them were assigned to one of the above teams, rather than just playing on the same side each time :-)