Guy kills 17 yo in speeding accident, then sues parents for damage to his car

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

randay

Lifer
May 30, 2006
11,019
216
106
Originally posted by: pjcolon
Originally posted by: Nitemare
back of court house, bullet...problem solved
Click to expand...

I think he deserves something more painful & longer lasting than a quick fix
Click to expand...

noone specified the location of the bullet?
 
G

GoingUp

Lifer
Jul 31, 2002
16,720
1
71
He needs his beating heart removed and held in front of his face ala Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
 
jpeyton

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Iriondo was not wearing reflective clothing or a helmet, the ministry report said. As the sun had set when he crossed the path of Delgado's car from a side road, a regional court found both parties at fault and closed the case, the report said.
Click to expand...
Not only was the bicycle rider an idiot, he was also found to be partially at fault.

If someone gets in an accident with you and is found at fault, it's normal to go after them (or their estate) for the resulting damages.
 
T

theprodigalrebel

Lifer
Oct 4, 2004
10,521
6
81
Guy goes 100 in a 55 zone, ends up killing a cyclist and is lucky enough to get away. WTF happened to guilt & remorse? Fucking waste of space. :thumbsdown:
 
DangerAardvark

DangerAardvark

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2004
7,581
0
0
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
He needs his beating heart removed and held in front of his face ala Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
Click to expand...

No. No one deserves to be in a movie that bad.
 
jpeyton

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
Not only was the bicycle rider an idiot, he was also found to be at fault.
Click to expand...

What about the dude who was going 100 in a 55 zone? I'd say he was a bigger idiot.
Click to expand...
The guy driving was found partially at fault, too; his insurance paid up to the other party, as expected.
 
M

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
14
81
Not defending the guy's position.

However, it's worth clarifying the position of Spanish law. There have been a number of cases where pedestrians and cyclists have been killed or injured on unlit roads, and the law places considerable responsibility on all road users to protect themselves.

In Spain, reflective clothing is mandatory for anyone using a unlit public road after sunset. Not using it is regarded as quite a serious offence; and car drivers must carry reflective clothing in their cars for this reason. For example, if a driver stops his car at the side of an unlit road, gets out and goes to open the trunk, then he can potentially be fined and have points on his license if he doesn't wear some form of reflective clothing if he walks along the road (rather than the sidewalk). Similarly, on-the-spot fines are given out to cyclists who don't wear reflective clothing, and the bikes may be impounded too.

The fact that the cyclist was using an unlit road after dark without using lights or reflective clothing, seems to have been construed as negligence, hence the cyclist was found partially responsible. However, this legal action does seem unfair - but maybe it was made at the insistence of the insurance company, in that they are requesting action against the pedestrian in order to recoup their costs in repairing the car. Unfortunately, I'm just speculating - there really isn't enough info in the article to make an informed judgment.

 
Deeko

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
Not only was the bicycle rider an idiot, he was also found to be at fault.
Click to expand...

What about the dude who was going 100 in a 55 zone? I'd say he was a bigger idiot.
Click to expand...
The guy driving was found partially at fault, too; his insurance paid up to the other party, as expected.
Click to expand...

yes...which is why he didn't go to JAIL.

That doesn't mean this douchebag deserves any compensation from the kids parents. Maybe he should have had some better insurance if he wants to drive an A8 at twice the speed limit and expect it to remain in pristine condition.

I hope bad, painful things happen to this man.
 
S

Saint Michael

Golden Member
Aug 4, 2007
1,878
1
0
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
then sues parents for damage to his car
Click to expand...

A couple sticks of dynamite would solve this problem without having to involve the courts.
Click to expand...

Actually, it sounds like the guy rented the car. Now he has a $29,000 debt he has to pay without a car. Just money down the drain.

Edit: Come to think of it, maybe the car rental costs just means him renting a car while his wrecked one is out of commission. So yeah, I guess this guy is just an asshole.
 
S

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Originally posted by: Mark R
Not defending the guy's position.

However, it's worth clarifying the position of Spanish law. There have been a number of cases where pedestrians and cyclists have been killed or injured on unlit roads, and the law places considerable responsibility on all road users to protect themselves.

In Spain, reflective clothing is mandatory for anyone using a unlit public road after sunset. Not using it is regarded as quite a serious offence; and car drivers must carry reflective clothing in their cars for this reason. For example, if a driver stops his car at the side of an unlit road, gets out and goes to open the trunk, then he can potentially be fined and have points on his license if he doesn't wear some form of reflective clothing if he walks along the road (rather than the sidewalk). Similarly, on-the-spot fines are given out to cyclists who don't wear reflective clothing, and the bikes may be impounded too.

The fact that the cyclist was using an unlit road after dark without using lights or reflective clothing, seems to have been construed as negligence, hence the cyclist was found partially responsible. However, this legal action does seem unfair - but maybe it was made at the insistence of the insurance company, in that they are requesting action against the pedestrian in order to recoup their costs in repairing the car. Unfortunately, I'm just speculating - there really isn't enough info in the article to make an informed judgment.
Click to expand...

While I'm not trying to take sides (obviously the guy was driving far too fast), but the issue with reflective clothing is actually pretty big. It amazes me how people will walk or bike along the side of the road at night without it. Do they not realize how drivers cannot see them until it is too late?
 
alkemyst

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81
it seems both were liable for that accident.

I am willing to bet at the posted limits that accident would have still happened.
 
I

imported_Imp

Diamond Member
Dec 20, 2005
9,148
0
0
This sounds like the woman who sued her drug dealer cause she OD'd or something in Canada. She won...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom