Woman Sues Dead Boy & His Parents After She Accidentally Killed Him
http://www.cafemom.com/articles/in_the_news/171730/woman_sues_dead_boy_his?utm_medium=sem2&utm_campaign=prism&utm_source=outbrain&utm_content=0

A woman who killed a teenager in a tragic automobile accident is actually suing the dead boy. That sounds like some kind of bad joke about people's propensity for wanting to sue over everything, but it's not. The woman, 42-year-old Sharlene Simon, a mother of three, accidentally killed 17-year-old Brandon Majewski, as he was out bicycle riding with two of his friends. Now she is suing him. Even though he's dead.

It all started when Majewski and his two friends went bike riding for hot dogs at 1:30 a.m. on a rainy evening. Simon reportedly admitted she was driving 10 miles an hour over the speed limit, but claimed she never saw the reflectors on the back of the boys' bikes.

She hit all three of them -- only Brandon died. Simon is now suing Majewski, the other boys, and their parents -- and even Majewski's brother, who in a terrible twist also died. She is blaming them all for her emotional trauma, including depression, anxiety, irritability, and post-traumatic stress.

No doubt hitting three young boys and killing one of them would cause a lot of emotional turmoil. But this woman is actually trying to profit from it. She is suing Brandon's estate and his parents, as well as the other boys' families, for $1.35 million.

The Majewskis' lawyer says he's never heard of anyone suing the person they'd killed before.

What you have here is a human tragedy -- boys who were out late at night and maybe shouldn't have been (though there's no law against that). A woman who perhaps wasn't paying full attention. And then an accident. A terrible accident. It's life.

The boys' families are suffering enough. Not only did the Majewkis lose their son Brandon, but they also lost another son. Older brother Devon was found dead of a drug overdose. His family says it wasn't suicide -- he was merely trying to dull his pain from his brother's death.

So far, enough pain and tragedy for everyone. What does suing do except create more? This woman, if she ever got her hands on even a fraction of that money, would somehow feel better about what happened?

Also, how on Earth are Brandon's parents and even his brother, who is no longer alive, somehow responsible?

Majewski's father admits that the boys were wearing dark clothing on a rainy night and had no helmets -- but says that the accident was Simon's fault, that she must have been speeding, drunk, or texting, claims which have not been proven. He is now countersuing Simon.

What this group of people needs is healing, not more stone throwing. Not more blaming. People do not heal when they are in the middle of a lawsuit. Everyone is hurting, and pointing the finger will not help bring Brandon or Devon back.

Do you think Simon should be suing? What about the teen's parents?

This is what happens when judges and juries started giving ridiculous payouts to every douchebag with a sob story and why court system is fucked. It doesn't matter that the majority of any money awarded will go to the shady ambulance chasing lawyer. Getting big money in court is the new lottery, but with better odds

I can't wait to hear the judge's response on this one...

"YOU hit the victims and killed them, and YOU WANT WHAT!?!?!"

This is sickening.

She probably thinks that with a name like Majewski, they're sitting on a ton of cash.

The concept isn't as outrageous as it sounds. You are driving home in a safe manner. Some drunk driver going the other way crosses over the median and hits you, leaving you disabled for life. Why shouldn't you be able to tap his assets and insurance to pay for your injuries just because he died?

The problem is that we don't have that situation here. We've got a driver who admits to speeding late in the evening trying to collect on an accident which may well have been primarily her fault.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The concept isn't as outrageous as it sounds. You
> are driving home in a safe manner. Some drunk
> driver going the other way crosses over the median
> and hits you, leaving you disabled for life. Why
> shouldn't you be able to tap his assets and
> insurance to pay for your injuries just because he
> died?
>
> The problem is that we don't have that situation
> here. We've got a driver who admits to speeding
> late in the evening trying to collect on an
> accident which may well have been primarily her
> fault.

I don't think you understand the issue. A drunk driver who hits you is responsible for the damage he causes, and if you're the victim you're entitled to go after his assets whether he is alive or dead.

In this case the automobile driver struck three bicyclists, killing one and injuring two, and SHE'S suing THEM for causing HER emotional distress. There is a valid question about whether the cyclists had enough reflectors, but SHE hit THEM while speeding after leaving a bar. There is also a question about whether the police -- her husband was a local police officer -- conducted a thorough investigation at the scene. This suit is outrageous.

I'll never forget what one of my first year law professors told us.......

"You can sue a ham sandwich".

This is clearly the work of a desperate ambulance chaser.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2014 12:39PM by Al Ameriki.

News Patrol!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Woman Sues Dead Boy & His Parents After She
> Accidentally Killed Him
> http://www.cafemom.com/articles/in_the_news/171730
> /woman_sues_dead_boy_his?utm_medium=sem2&utm_campa
> ign=prism&utm_source=outbrain&utm_content=0
>

The local papers in Ontario have more details:
http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/2014/04/30/brandon-majewski-was-killed-in-october-2012-while-riding-his-bicycle-on-innisfil-beach-road
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/30/driver-who-struck-cylcing-teens-sued-to-protect-herself-lawyer-says
http://www.simcoe.com/news-story/4501126-brandon-majewski-honoured-as-community-comes-to-grips-with-driver-s-lawsuit/

FGnCh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think you understand the issue.

Did you read the second paragraph? I said what you said. I just left out the screaming.

FGnCh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill.N. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The concept isn't as outrageous as it sounds.
> You
> > are driving home in a safe manner. Some drunk
> > driver going the other way crosses over the
> median
> > and hits you, leaving you disabled for life.
> Why
> > shouldn't you be able to tap his assets and
> > insurance to pay for your injuries just because
> he
> > died?
> >
> > The problem is that we don't have that
> situation
> > here. We've got a driver who admits to
> speeding
> > late in the evening trying to collect on an
> > accident which may well have been primarily her
> > fault.
>
> I don't think you understand the issue. A drunk
> driver who hits you is responsible for the damage
> he causes, and if you're the victim you're
> entitled to go after his assets whether he is
> alive or dead.
>
> In this case the automobile driver struck three
> bicyclists, killing one and injuring two, and
> SHE'S suing THEM for causing HER emotional
> distress. There is a valid question about whether
> the cyclists had enough reflectors, but SHE hit
> THEM while speeding after leaving a bar. There is
> also a question about whether the police -- her
> husband was a local police officer -- conducted a
> thorough investigation at the scene. This suit is
> outrageous.

I can't wait to see the judge's reaction to this. She was speeding and hit them, and wants money. Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus!

This not only didn't happen in Fairfax, it didn't even happen in the U.S.

Every country is f-ed up in some way with their laws. But, the U.S. is still the best place in the world to live, and within the U.S., Fairfax is the best place to live (so I guess there's a Fairfax connection after all).

Name another country in the world, and I'll tell you why that country sucks compared to the U.S.

Sweden = no niggers

Decrapitated Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sweden = no niggers

Think again:

Statistics Sweden data show that the African-born population has grown from 4,149 in 1970 to 10,025 in 1980, 27,343 in 1990, 55,138 in 2000 and 103,077 in 2009

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_immigrants_to_Sweden

If Recrapitated had merely said Sweden, I would have pointed out their history as rapists.

I would also point out that in WW2, Sweden didn't help out with the Allieds.

Then I would have pointed out that most Swedes are racist. But, it seems that Recrapitated has them beat on that.

she obviously has no right to claim emotional injury she does to herself upon another - there was no intent OR substance of emotional abuse

------------------
she might claim the need of her car to be replaced. however. we assume her insurance company already replaced it while she's asking $1.3 M for her emotional baggage.

since when does any traffic accident pay out $1.3 M to anyone who isn't injured unless an insurance company is paying med bills ?

Recrapitated Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Decrapitated Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sweden = no niggers
>
> Think again:
>
> Statistics Sweden data show that the African-born
> population has grown from 4,149 in 1970 to 10,025
> in 1980, 27,343 in 1990, 55,138 in 2000 and
> 103,077 in 2009
>
> From
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_immigrants_to
> _Sweden

I think he said "niggers". Big difference in African born population and old school USA type ghetto thugs.

The article says she is suing to prevent the parents from suing her. That said, why would boys be riding bikes at 1:30 in the morning and wearing dark clothes? Sounds like mischief to me.
I'm not defending her, but it seems there is more to the story than anyone will know.

Priapus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The article says she is suing to prevent the
> parents from suing her. That said, why would boys
> be riding bikes at 1:30 in the morning and wearing
> dark clothes? Sounds like mischief to me.
> I'm not defending her, but it seems there is more
> to the story than anyone will know.


it does indeed sounds like mischief. it sounds like some biyatch was driving unsafely and some kids were being idiots late at night.

the kid paid with his life and she will have to live with what she has done. end of story, right? no, of course not. now there will be a bunch of stupid bullshit legal crap to cause this family more pain. what a crock of shit.

this bitch needed to tell her lawyer to stfu and deal with whatever she has coming like a responsible adult.

As ususal, there are Facebook pages for and against her.

Priapus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The article says she is suing to prevent the
> parents from suing her. That said, why would boys
> be riding bikes at 1:30 in the morning and wearing
> dark clothes? Sounds like mischief to me.
> I'm not defending her, but it seems there is more
> to the story than anyone will know.

Well you do have a good point there too. Still it's not illegal to be riding bikes at any time (unless there's a curfew) and she admits that she was speeding.

Priapus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The article says she is suing to prevent the
> parents from suing her. That said, why would boys
> be riding bikes at 1:30 in the morning and wearing
> dark clothes? Sounds like mischief to me.
> I'm not defending her, but it seems there is more
> to the story than anyone will know.

What it sounds like to you just doesn't matter. According to the local papers, they were riding to a Tim Horton's (the Canadian equivalent of a Dunkin' Donuts) near their homes. No one has claimed that they were up to any "mischief." One kid had reflective tape on his jacket and the bikes had reflectors. There are valid questions about their visibility, but they didn't do anything to deserve being struck by a speeding driver who had just left a bar. The question under discussion is whether the DRIVER who struck THEM has grounds to sue THEM for injuring HER.
http://www.simcoe.com/news-story/1993355-criticism-stings-parents-after-fatal-crash/

E3Gp9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to the local papers, they were riding to
> a Tim Horton's (the Canadian equivalent of a
> Dunkin' Donuts) near their homes.

Correction: Riding home FROM Tim Horton's.

> http://www.simcoe.com/news-story/1993355-criticism
> -stings-parents-after-fatal-crash/

E3Gp9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Priapus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The article says she is suing to prevent the
> > parents from suing her. That said, why would
> boys
> > be riding bikes at 1:30 in the morning and
> wearing
> > dark clothes? Sounds like mischief to me.
> > I'm not defending her, but it seems there is
> more
> > to the story than anyone will know.
>
> What it sounds like to you just doesn't matter.
> According to the local papers, they were riding to
> a Tim Horton's (the Canadian equivalent of a
> Dunkin' Donuts) near their homes. No one has
> claimed that they were up to any "mischief." One
> kid had reflective tape on his jacket and the
> bikes had reflectors. There are valid questions
> about their visibility, but they didn't do
> anything to deserve being struck by a speeding
> driver who had just left a bar. The question under
> discussion is whether the DRIVER who struck THEM
> has grounds to sue THEM for injuring HER.
> http://www.simcoe.com/news-story/1993355-criticism
> -stings-parents-after-fatal-crash/
If this was your forum I might respect your wishes of how and what to discuss. However, since you are just a pissy little nail biter , I'll just take any direction I want. I think the little punk was out for trouble and it found him.

Priapus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If this was your forum I might respect your wishes
> of how and what to discuss. However, since you are
> just a pissy little nail biter , I'll just take
> any direction I want. I think the little punk was
> out for trouble and it found him.

The police who investigated the incident reached no such conclusion. If facts and evidence don't matter to you, why not work some space aliens and time travelers into your fairy tale?

Driver Who Killed Teen Is Suing The Victim (UPDATE)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/27/sharlene-simon-brandon-majewski_n_5224094.html

Who's the real victim: the teen cyclist who was struck and killed in a crash or the motorist who accidentally took his life? That's a question the courts will now have to answer.

In the early hours of Oct. 28, 2012, Brandon Majewski, 17, and his 16-year-old friends Richard McLean and Jake Roberts were riding their bikes home after grabbing a bite to eat. Riding abreast on a two-lane rural road in Innisfil, Ontario, the trio were struck from behind by a black Kia Sorrento driven by Sharlene Simon, News.com.au reported.

Majewski was pronounced dead two hours later at a local hospital. McLean spent weeks in the hospital recovering from broken bones, including a broken pelvis. Roberts was not seriously hurt.

Simon, 42, who was driving about 55 mph in a 50 mph zone, was not charged with fault in the accident. Police said intoxication was not suspected as a contributing factor either.

According to the National Post, investigators concluded that the “lack of visibility” of the cyclists “was the largest contributing factor,” and that on a dark overcast night, Simon "did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to make an evasive reaction."

A terrible event for all involved, no doubt.

Then the Majewski family sued Simon for $900,000, and McLean's family filed a $1.4 million claim against her. Derek Majewski, Brandon's father, claims Simon was speeding, under the influence or texting at the time of the accident.




Last December, Simon countersued, filing a $1.35-million lawsuit against Majewski's estate, and against the other two bicyclists, for "great pain and suffering." Simon claims she has suffered from depression, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress, and that the "enjoyment of life has been irretrievably lessened" since the accident.

Majewski's family was stunned by the lawsuit.

“I’m devastated, I’m in shock,” Majewski's mother, Venetta Mylnczyk, told the Toronto Sun. “She killed my child and now she wants to profit from it? She says she’s in pain? Tell her to look inside my head and she will see pain, she will see panic, she will see nightmares.”

In an email to Postmedia, Derek Majewski blasted the driver.

“Normally, I would not react like this,” Derek Majewski stated, “but I think it’s very cruel."

Majewski's father said he believes the teens were blamed for the accident because they were riding abreast on bikes with few reflectors and wore dark clothing but no helmets.

“They’re kids; they’re allowed to make a mistake," he reportedly said.

“I understand their grief and I understand what they must be going through is awful but my client is also living with this nightmare every day," Simon's lawyer, Michael Ellis, told The Star.

Ellis also told the Toronto Sun that Simon is unable to work and is simply responding to the legal actions filed by the families'.

“She would have lost everything,” Ellis said. “She would have been destitute ... homeless.”

None of the claims in either lawsuit have been proved.

A white bicycle, a smattering of flowers and a picture of Majewski now form a roadside memorial at the spot where the accident occurred. At the time of this writing, more than 4,500 people have also signed a petition on Change.org, lambasting Simon and urging police to further investigate the incident.

On Wednesday, the Sun noted that the South Simcoe Police have called for an outside police force to launch a new investigation into the accident.


Driver who killed Brandon Majewski now suing dead boy's parents. Story/pic by @MclaughlinZorro

http://t.co/Wz3ege7gvf pic.twitter.com/vkhAaGdH2h

— TorSun City Editor (@TorSunCity) April 25, 2014



CLARIFICATION: This article has been updated and amended in light of additional information not available in initial reports pertaining to the chronology of the filing of the lawsuits among the individuals.
Attachments:

in the fucking morning? Sure....

Canuks. WTF needs 'em.

"bike riding for hot dogs at 1:30"

is code I think.

Something is not right with that family. Two kids dead? One from an overdose of drugs, and the 2nd hit while on a 1am bike ride to get hot dogs. Hmmmmm...Yeah that sounds like a normal family. NOT!

Uy4Up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Priapus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > If this was your forum I might respect your
> wishes
> > of how and what to discuss. However, since you
> are
> > just a pissy little nail biter , I'll just take
> > any direction I want. I think the little punk
> was
> > out for trouble and it found him.
>
> The police who investigated the incident reached
> no such conclusion. If facts and evidence don't
> matter to you, why not work some space aliens and
> time travelers into your fairy tale?

No need to work your life story into the narrative.

The Father paints a truer picturer. "Majewski's father said he believes the teens were blamed for the accident because they were riding abreast on bikes with few reflectors and wore dark clothing but no helmets.

“They’re kids; they’re allowed to make a mistake," he reportedly said."
In other words, they deserved what they got.

Everybody wants to sue somebody these days. Pathetic!
Attachments:

I think Oscar Wilde got what he deserved too.