...and I spilled McDonald's coffee in my lap while doing so!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pupik
  • 54 comments
  • 2,423 views
Wow. Such insensitivity is inconceivable elsewhere, but given current events- actually, this is the worst sense of judgement I have seen to date. I mean, he is already quite lucky to have such a nice car in the first place, and he sues a family for damages to his expensive car when he took the life of their boy? I hope the judge or the lawyer have enough common sense to just dump the case.

I would ring off a couple of expletives, but I'll just say that I share your anger, Pupik.
 
I'd rip that guy's head off myself if I were the father. Hell I don't have to be the father, i'll rip his head off anyways. :mad: That's ludicrous!
 
superberkut
he is already quite lucky to have such a nice car in the first place
Click to expand...

Is it really necessary to assume that his wealth is a product of luck? I mean, yes, the guy should totally win d-----bag of the year award. If there was criminal negligence involved, he should even be incarcerated. In fact, after a comment like his, he should maybe be psychologically analyzed because it sounds like he has very low value for human life and could potentially be dangerous in the future. But unless he bought the car from lottery money I don't see what luck has to do with it.
 
Well, what I mean is that yes, he is a prominent businessman, but he is fortunate that his hard work could cultivate in the purchase of such a fine machine. The point is that he has quite the nerve to sue the family of the boy he killed, accidental or not, when a human life is worth a sum beyond description compared to the cost of fixing his Audi. Yes, the boy was irresponsible for cycling at night and wearing dark clothing, but his quote just completely annihiliated his argument for me, the way he acted as if he was entitled to gaining money from a family whose boy was killed by the driver.
 
That's low. Real low.

Why is it businessmen always seem to expect to get whatever they want?

You can't hit a cyclist at 173kmh and get away with anything...

Well ... apparently hitting a pedestrian at 100 MPH is a 33,000 euro tort.
So ... the family should just run this [bleep]tard down in front of the courthouse,at 100 MPH, and offer up EU 33,000 in payment ... and then sue his family for the damage he caused to the front of the truck used.
Click to expand...
I lol'd.

It's (in a way) similar to a situation here, where a convicted murderer killed a guy early 07. The victim's family were paid about 20k in compo, but last week it emerged that the govt' wanted ALL the comp paid back! Awful. (link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10489237)
 
I'm actually surprised this is the first time this has happened to be honest.
 
I was nearly surprised that this drip of ass-sweat isn't from America, but then what would I be saying. The grass isn't greener on the other side, there are ****ers like this everywhere. I really feel bad for the family, really, really bad.
 
What is this guy smoking? Hes basically saying.

"After you are done whining about your dead son, can you get around to giving me the money to fix my expensive car?"

The only things I can think of to describe him are not allowed here.
 
The driver of the Audi needs to go die....he probably doesn't even no what he did wrong.
 
You get kind of oblivious to the world when you're in the comfort of an A8.

But this guy is scum.
 
I can't believe you guys! I agree with the driver! Damn kids and your stupid bicycles! GET OFF THE DAMN ROAD! IT'S FOR CARS ONLY! WE OWN THE ROAD! If I hit some wiener on a cycle, I'd sue his parents for the damage, too! I mean, why doesn't he take the damn bus like every other human being, so long that bus doesn't take the same route I take. I hate those damn buses getting in my way! So, like yeah, his parents should pay for the damages! Who cares if their kid died, MY CAR IS FUBAR! Stupid kid. I hope he learned his lesson. STAY OFF OUR ROADS! THEY'RE NOT FOR YOU! [/doucebagAudidriver]
 
This is just plain sad and angry at the same time. What on earth does this guy has for a brain? A rich dumb business man with no sense of moral? What the 🤬!!!!! I mean, the fact that he killed an innocent boy was cruel enough, but he god the balls to sue the dead boy's family for running him over? *middle finger* 🤬 him!!!! I swear to god he should rot to hell for his sins. I'm sure the judge would give him life sentence over his bloody crime.... :mad: :grumpy:
 
He'll get his due, dont worry on that if they investigate it or if the nimrod confronts the father, wow is all im sayin on that subject

on the audi driver personally his picture is a good one. and he seems a bit empty between the ears
 
Muzaffar Musa
This is just plain sad and angry at the same time. What on earth does this guy has for a brain? A rich dumb business man with no sense of moral? What the 🤬!!!!! I mean, the fact that he killed an innocent boy was cruel enough, but he god the balls to sue the dead boy's family for running him over? *middle finger* 🤬 him!!!! I swear to god he should rot to hell for his sins. I'm sure the judge would give him life sentence over his bloody crime.... :mad: :grumpy:
Click to expand...

Whoah whoah whoah whoah, folks.

We're all assuming that the driver was at fault for the accident. The fact that the case has got this far would seem to cast doubt on that assumption - lawyers tend not to work cases they don't think have a chance of succeeding.


All we know is that the driver was breaking an arbitrary law - the speed limit. We also know that had he been on an derestricted Autobahn he wouldn't have been breaking any law at all. We don't know anything else about the accident - perhaps the accident was the driver's fault. Perhaps it was the cyclist's fault - the claim is that he was wearing dark clothes and had no lights, cycling at night (one of which is illegal in the UK, so also breaking a law). Perhaps it was just an accident. For all we know, the cyclist was running around in the middle of the road, playing chicken and got chooked. Or the driver mowed the kid down on the pavement.


I'd need more information than the Jalopnik article to assume that the driver is at fault and claiming for the damage caused by him killing a child.

Edit: hither.

Both parties were found equally at fault - the driver for speeding and the cyclist for wearing dark clothes (which I presume is an offence in Spain, but is merely "strongly advised against" in the UK). The accident occurred when the cyclist pulled out of a side road in front of the car (call me odd, but I always assumed traffic on the major road had right of way, and traffic on the joining road had a responsibility to join appropriately).

Since both are at fault and the kid's family claimed damages from the driver, why is the driver claiming (lesser) damages from the kid's family odd? They're both to blame, so both are liable. The only oddity is that the Spanish courts and the driver's insurance value the kid's life at $48,500 (about £25,000).


I only ask, by the way.
 
A bit of common sense there from Famine. If both paries were at fault and judged to be equally so then the whole of the blame (and as a result punishment) shouldn't fall on the one. He shouldn't have been speeding and if he hadn't, then he wouldn't to blame at all, the kid still pulled out onto a main road infront of traffic while wearing dark clothes. I'm not sympathising with the driver, he was speeding afterall, but he isn't the sole blame for the incident.
 
If someone stepped infront of a car on purpose in order to commit suicide, I guess everyone would expect the driver to be compensated - in that scenario the act of claiming compensation from the parents of the deceased person would seem perfectly reasonable...
 
I am somewhat debating the parents’ responsibility – if it was an accident what exactly are the parents responsible for? Letting their 17 year old son ride a bicycle?

He is also past the age of criminal responsibility, so why are his parents being held responsible for this? Excuse my ignorance, but I don’t get it.
 
The parents have claimed damages off the driver, so the driver is returning the favour.
 
Blake
I am somewhat debating the parents’ responsibility – if it was an accident what exactly are the parents responsible for? Letting their 17 year old son ride a bicycle?

He is also past the age of criminal responsibility, so why are his parents being held responsible for this? Excuse my ignorance, but I don’t get it.
Click to expand...

As next of kin, they inherit his estate (including debt).
 
GT40 MKII
this is confusing
Click to expand...

How so?

Accident occurs. Both parties are liable.
First liable party claims for damages from second - wins $48,500.
Second liable party claims for damages from first - claim ongoing.
 

Similar threads

hornet_burnout
My "great but not really" GT7 experience so far
Replies
8
Views
7K
Smokey Yunick
Smokey Yunick
rex1825
GT7 and my predictions, how I feel after a month...
Replies
4
Views
1K
sh33p
sh33p
MasterGT
MasterGT's GT7 Lap Guides and Arias
4 5 6
Replies
161
Views
149K
MasterGT
MasterGT
Alex p.
My 7 day trip through Italy (pics of cars, food, nature and architecture inside)
Replies
9
Views
1K
kikie
K
o000o
Features that I think PD should implement in Gran Turismo 7
2 3
Replies
65
Views
12K
Bazool
Bazool

Latest Posts

Back