Driver who killed teen sues for damage

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-29 02:56am

My brother saw this news article. He had an 8 word response: "That asshole needs to be raped and beaten." Ah, if only it would actually happen.

Thunderfire · Post by **Thunderfire** » 2008-01-29 08:23am

Dahak wrote: I was talking about Germany. And I unless he was drunk (which he even may have been given the last post), had some other seriously negative impact, or previous convictions, I think he would just get a probation or just a huge fine (for involuntary manslaughter).

Depends on the judge. Involuntary manslaughter can be anything from a fine to 5 years in prison here in germany.

Invictus ChiKen · Post by **Invictus ChiKen** » 2008-01-29 04:05pm

Darth Wong wrote:My brother saw this news article. He had an 8 word response: "That asshole needs to be raped and beaten." Ah, if only it would actually happen.

On raping him that's horrible. The attacker might catch something from the asshole. Besides I wouldn't ask anyone to stick there anything in there...

Cosmic Average · Post by **Cosmic Average** » 2008-01-30 07:31pm

The driver has dropped the lawsuit:

A speeding driver who killed a cyclist has dropped his case against his victim's family after widespread protest.

Spanish businessman Tomas Delgado was seeking almost £20,000 to cover the cost of the damage to his luxury Audi A8 caused when he hit and killed 17-year-old Enaitz Irondo.

Link, with pictures of the driver and the kid he killed.

Murazor · Post by **Murazor** » 2008-01-30 08:01pm

Cosmic Average wrote:The driver has dropped the lawsuit

He also cries that he is the poor, poor victim of a media-sponsored slander campaign and that he is afraid for his security. In a more interesting tangent, the police is going to make a detailed reconstruction of the crash to test what the fathers have presented. If this new reconstruction gives confirmation, there is a very good chance of the criminal case being reopened.

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2008-01-30 09:30pm

Wait, what?

Delgado was reportedly driving at more than 100mph in a 55mph zone but faced no criminal charges over the incident because a judge ruled both parties were to blame.

What dumbass judge says that both parties were at fault, when the driver is the one going over the speed limit by 45 mph?

Yeah, the kid didnt wear a helmet, but how does that make him responsible for this jackass to be driving 100mph in a 55mph zone?

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2008-01-30 09:37pm

Darth Ruinus wrote:Wait, what?

Delgado was reportedly driving at more than 100mph in a 55mph zone but faced no criminal charges over the incident because a judge ruled both parties were to blame.
What dumbass judge says that both parties were at fault, when the driver is the one going over the speed limit by 45 mph?

Yeah, the kid didnt wear a helmet, but how does that make him responsible for this jackass to be driving 100mph in a 55mph zone?

It also said that he wasn't wearing reflective clothing, and while the article doesn't say it was at night, I think that that's the implication. At any rate, just because the cyclist isn't 100% at fault doesn't mean that he can't be somewhat responsible. I don't know where you'd fix the percentages -- say, 90% to the driver and 10% to the cyclist, to pull a number out of my rectum -- but it doesn't always have to be 100% on one party.

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2008-01-30 10:44pm

SCRawl wrote:
Darth Ruinus wrote:Wait, what?

Delgado was reportedly driving at more than 100mph in a 55mph zone but faced no criminal charges over the incident because a judge ruled both parties were to blame.
What dumbass judge says that both parties were at fault, when the driver is the one going over the speed limit by 45 mph?

Yeah, the kid didnt wear a helmet, but how does that make him responsible for this jackass to be driving 100mph in a 55mph zone?
It also said that he wasn't wearing reflective clothing, and while the article doesn't say it was at night, I think that that's the implication. At any rate, just because the cyclist isn't 100% at fault doesn't mean that he can't be somewhat responsible. I don't know where you'd fix the percentages -- say, 90% to the driver and 10% to the cyclist, to pull a number out of my rectum -- but it doesn't always have to be 100% on one party.

This is true, though I was not trying to imply that one is always at 100% fault.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-31 02:18am

A guy driving around at twice the speed limit and hovering right around the blood alcohol limit could have easily killed the kid even if he was completely covered in reflectors. It still boggles the mind that he got off with no charges.

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2008-01-31 03:31am

It seems that the official judgement didn't find him speeding as much as the original article claims:

the article linked a bit higher up as a link to the pictures wrote: A traffic report said Delgado was traveling 113 km per hour (70 mph) in an area where the speed limit is 90 km (55 mph). But an independent expert hired by Trinidad's family said Delgado was going 173 km per hour (107 mph).

Which makes much more sense of the verdict. 90km/h limit roads are supposed to be for motorised traffic only, the kid had no reflective clothing, no helmet and apparently failed to give way at a junction (probably because in reality he didn't even see the guy if the family's claim of 173km/h is true). Even setting aside the failure to give way, the kid was breaking the law as well, so him being found partly at fault is understandable when combined with the official judgement of slight, rather then double-the-speed-limit speeding.

Its still a douchebag move to sue for damages rather then be glad that you got lucky and beat the charge on a mistake by the police (to be fair, we only have the family's claim of his excessive speeding - the official record could be correct). On a trivial note, the douchebag looks like a twin brother of Tom Seizemore (acted in Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down as well as numerous pornos) - he has a matching personality as well!

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2008-01-31 08:24am

Darth Wong wrote:A guy driving around at twice the speed limit and hovering right around the blood alcohol limit could have easily killed the kid even if he was completely covered in reflectors. It still boggles the mind that he got off with no charges.

Yeah, I never quite got that one myself. Even if the kid is partly responsible -- and really, he was only a little more responsible than being in the wrong place at the wrong time -- the driver bore a much greater proportion of the responsibility. I think that in most jurisdictions, people would be screaming for the guy's head.

Having said that, I can recall quite a few occasions when a clearly guilty drunk (or otherwise reckless) driver got off with less than 40 lashes with a wet noodle. And I shook my head at those too.