|
I haven't had much accidents involving insurance but it's their job to deal with stuff for you. So I'd just let the insurance people handle the legal issues. Otherwise, the lady can cause more problems in the future by going to the police or civil courts. The insurance people keep records and understand the law better.
Also if the insurance company is the one paying, they're gonna try to negotiate the price down so they have to pay less. If it's more than what they can cover then you're screwed.
You have two at-fault accidents so it's not looking good. In the US most insurance rates don't go down until you're over 25 years old with good driving record. You're rightfully in the category of young and reckless.
|
Netherlands19138 Posts
On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon  Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over.
Intent is not required for most crimes.
|
On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes.
Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of.
assault:
Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault.
Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this
Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that:
an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and
the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching.
Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure.
|
On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes.
There is absolutely no way he'd get charged with a criminal offense unless the accident went down a whole lot differently than he described
at most he'd get a reckless driving ticket, which is just a moving violation,
|
contact a lawyer immediately.
|
On September 07 2011 23:03 Horrde wrote:
Do not take any legal advice or answers from any posters here.
Seek off-forum counsel.
my advice is too read above ^^^^
Thankgod your in canada and not the USA because you would be bent over hard.
though your still going to pay, wont be as substantial
|
On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure.
Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already?
|
On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes.
Er what?
This is..blatantly untrue. At least in the US a great deal of law revolves around someone intentionally/knowingly doing something.
Regardless this isn't an assault case. It's a traffic accident with a pedestrian involved. Nothing more. I'm not sure how suing and shit works in Canada but if you are going to get sued for a hefty amount you may as well just go through your insurance.
As a side note you could get married and cut your premium in half :D
|
Calgary25998 Posts
On September 07 2011 23:13 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna get a healthy bump in your premium for sure, especially since she went to the hospital. I highly doubt you have the means to pay outside of insurance, just the ambulence ride alone could run you over $1000. And even then, suppose you did pay that, she turns around and decides she's still hurting a few weeks down the road, you're getting sued anyway.
insurance handles all suits though
This is Canada. An ambulance ride is $70 and the hospital is free.
|
On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 22:59 wishbones wrote:
hmm you wont be going to jail otherwise you'd already be in cuffs. haha so thats ruled out. At least your not doing jail time. No charges, your in the clear criminally.
side note: thats why i always believe cars should get the right away, they move faster, they will leave space quicker+ people can jay walk safely, there needs to be a change. I always always watch the driver. if they dont see me i dont move. Also at stop signs all cars should go first, i hate forcing drivers to wait when they could have drove by in seconds compared to the time it takes to cross. Its stupid there should be a change where drivers get the right away. People walking can get to where they need, this would resolve so much issue imo. No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already?
Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it.
|
On September 07 2011 23:23 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:13 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna get a healthy bump in your premium for sure, especially since she went to the hospital. I highly doubt you have the means to pay outside of insurance, just the ambulence ride alone could run you over $1000. And even then, suppose you did pay that, she turns around and decides she's still hurting a few weeks down the road, you're getting sued anyway.
insurance handles all suits though This is Canada. An ambulance ride is $70 and the hospital is free.
it's always the minor little things that I miss...
god, that just makes me really upset at how expensive a goddamn ambulence ride is
|
On September 07 2011 23:24 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:23 Chill wrote:On September 07 2011 23:13 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna get a healthy bump in your premium for sure, especially since she went to the hospital. I highly doubt you have the means to pay outside of insurance, just the ambulence ride alone could run you over $1000. And even then, suppose you did pay that, she turns around and decides she's still hurting a few weeks down the road, you're getting sued anyway.
insurance handles all suits though This is Canada. An ambulance ride is $70 and the hospital is free. it's always the minor little things that I miss... god, that just makes me really upset at how expensive a goddamn ambulence ride is
70 dollars? >.>
It's like 160 in the US :/
|
On September 07 2011 23:23 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:13 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna get a healthy bump in your premium for sure, especially since she went to the hospital. I highly doubt you have the means to pay outside of insurance, just the ambulence ride alone could run you over $1000. And even then, suppose you did pay that, she turns around and decides she's still hurting a few weeks down the road, you're getting sued anyway.
insurance handles all suits though This is Canada. An ambulance ride is $70 and the hospital is free.
really? O_O
|
On September 07 2011 23:23 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:13 Hawk wrote:
You're gonna get a healthy bump in your premium for sure, especially since she went to the hospital. I highly doubt you have the means to pay outside of insurance, just the ambulence ride alone could run you over $1000. And even then, suppose you did pay that, she turns around and decides she's still hurting a few weeks down the road, you're getting sued anyway.
insurance handles all suits though This is Canada. An ambulance ride is $70 and the hospital is free.
When I was injured in an accident the ambulance took me a whole 2 miles. My bill? $2700. They did pump me full of drugs though.
|
On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:03 awu25 wrote:[quote] No charges yet. I could see them pulling out assault and battery or something ridiculous. And it's really unfortunate that you didn't see her, expect massive bills soon Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it.
I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail.
|
Wow, strange story... My grandmother was just ran over by some guy near Waterloo yesterday. She said some college kid intentionally ran her down and then refused to move the car off her leg for about twenty seconds.
She is currently in the hospital with a broken ankle and some ruptured tendons and the doctors don't expect her to be able to walk again on that leg. She's already drafting up the papers to sue this kid for all he's worth.
|
On September 07 2011 23:27 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:On September 07 2011 23:16 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:14 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:10 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:09 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:04 muse5187 wrote:
[quote]
Ummm, bumping someone with a car doesn't even come remotely close to the crimes of assault or battery. Bumping does not equal having calf under the car. Just saying, the police could come up with some ridiculous charge. Just because he walked away from the scene without handcuffs doesn't mean he's cleared from all charges You still don't understand what assault or battery implies. He won't face any criminal charges. I was merely providing some random charge. I am not a law major but I bet one could provide a list of charges the police could come up with. No, because he DID NOT commit any criminal offense. Deserving of a traffic ticket? Absolutely. Criminal ticket? Never going to happen without proving he intended to run her over. Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it. I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail.
Are you sure about that. It's a moving violation in the US. It could be different in Canada but I doubt it.
|
Ah, seeing people seek advice after having ran over somebody on TL warms my heart 
gl to you
|
On September 07 2011 23:28 Serejai wrote:
Wow, strange story... My grandmother was just ran over by some guy near Waterloo yesterday. She said some college kid intentionally ran her down and then refused to move the car off her leg for about twenty seconds.
She is currently in the hospital with a broken ankle and some ruptured tendons and the doctors don't expect her to be able to walk again on that leg. She's already drafting up the papers to sue this kid for all he's worth.
OMG you've got to be shitting us. If this turns out to be the same case, I really pity the OP. I dunno if I should laugh or cry at the absurdity of this. Clearly if I was the OP I would be mortified, but as a random person on another whole continent, I can look at this with some distance and not be petrified with fear.
I always wondered, why do people from north america(both US and Canada) sue so much? Is it written in your constitution or something that you can and should exert that liberty at every possible turn? Breaking someone elses life and putting them in debt is a really dick move IMO.
|
On September 07 2011 23:46 Latham wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 23:28 Serejai wrote:
Wow, strange story... My grandmother was just ran over by some guy near Waterloo yesterday. She said some college kid intentionally ran her down and then refused to move the car off her leg for about twenty seconds.
She is currently in the hospital with a broken ankle and some ruptured tendons and the doctors don't expect her to be able to walk again on that leg. She's already drafting up the papers to sue this kid for all he's worth. OMG you've got to be shitting us. If this turns out to be the same case, I really pity the OP. I dunno if I should laugh or cry at the absurdity of this. Clearly if I was the OP I would be mortified, but as a random person on another whole continent, I can look at this with some distance and not be petrified with fear. I always wondered, why do people from north america(both US and Canada) sue so much? Is it written in your constitution or something that you can and should exert that liberty at every possible turn? Breaking someone elses life and putting them in debt is a really dick move IMO.
So is destroying an old ladies leg so she can't use it anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
484
211
23
514
303
210
EPT
