I hear you on hoping for karma, Janine. Actually, some of my major life experiences thus far have inclined me to believe that karma is the driving force of the universe. I have seen some truly wonderful karmic events in my time – so much so that I don’t think I will ever again feel the need to personally seek revenge, for example. In any event, I am hoping that something or someone takes care of that family – and gives Weaving what he deserves too.

This is outrageous. Alex is right. From my recollection, under Canadian tort law, the only impact of the failure to wear a helmet would be on the victim, and it would be taken into account either in the allocation of liability (i.e. contributory negligence) or damages phase.

US law is strange, tho, so you can never know. It’s also very plaintiff friendly, meaning that unfortunately there is no remedy for you if someone sues you with absolutely no legal basis. Hopefully they either have third party liability insurance that covers it (e.g. house insurance that I’ve mentioned before) and/or there is a lawyer out there who will read about this and be willing to take on their defense pro bono, tho they still may be on the hook for disbursements (e.g. photocopies, filing fees). And of course that says absolutely nothing about the pain the family will continue to be put through as a result of this horrible man’s continuing actions.

It’s for things like this that I really do hope there is karma somewhere along the line.

Interesting, Alex. Cannot imagine that cyclists owe a duty of care to wear a helmet. It would be one of those opening the floodgate situations, IMO. If cyclists owe a duty of care like that, then pedestrians should surely also don helmets before crossing a road – in case a motorist mows them down in a crosswwalk, and then ends up with a mean old manslaughter conviction. And hey, shouldn’t motorists ALSO wear helmets, in case another motorist ploughs drunkenly into them, and also ends up with a manslaughter conviction that could have been avoided if the first motorist was sensible enough to put on a helmet before getting behind the wheel?

Ryan, I will look for this story … sounds interesting – thanks!

1: Did the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff?
2: Was the duty of care breached?
3: Was the breach in the duty of care proximal to the plaintiff’s loss?

That #1 is an interesting question. Do people riding their bikes owe a duty of care to people in cars to wear a helmet. Even if it turns out they do, it would also have to be shown by a balance of probabilities that the failure to wear a helmet was proximal to the driver’s loss. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

But he did die, and the motorist has been found at fault. So how is it wrongful conviction? To me, wrongful conviction is only after you’ve served time and been found innocent after all. Then you’ve been wrongfully convicted.

I can’t help but think of my Grandmother – If ‘if’s’ and ‘buts’ were candy and nuts… think how rich you’d be.

We’re all on the same page, this thing stinks. I’m just trying to figure out how the guy comes to the decision to sue the parents. Maybe some things are beyond comprehension.

Do you know on what grounds his claim of wrongful conviction comes from?

Perhaps someone else knows more about this story, however there was a motorist in the States a few years back who hit and killed a cyclist. He then turned around and sued the cyclists family for damage to his car.
I never did follow up when this happened, so I’m not quite sure what happened.

This is why I’m beyond sick of motorists (or in this case, Fordorists) who whine about getting the short end of the stick all the time.
Cars still get preferential treatment on the roads. Realistically it is dirt cheap to drive in this country. When a bike lane is actually put in you have the Fordorists up in arms. The Fordorists get off when they kill a cyclist, and the ones who are charged receive no more then a couple of years.