Community | November 14, 2010 | 69 comments

Driver in fatal Conn. crash sues victim's parents | US National Headlines | Comcast.net

source: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20101114/US.Suing.the.Victims/

Image
mik661
HARTFORD, Conn. — A driver who's serving a manslaughter sentence for striking and killing a 14-year-old boy is suing the victim's parents, blaming them for their son's death because they allowed him to ride his bike in the street without a helmet.

Matthew Kenney's parents, Stephen and Joanne, sued 48-year-old driver David Weaving shortly after he was sentenced last year to 10 years in prison, accusing him in Waterbury Superior Court of negligence and seeking more than $15,000 in damages.

Weaving, who has a history of drunken driving convictions, responded months later with a handwritten countersuit accusing the Kenneys of "contributory negligence." He's also seeking more than $15,000 in damages, saying he's endured "great mental and emotional pain and suffering," wrongful conviction and imprisonment, and the loss of his "capacity to carry on in life's activities."

"It drags the pain on," said Joanne Kenney, a stay-at-home mom with two other children, ages 2 and 13. "It's a constant reminder. Enough is enough. Can you just leave us alone and serve your time?"
  1. groups:
    Community
  2. tags:
    Lawsuits,  Prisons,  frivolous lawsuits
  3.     
    |

69 comments // Driver in fatal Conn. crash sues victim's parents | US National Headlines | Comcast.net

  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  

    • Hate to break it to our aggressor, but a bicycle helmet is not designed to save a persons life if they get hit by a car. It is designed to save a persons life if they fall from the bike and would otherwise strike their head on something hard (like concrete) with much less force than is behind the mass of a moving car.

    • 1 year ago
  • macdontcare
  • EdJoyProductions
  • cclark_productions
  • good_stuff
    • -2
      good_stuff  

    • Good for him. I'll never understand why our driving laws see accidents as accidents unless your drunk, in which case you intended to hit/kill someone.

      Most accidents are caused by someone, and whether distracted by talking on the phone, eating a Big Mac, or drunk; so there shouldn't be a difference in punishment. A sentence of 10 years is excessive for somebody that did not intend to cause harm to anyone especially if he wasn't the one braking the law that night (i.e. kid didn't have lights or helmet).

      This is all very clearly the kid/parents fault. When will we go back to survival of the fitest instead of playing the blame game when your kid is involved in a freak accident.

    • 1 year ago
  • mr_tibbles
    • 0
      mr_tibbles  
    • good_stuff:

      The guy was going 83 in a 45 mph zone while "recklessly passing another car". For you to say he wasn't breaking the law and has no responsibility in this case is fucking asinine.

    • 1 year ago
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  
    • Image
    • mr_tibbles:

      Apparrently you didn't read the article that came out right after the incident, before they knew he had a history of drunk driving ( http://www.wfsb.com/news/13236635/detail.html ).

      For others who beleive accusations and not fact, the artical states the following:

      "Prosecutors say Weaving was recklessly passing another car at about 83 mph in a 45-mph zone when his car hit Matthew Kenney on Route 69 in the Waterbury suburb of Prospect on April 27, 2007. A jury convicted him in December 2008 of manslaughter and other crimes."

      Aparently you've never been involved in the law system before. Prosecuters can say whatever they want and hope the Jury will beleive them. In the case of a guy with 5 dui's, the jury will always beleive prosecuters over the evil drunk. According to the story that was out just after this happened,

      "Kenney's best friend Joe Masculli said Kenney had just received a new bike and couldn't wait to ride it.

      "He was coming down here and the car was passing and it hit him from behind and he landed down the street," Masculli said.

      Masculli said he ran inside and told his mother to call 911.

      Police said the car was headed south on Route 69 and was passing another car when it struck the teen. Police said they do not believe that the car was speeding and it is possible that Kenney was in the middle of the road.

      The car's driver has not been charged.

      Prospect residents told Eyewitness News that while speeding may not have been a factor in Kenney's death, the road is notorious for its speeders."

      The question is How can the police say one thing after the accident and then the prosecuter say another during the trial? What was the new evidence? Tire tracks on the road, that may be from another speeding vehicle? The kids best friend witnessed the accident, and didn't mention that the car was going twice the speed limit? I want to know what the evidence is, and how so many consider my statement unreasonable (assuming they read more than just this terribly biased comcast article).

    • 1 year ago
  • hjvhgvgvhgvgh
  • themotivateddropout
  • themotivateddropout
    • 0
      themotivateddropout  

    • ""It drags the pain on," said Joanne Kenney, a stay-at-home mom with two other children, ages 2 and 13. "It's a constant reminder. Enough is enough. Can you just leave us alone and serve your time?""

      Maybe she should have thought about that before this whole bit:

      "Matthew Kenney's parents, Stephen and Joanne, sued 48-year-old driver David Weaving shortly after he was sentenced last year to 10 years in prison, accusing him in Waterbury Superior Court of negligence and seeking more than $15,000 in damages."

      All he did was countersue, for the same price. The guy may have hit a 14 year old boy, but let's not throw him on the pyre right yet. He wasn't drunk, it was foggy, and the kid was in the wrong lane. I think 10 years in prison is decent punishment.

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  
    • themotivateddropout:

      News flash: the pain will last longer than 10 years. Its been 16 since my sister died and my mom still doesnt answer the phone for a month after the anniversary date of her death. In this case bringing a civil case isnt going to make anyone feel better.

    • 1 year ago
  • themotivateddropout
    • 0
      themotivateddropout  
    • mik661:

      Well, of course the pain will last more than 10 years. But that doesn't mean this guy should sit in jail, serving a 10 year sentence, and get slapped with a lawsuit that would ruin his already wrecked life and strip him of 15 large (which I'm guessing he won't have spare). Unless, however, the accident is proven undoubtedly his fault, his neglect.
      He may be at fault but, until the trial, we shouldn't be so quick to screw this guy to the wall. Or to encourage his death.

      I don't think this woman shouldn't grieve, but if she didn't want to get countersued, she shouldn't have sued.
      If this guy deserves it, she should be prepared for backlash.

      Honestly, this story doesn't add up.
      Why the sudden lawsuit from the parents?
      And the 180 on the perception of the driver?

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  
    • themotivateddropout:

      exactly. I wasnt disputing you that was my opinion from the first. Just adding a little of my perspective I know exactly what it feels like to have a close family member killed in a stupid accident.

    • 1 year ago
  • themotivateddropout
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  
    • themotivateddropout:

      Its OK. It was my sisters fault. She shouldn't have been driving by herself but some other kids ditched her after a drama club trip to see a play in the city on a Sunday afternoon. . She crossed the center line looking down at something. Both the people in the other car died also. What I remember about them is their family never tried to sue my parents. It was the first time she had ever drove by herself. My mom called the so called chaperon and asked where my sister was when she didn't come home. She told my mom that she had left with some boy. We found out later that they had left her at a red light and took off. After the cops came my mom called her back and told her she was dead. The woman accused her of lying about it. I hope that bitch burns in hell. All the kids who used to treat her like shit in school including the ones that ditched her showed up and cried like babies at the funeral. Personally I hope that their children received the same treatment that my sister did in school. God forgives but I don't have too. My parents have never forgiven themselves even after 16 years.

    • 1 year ago
  • bastian1971
  • themotivateddropout
  • KSirys
  • FtheBULLSHT
    • 0
      FtheBULLSHT  

    • "Weaving, who has a history of drunken driving convictions"

      What does that have to do with anything if he wasn't drunk when he hit the kid?

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  
    • FtheBULLSHT:

      That was my whole point that all that bsis brought out now when the story is some pos prisoner tormenting the grieving parents but not a word during the initial report. Plus the counter suit wasn't filed until the parents filed suit against him. I assume that if its a manslaughter charge there is every expectation that he will be released sometime in the near future. A conviction doesn't mean you give up your right to defend yourself. I think that the parents are trying to make a point to the state about not revoking his license and I understand that however you then face the consequences such as this counter suit.

    • 1 year ago
  • FtheBULLSHT
    • 0
      FtheBULLSHT  
    • mik661:

      Just read the full article. His license definitely should have been revoked after all those DUIs. 10 years for what he did seems too lite, than again the parents shouldn't have let their kid ride his bike without a helmet especially on a street with a 45 mph speed limit.

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  
    • FtheBULLSHT:

      Ten years for legally licensed, not intoxicated, in a passing zone with a disputed estimate of his speed. Ive seen drunk drivers going the wrong way down the street killing people with head on crashes get less than ten years. Yes, he should have had his license revoked for his dui's but then again he wasnt drunk or illegally driving.The kid was on the wrong side of the road in poor visibility without a helmet on. Let him do his time but keep your lawsuit to your self.

    • 1 year ago
  • Dmerza1989
    • 0
      Dmerza1989  
    • mik661:

      Wait, why is he such an awful person if he was drving sober and the kid was not on the right side of the road, at night without a helmet? His DUI's only seem relevent if he was drunk, a past case is a past case, and the state is at fault for not handling it correctly. Also why was he riding a bike at night, where were his parents, why were they not driving him it is bad contitions after all? I could see the DUI's being a valid reason if he was drunk, or the kid was on the correct side but reading this and from what you have said to me it seems like it was a complete accident and trying to get him for crimes he commited and the state did not handle correctly does not seem right.

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  
    • Dmerza1989:

      There may be evidence of him driving recklessly in which the charge may have been appropiate but the sentence seems to be based on past behavior not the crime. Seems like the state decided he needed to be locked up off the street.

    • 1 year ago
  • FtheBULLSHT
  • Dmerza1989
    • 0
      Dmerza1989  

    • Damn i live here and didn't hear this lol. In CT you MUST wear a helmet i known people who have been stopped and ticketed for not, so as fucked up as i sounds legally he has the right to try. Doesn't mean its right but he has the right.

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  
    • Dmerza1989:

      Is it just me or did this guy seemed to get the shaft once they decided he was a POS? Initial reports claimed speed was not a factor and that the kid was in the wrong lane in foggy conditions.

    • 1 year ago
  • Dmerza1989
  • mik661
  • Dmerza1989
    • 0
      Dmerza1989  
    • mik661:

      Hmm so maybe this is just another one of those "I need to find comfort in my child's death so i will blame someone even if they are not completely responsible so i feel like i can move on" type things? Their son was not wearing the one thing that could have saved his life, as parents they also did not obviously force him to wear it unless it took it off after leaving the house.
      This reminds me of the day before 2nd grade. My parents said "Devon, dont ride your bike it is unsafe at this hour even with a helmet" and i went F-U i do what i want! Well i didnt see a pile of apples in the road from an apple tree, my bike hit it and i fell flat on my face and busted my lip completely open. From that day forward i followed some simple rules 1. If the sun aint up dont ride 2. keep wearing a helmet 3. Pay attention

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
more from Community:
from the community

top videos