Lawyers are the scum of the earth.

[KrazyHorse]

Why should we even try to give you advice for a joke lawsuit for which you haven't provided any of the key details. If they're named as actual defendants (rather than simply being named to defend the estate) then there will have to be something in the filing explaining why they should be held liable for their adult son's actions. If they're named simply to defend the estate and the estate has no assets then they don't need to do anything. There's nothing to defend.

[KrazyHorse]

If the son's insurance company is being sued then they'll be the ones to defend it. All the parents have to do is give the company their cooperation. Note that they have nothing to lose in this case either.

[Ben Kenobi]

A) Your overall history on this site and

Please drop that ****. This isn't about me but about them. Feel free to act like a dick to me on other threads, but for their sake just forget about me.

B) manifestly sensitive emotional connection to this case, that's why. But I'll quit being a dick and just keep a grain of salt at the ready.

Thanks. That's all I ask. Like I said, I'll answer any and all questions, just ask them without accusing me of lying or withholding.

As Asher said, suggestions are useless (even downright misleading) without a detailed fact pattern to go over. We still don't know the thickness of the dust, in which direction the sun was shining, number of lanes on the road, what speed both parties were going, what speed the truck was going, number and proximity of other vehicles, whether any BAC was involved, etc. etc. etc. Everything matters in a tort case, which is partially why I hate torts.

I'm talking a two land country back road. That's about the sort of thing. Now I haven't been on the scene but the police report has the rest of the details there. I'm presuming the road was west to east with my friend and the motorcycles eastbound. I can't see speeds greater then 50-60km/h. Speed wasn't really a factor in the accident, just the misfortune of the dust and the timing.

If by "the parents have the money, so you go after them" you mean the plaintiff's just going after the "deep pockets," I can only reiterate that it's impossible to recover from the parents absent their ownership of the vehicle and/or negligent entrustment, neither of which we now know is present. In other words, if the decedent's estate was $400K in debts and $300K in assets (i.e. insolvent) and the plaintiffs get a judgment for $1 million, they will collect precisely $0.00 (minus legal expenses) because the parents' assets are entirely insulated. They're just a legal fiction to speak for the estate for what it's worth, which appears to be nothing. If the estate is worth something, and the parents have appropriated its surplus, then yes, they would have to fork over that amount, but nothing more.

Ok, thanks. I'll pass that onto them that they cannot be held legally obligated.

That possibility occurred to me, but even in that case the motorcyclist had the opportunity to slow down, temporarily veer into the shoulder (or into the right lane if there was one), etc., and if a jury could be convinced that the fictional RPPSSC ("reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances") would have taken those precautionary steps in reaction to an oncoming dust cloud, particularly if the dust was extremely thick, there could be negligence found on both sides.

From what I have heard that by the time the driver attempted to pass and pull into the oncoming lane, the motorcycle was already about a truck length (30-40 metres). The others all managed to react in time to get partially out of the way, but the lead driver, my friend, had no chance. Just not enough time for him to react and get out of the way. By the time he knew there was a car in front of him, he was dead.

We still don't know the thickness of the dust, in which direction the sun was shining, number of lanes on the road, what speed both parties were going, what speed the truck was going, whether any BAC was involved, etc. etc. etc. Everything matters in a tort case, which is partially why I hate torts.

Drinking wasn't a factor, everyone was sober. Truck + motorcycle combined was probably about 100 km/h, but I'd have to see the police reports. Easily enough to kill you.

[-Jrabbit]

Cmon guys, Ben's just asking for advice here. He stated upfront that he lacks details and is ignorant of the legal aspects. WTF is up with jumping all over him?

[KrazyHorse]

Cmon guys, Ben's just asking for advice here. He stated upfront that he lacks details and is ignorant of the legal aspects. WTF is up with jumping all over him?

Dogpiling Ben = one of the great things about poly

[Ben Kenobi]

And I'd be curious to know what money we're talking about. How much is the estate of a 23-year-old kid worth, usually? I'm guessing nearly zero (no significant savings, no real estate, no life insurance; could be wrong, but that's the typical 23-year-old situation).

You'd be right about that in this case.

That leaves three possibilities:

1) The lawyer really is scum, and has talked the plaintiffs into suing when there's no money to be had.

2) Ben isn't telling us everything.

3) Ben doesn't know what he's talking about.

You're asking me to explain the suit? It makes no sense to me. We are talking about folks who have no legal knowledge, so I have to try to piece out their statement.

[chequita guevara]

The only thing you should tell them, Ben, is that they must get their own lawyer. That advice and your sympathy alone. Do NOT attempt to forward any other legal advice than that.

Even if the legal advice you were getting here was coming from lawyers (maybe in a couple cases it is), they aren't Canadian lawyers, and given your inability to understand even basic facts and logic, you'd screw up any other third hand advice anyway.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

You'd be right about that in this case.

You're asking me to explain the suit? It makes no sense to me. We are talking about folks who have no legal knowledge, so I have to try to piece out their statement.

Ok, so it seems to me that if you actually want some useful advice, you need to come back with a couple of pieces of information that your friends should have at hand:

1) Who is being sued? Is it the parents, or is it the estate of the son?

2) If the parents, what is the basis for the suit? As you can see from the answers you've already received, no one here can fathom how the parents could be implicated in an adult son's suit.

If the estate is being sued, it doesn't sound like they have any money to lose, so they shouldn't be worried.

At any rate -- if you've given us all the facts -- obviously they need a lawyer who would both attempt to dismiss the suit as frivolous and countersue to recover court costs.

[Darius871]

I'm talking a two land country back road. That's about the sort of thing. Now I haven't been on the scene but the police report has the rest of the details there. I'm presuming the road was west to east with my friend and the motorcycles eastbound. I can't see speeds greater then 50-60km/h. Speed wasn't really a factor in the accident, just the misfortune of the dust and the timing.

That makes it much clearer; since there was essentially no shoulder or right lane to shift into upon seeing the dust, there wasn't anything an RPPSSC could have done differently in his shoes (aside from slamming on the brakes, endangering people behind him, or veering into the ditch, endangering himself, neither of which any jury would expect), and meanwhile there's almost no justification for the plaintiff to pass with that much dust, unless the truck was going so slow that virtually anyone would feel compelled to pass. Even if the plaintiff was not negligent for that reason, however, that doesn't mean the defendant was; if anything this sounds entirely faultless, meaning no recovery for either side.

In any event, IF 1) you're correct that the decedent had a $0.00 estate AND 2) he owned the motorcycle, THEN the parents can't be forced to pay one penny and liability is completely moot in practice, so there's no reason to even respond to the suit UNLESS the plaintiff's lawyer screwed up and listed the parents as direct defendants rather than administrators. IF the lawyer did screw up in this way, THEN they MUST respond to avoid having a "default" judgment entered against them on the presumption that all of the plaintiff's allegations are admitted. This response could be either in the form of a motion to dismiss pointing out that they're not legally responsible for the son's negligence, or in the form of an answer denying factual allegations, but the former is cheaper and quicker. Either can be done pro se in most jurisdictions but I'd highly recommend hiring a lawyer for the drafting one way or another.

[Ben Kenobi]

The only thing you should tell them, Ben, is that they must get their own lawyer. That advice and your sympathy alone. Do NOT attempt to forward any other legal advice than that.

Which I posted in the second post of the thread.

Even if the legal advice you were getting here was coming from lawyers (maybe in a couple cases it is), they aren't Canadian lawyers, and given your inability to understand even basic facts and logic, you'd screw up any other third hand advice anyway.

Hell I ain't handling the legal end, like I said I don't have the experience.

[Imran Siddiqui]

$10 says they are suing to get the insurance company to pay up. Usually you'll have to sue the estate in order to go through to that level.

[Darius871]

$10 says they are suing to get the insurance company to pay up. Usually you'll have to sue the estate in order to go through to that level.

QFT

[Asher]

Yep. as I said.

Still a ****ty thing to do to the family of the dead guy, but I'm going to bet the guy was insured and as a result, the insurance policy will pay it out. They're essentially suing the dead guy's insurance company to milk it for money. At least, that's my non-lawyerly perspective.

Then again, IANAL.

[Asher]

Cmon guys, Ben's just asking for advice here. He stated upfront that he lacks details and is ignorant of the legal aspects. WTF is up with jumping all over him?

Yes, why would a crowd of reasonable, well-educated people jump all over a known hateful bigot whose standard MO is to lie and mislead?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ben's just asking for advice here

By calling me "scum of the earth"