Lawyers are the scum of the earth.

[Solomwi]

Obviously contact the auto insurance carrier - RIGHT AWAY. It should provide a defense of this suit, possibly including a cross-claim*. It will likely appoint counsel (if it agrees to defend, it gets to largely run the defense). I assume there was an insurance claim filed when the accident occurred. So the insurer should have a record of it.

#1 scum here are the people who initiated the suit. Assuming, of course, that the facts of the accident are as reported in the OP.

-Arrian

* - I would imagine the appropriate responsive pleading would be an Answer, Affirmative Defenses & Crossclaim. All in one.

Just to nitpick a couple of things here:

1. The proper response, if a claim against the other drivers is indeed proper in this case, is a counterclaim, rather than a cross-claim. A cross-claim is a claim made by one party against another party on the same side of the v., i.e., defendant against a co-defendant or plaintiff against a co-plaintiff. A counterclaim is one made by a defendant against a plaintiff.

2. The insurance company will most likely advise you to find your own lawyer in order to pursue a counterclaim. The defense it's obligated to provide is just that, a defense on the claims against you. When I was in a staff counsel office, we never went further than advising the outside client that he may have a counterclaim, and that if he did, we couldn't handle it for him. This may apply to cases the insurance company retains outside counsel for, but I'm only going as far as cases assigned to staff counsel here.

[Zkribbler]

That's a good point. AFAIK, there hasn't been any grounds for further investigation after the initial inquiry, which makes me suspect that they simply said it was an accident, rather then the fault of the motorcycle.

With a fatality involved, there must be a police report. There'll be measurements, diagrams, witness statements, and maybe an opinion by the police as to who was a fault -- unless Canada does things completely different from California.

...if I've learnt ANYTHING about law from law school, is that the first thing you do when you have a civil claim is avoid going to court except as a last resort. It's just too costly. Consult your solicitor, but it may be better to negotiate, go into mediation, or go into arbitration before heading off to court. This is so even if ultimately it involves paying money to the other party.

"Consult your solicitor" is always good advice. I'll be [s]he knows more about Canadian law than we do. But my main concern right now is making sure your friends's case is filed before the statute of limitations runs out. Protect the "statute" then negotiate --unless the solicitor says otherwise.

[Solomwi]

You're in Canuckland?
One option is to counterclaim for the other person's negligence. Still, if I've learnt ANYTHING about law from law school, is that the first thing you do when you have a civil claim is avoid going to court except as a last resort. It's just too costly. Consult your solicitor, but it may be better to negotiate, go into mediation, or go into arbitration before heading off to court. This is so even if ultimately it involves paying money to the other party.

(Caveat: the following is from an American legal perspective, and is intended only generally)

While you're generally right about the cost involved and settlement being preferable, until there's a suit filed, the defendant doesn't have much incentive to settle unless liability is undisputed. Lawsuits become costly as they drag through discovery and into trial. Simply filing a complaint shouldn't be a big part of the cost. In other words, filing a suit doesn't cut off the possibility of settlement or even necessarily mean the plaintiff wants to wind up in court.

EDIT: And as Zkrib pointed out, filing may be necessary to toll the statute of limitations and avoid losing the claim altogether. Once that clock stops, you have a lot more time to reach a settlement.

[Ben Kenobi]

With a fatality involved, there must be a police report. There'll be measurements, diagrams, witness statements, and maybe an opinion by the police as to who was a fault -- unless Canada does things completely different from California.

You are spot on.

Thanks guys, I've shown them the thread and they appreciate all the help.

[BlackCat]

What I don't get in this story is how the part that clearly has the blame for the accident - that is, if the description of it is correct - can have any legal claims. Not even insurance could be a case due to guilt.

Heck, in Denmark, the car driver would probably risk jail time because of reckless driving resulting in manslaughter.

Well, either canuck legal system is pretty weired or there are something missing in the description of the accident.

[Solomwi]

What I don't get in this story is how the part that clearly has the blame for the accident - that is, if the description of it is correct - can have any legal claims. Not even insurance could be a case due to guilt.

Heck, in Denmark, the car driver would probably risk jail time because of reckless driving resulting in manslaughter.

Well, either canuck legal system is pretty weired or there are something missing in the description of the accident.

My guess is that no matter how clear you think the blame is, the plaintiffs claim otherwise.

[BlackCat]

My guess is that no matter how clear you think the blame is, the plaintiffs claim otherwise.

Yeah, but that would be decided by a public ruling, not a private lawsuit.

[KrazyHorse]

Yeah, but that would be decided by a public ruling, not a private lawsuit.

No.

[KrazyHorse]

Even in a case with no criminal negligence/recklessness there can be fault found. Criminal charges require both higher burdens of proof as well as more severe negligence. F.E. there would never be criminal charges filed against a store owner who neglected to clean the ice off his walkway (leading to a slip-and-fall), yet there could easily be a valid claim against him in civil court.

[BlackCat]

Quite agree in the ice case, but when someone is killed, there will be a public ruling about the incident - that is here in Denmark - are you saying that it doesn't happen in Canada ?

IF the description is right, then it was reckless driving by the car trying to pass another with no visibility.

Edit: What really puzzels me is that the part that was in the wrong lane thinks that it has any claim against the eother that didn't do anything wrong.

[Solomwi]

Quite agree in the ice case, but when someone is killed, there will be a public ruling about the incident - that is here in Denmark - are you saying that it doesn't happen in Canada ?

IF the description is right, then it was reckless driving by the car trying to pass another with no visibility.

Canada's probably closer to the U.S., where if no criminal charges are present a person's recourse is a private lawsuit. Who is ultimately found to be at fault has no bearing on whether a lawsuit can be filed to begin with. Meritless suits are filed all the time.

EDIT: To your edit, it's not as cut and dried as it may seem. There are several reasons the plaintiffs here may actually believe they were in the right, which have already been discussed. There are also gains to be had by filing suit even if they know they were at fault. For instance, they may be suing pre-emptively in order to agree to drop the case if the parents don't sue them. I'm not saying it's ethical, or a good tactic, only that it's one example of why they might sue without actually thinking they have a claim. Most likely they want to preserve any claim they may have, and suing lets them do that while they put out a fishing expedition to see if they really do have any claim. And that's all assuming liability is as clear as you believe it is. The plaintiffs may well have a completely different description of the accident.

[BlackCat]

Thanks Solomwi, for your patience with one that thinks Can/US legal system is pretty weird

Danish leagal tradition is a bit different - the parents would for example not be able to make any claims since they are not a part (there is a better word, but I can't remember it).

[Solomwi]

Thanks Solomwi, for your patience with one that thinks Can/US legal system is pretty weird

Danish leagal tradition is a bit different - the parents would for example not be able to make any claims since they are not a part (there is a better word, but I can't remember it).

Standing? We have a similar concept, though one doesn't need to have been directly involved in an incident to have standing to sue on that incident. You just have to have suffered some injury as a result of the incident. Most of the time, that will mean you were directly involved, but it's not a technical requirement.

And don't forget that here, at least, you don't need anything but a complaint and a filing fee to start a lawsuit. Whether you'll recover on your suit is a far different question from whether you can file it.

[BlackCat]

Standing is close but not the proper term - you have to be personally "hurt" to make a lawsuit (loss of a grown up child doesn't count).

Discussing legal differences when drunk isn't a good idea

[Solomwi]

Standing is close but not the proper term - you have to be personally "hurt" to make a lawsuit (loss of a grown up child doesn't count).

Discussing legal differences when drunk isn't a good idea

That's the concept we call standing, though loss of an adult child may count, depending on the law of a particular jurisdiction.