Honestly, this is the worst thing I’ve read…maybe ever. I don’t even have anything to say but register my own horror at the soullessness of this action.
CNS reports:
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?”
Awful.
November 15, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Awful, but I question the leave us alone thing when they sued him after his criminal conviction. They were not leaving it alone at that point and letting him serve his time.
I don't think he should counter-sue, but there is something strange in the mother's statement as I read it.
November 15, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Mrs. Kenney,
Do not allow these petty "lawsuits" to bother you. Take some solice in knowing that he is, everyday, fighting for posession of his asshole.
November 15, 2010 at 5:49 pm
They DID contribute to his death if they didn't force him to wear his helmet. Perhaps it could have saved him. Of course it doesn't mean the drunken driver wasn't guilty.
November 15, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Awful, but I question the leave us alone thing when they sued him after his criminal conviction
In my limited legal understanding civil cases almost always happen after criminal cases because the criminal case is where the convicted makes restitution to the state and the civil is where restitution is made to the victim, so there is nothing unusual about a civil case following a criminal one.
All my sympathy goes to the victim, but counter-suing seems like a savvy move. That is, "Hey, I'm guilty of drunk driving, but if the boy had been wearing his helmet, he'd still be alive and my punishment would not be as severe!"
November 15, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Forget the helmet – according to the article it seems like he hit the boy doing 80 mph or thereabouts. How do you think that you'd fare against 3,000 lbs traveling at that rate even if you were wearing a helmet? The judge should throw this out.
November 15, 2010 at 6:55 pm
He has every right to make the contributory negligence argument. But it will piss the jury off at him even more – what an idiot.
November 15, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Since he is already being sued by the parents and is incarcerated, it's not like he has anything to lose. But, I likewise find the mother's comment that he is not leaving them alone a bit odd when, in fact, the parents are the ones suing (and he most likely would not have if they just left him jail to rot). By suing, they are already embroiling themselves with him (not that he doesn't deserve to be sued – he deserves to lose what ever he has). I don't know what she would have expected him to do.
November 15, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Many times, the insurance companies force you to sue.
There is NOTHING worse than loosing a child. Dont even try to put yourself in her shoes.
November 15, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Yes, this is horrible, but I don't think he was drunk THIS TIME. However, he does have a history of drunk driving. I'm not excusing him, but the article says he was not charged with drunk driving in this case. Your headline is a wee bit misleading.
November 15, 2010 at 11:05 pm
This is typical, selfish, alcoholic behaviour.A self-centered lout tries to put a guilt trip on the victims family instead of dealing with his own guilt. May God have mercy on him by making him feel his very real guilt so he may repent and avoid hellfire.
November 15, 2010 at 11:21 pm
This reminds me of the Jessica Shekell case. Shekell was driving the wrong way on the 91 freeway (BAC .26) and killed two women. Shekell supporters blamed her victims for not wearing seat-belts.
Drunks are not good at accepting responsibility for their actions.
November 16, 2010 at 12:26 am
From the CNS article: "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."
The boy's injuries appear to be such that a helmet would have done no good in protecting him: "Matthew, a well-liked seventh-grader who played several sports, suffered severe head and internal injuries, broken bones and lacerations. He was declared brain dead the next day."
How awful.
November 16, 2010 at 2:55 am
I don't think there's anything wrong with the parents suing the driver. They would have funeral expenses, after all. His fault, he should pay for it.
But I do hope that his own suit gets thrown out, how ridiculous. Like it's not bad enough that the boy's family are dealing with the loss. Should the boy have been wearing a helmet? Yes. But the driver needs to man up and take responsibility for his actions.
November 16, 2010 at 2:53 pm
When all is said & done, the man will be out of prison shortly, as manslaughter charges do not carry a long sentences, & the family will have to live without their son forever…so sad!
November 17, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Depending on the state, things such as failing to wear a seatbelt or helmet may not be admissible, and even when they are, it is only admissible as far as contributing to the extent of injury, not liability (in other words, it ain't gonna help him any as to whether he caused the accident). Given the facts as presented, he has a better chance his cellmates will treat him like royalty than he has of winning his suit.
Also, since it appears this was a hand written response, I doubt insurance is involved or they would have hired an attorney for him.