Spanish driver sues dead crash cyclist for damage to his car

[POHB]

You couldn't make it up...

Spotted this in todays Grauniad but couldn't find it on their site.
However, Yahoo also had the story.

"The youth had been cycling alone at night without reflective clothing
or a helmet"


"A Spanish driver who collided with a cyclist is suing the dead
youth's family $29,300 for the damage the impact of his body did to
his luxury car.

Businessman Tomas Delgado says 17-year-old Enaitz Iriondo caused
$20,500 of damage to his Audi A8 in the fatal 2004 crash in La Rioja
region.

Delgado, who has faced no criminal charges for the incident, wants a
further 6,000 euros to cover the cost of hiring another vehicle while
his car was being repaired.

His family won 33,000 euros compensation from Delgado's insurance
company after the firm acknowledged he had been driving at excessive
speed and this could have contributed to the incident.

"I'm also a victim in all of this, you can't fix the lad's problems,
but you can fix mine," Delgado told a newspaper, ahead of a January 30
legal decision on his suit."

The family said they had previously pitied Delgado for the guilt he
must feel at killing their son but were now disgusted that his
greatest concern appeared to be money."

"This was the final straw, a kick in the teeth," the youth's mother
Rosa Trinidad said..

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080125/odds/odd_spain_driver1_dc

 

[Jim]

That is pretty sick. I hope he loses, and that the courts kick it out as
greedy nonsense. But they probably wont...



"POHB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You couldn't make it up...
>
> Spotted this in todays Grauniad but couldn't find it on their site.
> However, Yahoo also had the story.
>
> "The youth had been cycling alone at night without reflective clothing
> or a helmet"
>
>
> "A Spanish driver who collided with a cyclist is suing the dead
> youth's family $29,300 for the damage the impact of his body did to
> his luxury car.
>
> Businessman Tomas Delgado says 17-year-old Enaitz Iriondo caused
> $20,500 of damage to his Audi A8 in the fatal 2004 crash in La Rioja
> region.
>
> Delgado, who has faced no criminal charges for the incident, wants a
> further 6,000 euros to cover the cost of hiring another vehicle while
> his car was being repaired.
>
> His family won 33,000 euros compensation from Delgado's insurance
> company after the firm acknowledged he had been driving at excessive
> speed and this could have contributed to the incident.
>
> "I'm also a victim in all of this, you can't fix the lad's problems,
> but you can fix mine," Delgado told a newspaper, ahead of a January 30
> legal decision on his suit."
>
> The family said they had previously pitied Delgado for the guilt he
> must feel at killing their son but were now disgusted that his
> greatest concern appeared to be money."
>
> "This was the final straw, a kick in the teeth," the youth's mother
> Rosa Trinidad said..
>
> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080125/odds/odd_spain_driver1_dc
>

 

[Mark T]

> The family said they had previously pitied Delgado for the guilt he
> must feel at killing their son but were now disgusted that his
> greatest concern appeared to be money."

Not said this for a while: Gun, Petrol, Matches.

 

[Martin Dann]

Mark T wrote:
>> The family said they had previously pitied Delgado for the guilt he
>> must feel at killing their son but were now disgusted that his
>> greatest concern appeared to be money."
>
> Not said this for a while: Gun, Petrol, Matches.

I agree. According to the Torygraph, the guy was doing 100mph in a 50
zone. I hope the family get some very good lawyers, and get their
expenses awarded to them when the case get thrown out.

Martin.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jan 26, 11:40 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark T wrote:
>
> I agree. According to the Torygraph, the guy was doing 100mph in a 50
> zone.  I hope the family get some very good lawyers, and get their
> expenses awarded to them when the case get thrown out.
>
> Martin.

I agree that this is absolutely stupid.

What would everyone's opinion be if the driver hadn't been speeding
and the accident was entirely the cyclist's fault?

 

[boulder]

>
> "The youth had been cycling alone at night without reflective clothing
> or a helmet"
>
>

its similar to when someone on a bike ignores a red traffic light, goes
down a one way street the wrong way, or when a motorcyclist doing 90
smashes into the side of a woman in a punto....blame the car.

I would sue for stress as well....

Oh, I cycle and drive, by the way, before you start....

 

[roger merriman]

On 27 Jan, 08:06, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:40 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Mark T wrote:
>
> > I agree. According to the Torygraph, the guy was doing 100mph in a 50
> > zone.  I hope the family get some very good lawyers, and get their
> > expenses awarded to them when the case get thrown out.
>
> > Martin.
>
> I agree that this is absolutely stupid.
>
> What would everyone's opinion be if the driver hadn't been speeding
> and the accident was entirely the cyclist's fault?

well no, while riding at night with out lights is dangerous, by the
same token driving a car and assuming everything will be lit up is if
any thing more dangerous.

roger

 

[jen]

On Jan 27, 9:27 am, roger merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27 Jan, 08:06, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 11:40 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Mark T wrote:
>
> > > I agree. According to the Torygraph, the guy was doing 100mph in a 50
> > > zone.  I hope the family get some very good lawyers, and get their
> > > expenses awarded to them when the case get thrown out.
>
> > > Martin.
>
> > I agree that this is absolutely stupid.
>
> > What would everyone's opinion be if the driver hadn't been speeding
> > and the accident was entirely the cyclist's fault?
>
> well no, while riding at night with out lights is dangerous, by the
> same token driving a car and assuming everything will be lit up is if
> any thing more dangerous.
>
> roger

It doesn't say he had no lights, only no reflective jacket.. You'd
think the absence or otherwise of lights would be relevant to the
story, if you were to make an opinion as to whether or not the cyclist
was partially at fault.

Jen

 

[Roger Merriman]

jen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jan 27, 9:27 am, roger merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 27 Jan, 08:06, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 26, 11:40 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Mark T wrote:
> >
> > > > I agree. According to the Torygraph, the guy was doing 100mph in a 50
> > > > zone. I hope the family get some very good lawyers, and get their
> > > > expenses awarded to them when the case get thrown out.
> >
> > > > Martin.
> >
> > > I agree that this is absolutely stupid.
> >
> > > What would everyone's opinion be if the driver hadn't been speeding
> > > and the accident was entirely the cyclist's fault?
> >
> > well no, while riding at night with out lights is dangerous, by the
> > same token driving a car and assuming everything will be lit up is if
> > any thing more dangerous.
> >
> > roger
>
> It doesn't say he had no lights, only no reflective jacket.. You'd
> think the absence or otherwise of lights would be relevant to the
> story, if you were to make an opinion as to whether or not the cyclist
> was partially at fault.
>
> Jen

ah yes i'd got mistraked by relfective clothing.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[percrime]

roger merriman wrote:
> On 27 Jan, 08:06, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 11:40 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark T wrote:
>>> I agree. According to the Torygraph, the guy was doing 100mph in a 50
>>> zone. I hope the family get some very good lawyers, and get their
>>> expenses awarded to them when the case get thrown out.
>>> Martin.
>> I agree that this is absolutely stupid.
>>
>> What would everyone's opinion be if the driver hadn't been speeding
>> and the accident was entirely the cyclist's fault?
>
> well no, while riding at night with out lights is dangerous, by the
> same token driving a car and assuming everything will be lit up is if
> any thing more dangerous.
>
> roger


Wot he said

 

[Mark T]

writtificated

> What would everyone's opinion be if the driver hadn't been speeding
> and the accident was entirely the cyclist's fault?

Then we'd be thinking that the cyclist was an idiot. Isn't this a weird
question?

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 26 Jan, 23:40, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark T wrote:
> >> The family said they had previously pitied Delgado for the guilt he
> >> must feel at killing their son but were now disgusted that his
> >> greatest concern appeared to be money."
>
> > Not said this for a while: Gun, Petrol, Matches.
>
> I agree. According to the Torygraph, the guy was doing 100mph in a 50
> zone.  I hope the family get some very good lawyers, and get their
> expenses awarded to them when the case get thrown out.
>
> Martin.


There's something odd about this. I wonder why he wasn't prosecuted
for doing twice the limit?

 

[Mark T]

boulder writtificated

>> "The youth had been cycling alone at night without reflective clothing
>> or a helmet"
>>
>>
>
> its similar to when someone on a bike ignores a red traffic light, goes
> down a one way street the wrong way, or when a motorcyclist doing 90
> smashes into the side of a woman in a punto....blame the car.
>
> I would sue for stress as well....
>
> Oh, I cycle and drive, by the way, before you start....

And troll by the looks of it (I'm assuming that was sarcasm). Having read
this ng for a while now, I don't think your comments can be justified. If
you were talking about society in general then you're definately talking
rubbish.

p.s. last night I walked to the pub *without reflective clothing*. Given
that the Highway Code recommends this for pedestrians, how liable do you
think I should be if a driver ran me down. For arguments sake we'll say I
was walking legally, according to the recommendations in the Highway Code.

 

[boulder]

> p.s. last night I walked to the pub *without reflective clothing*. Given
> that the Highway Code recommends this for pedestrians, how liable do you
> think I should be if a driver ran me down. For arguments sake we'll say I
> was walking legally, according to the recommendations in the Highway Code.

providing you were on the pavement, I would say entirely the drivers fault.

 

[Mark T]

boulder writtificated

>
>> p.s. last night I walked to the pub *without reflective clothing*.
>> Given that the Highway Code recommends this for pedestrians, how
>> liable do you think I should be if a driver ran me down. For
>> arguments sake we'll say I was walking legally, according to the
>> recommendations in the Highway Code.
>
> providing you were on the pavement, I would say entirely the drivers
> fault.

And if I'm walking on a stretch of road that has no pavement, or crossing a
side road?

 

[naked_draughtsman]

On Jan 27, 10:41 am, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
> There's something odd about this. I wonder why he wasn't prosecuted
> for doing twice the limit?

I wondered that too. From the story it sounded like the driver was
driving like an idiot and didn't even *face* charges - I read that as
he wasn't even prosecuted and cleared of doing anything wrong.

If the parties sort it out between their insurance companies does that
remove the need for the police to do anything over in Spain? Maybe
there was a lack of evidence and they couldn't do anything about it.

peter

 

[[email protected]]

On Jan 27, 10:35 am, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:
>  writtificated
>
> > What would everyone's opinion be if the driver hadn't been speeding
> > and the accident was entirely the cyclist's fault?
>
> Then we'd be thinking that the cyclist was an idiot.  Isn't this a weird
> question?

In what way is it a weird question? I'm asking whether you think that
it would be right for a driver to sue the estate of a dead cyclist who
he had been in collision with when the collision was entirely the
cyclist's fault? I'd say yes. However there seem to be some posters on
here who cannot believe that a cyclist can be wholly responsible for
such a collision.

 

[Adam Lea]

"Mark T"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> boulder writtificated
>
>>
>>> p.s. last night I walked to the pub *without reflective clothing*.
>>> Given that the Highway Code recommends this for pedestrians, how
>>> liable do you think I should be if a driver ran me down. For
>>> arguments sake we'll say I was walking legally, according to the
>>> recommendations in the Highway Code.
>>
>> providing you were on the pavement, I would say entirely the drivers
>> fault.
>
> And if I'm walking on a stretch of road that has no pavement, or crossing
> a
> side road?

Reminds me of the time I was cycling back from work at night (country lane,
no streetlights) and I notice something strange, like a shadow in front of
me but I couldn't make out what it was. It was only when I got within about
20 yards of them that I noticed three women in the road heading for the
local pub.

Adam

 

[Mark T]

gustavfenk writtificated

> However there seem to be some posters on
> here who cannot believe that a cyclist can be wholly responsible for
> such a collision.

It's prolly your own prejudices that make it appear that way, as I haven't
seen any such thing. Happy to be corrected tho.

 

[boulder]

>>
>> providing you were on the pavement, I would say entirely the drivers
>> fault.
>
> And if I'm walking on a stretch of road that has no pavement, or crossing
> a
> side road?

Then in that case, your stupid not to be wearing reflective cllothes. Any
self respecting motorist would aim for you deliberately, claim you were
wobbling over the road, and sue