Girl Sues Dad Who Was Shot in Road Rage Incident

Interesting case, I'm assuming this is saying she is suing him / his insurer by proxy for 3rd party liability pay outs? Who knows what their policies say in the US but could immediate family sue for 3rd party liability in under any Canadian auto insurance policies?

Even if they win $100K that will likely just cover the medical bills anyhow.

Isn't this just another mom who wants to see money, using her kid?

Yes, but since the idiot who started it doesnt have insurance,
and the government only protects perpetrators of crime, not victims,
this may be the only way to do it for them.

I'm not convinced the Mom is really on the outs with Dad. The way she spoke of him on his behalf about how he was doing didn't seem like a bitter and upset wife / gf or whatever, would do. I'd wager they are all in on it and saying they are on the outs is part of the ploy.

This doesn't make any sense to me, I can't make heads or tails of this whole story.

It's pretty simple. The kid needs further help that costs money. They want dad's insurance to pay for it, since the perp didn't have any. There have been lots of cases like this, including in Canada. Often the parents are "colluding" with the kid to sue themselves, because it's the only way to get the insurance company to pay. It's a legal formalism.

One would think him getting shot in the head and having perm. brain damage for simply using a hand gesture would be more than enough punishment.

The argument is that he should have known better and he should have foreseen what could/did happen.

Gee, sorry, even I wouldn't have guessed I would have had a former Marine who went nuts pull a gun and shoot me. I've encountered plenty of people over the years who flipped me off, honked their horns at me for stupid things (ie: when I had the right of way) or cursed me out..... am I justified in shooting them because they should have foreseen me doing so??

Maybe because he was cut off, he should have got out of his car and shot him first?

Idiocy.

Shouldn't they be suing the shooter?

No use. He was not insured, is in jail and has no income.

No money, no insurance. What would be the point? Dad has no money either, but he has insurance. They're really suing dad's insurance, but you can't do that directly. No story here, move along.

You guys are missing the most important thing here. Both Thomas Timko and the girl should have been carrying. That way the two of them could have shot it out with Squillaciotti. Then they could have shot it out with each other. Winner take all. What's the point of right to carry laws if no one takes advantage of them, except the bad guy.

I was always told not to shoot if you've been shot in the head because your aim could be off. The point really is, don't give someone the finger. You never know what their reaction might be.



Just shoot first.

Wow, the lawyer for the kid has some balls. Not only is he suing the dad but the passenger of the other vehicle? After the weasel takes his cut of any settlement, assuming there is one, the kid is going to be left with very little as I doubt any judge/jury is going to hold the dad or other guy's wife liable, or if they are their liability is going to be very small.

If they find dad liable, it will be dad's insurance company that will have to pay. That's the whole point, since dad has no assets and is brain damaged so can't work. We've seen this sort of thing before, where a kid sues a parent with the parent's full collusion because it's the only way to get the insurance company to pay up.

One thing the weasel lawyer understands that you don't seem to is that if there's only a very small award made, his cut of that small award will also be very small (since they take a percentage of the award) and not worth his time. So he's obviously decided that it's worth the risk for a big payout by dad's insurance company. If there was no weasel lawyer involved in this case, the girl would get diddly squat. If you were involved in an accident, good bet you'd be running to a weasel lawyer too - the more weaselly the better.

The only reason the shooter isn't being sued is that he has no insurance and no assets.