Girl Sues Dad Who Was Shot in Road Rage Incident

Don't know if this was already posted but I could not find it with the search engine.

So this story is kind of shocking, yet not surprising in the US.

A man and his 11 year old daughter are driving down the street. When another driver decides to cut the father off, the father precedes to give the man the finger for cutting him off. The man who cut the father off (a schizophrenic ex-marine) then pulls a gun and shoots four times at the fathers car hitting the father in the head, and luckily missing the 11 year old girl. The father survived, but suffered brain damage.

But afterward it seems that the mother (supposedly on behalf of the child) wants to sue the father for pain and suffering and trauma he has caused his daughter. The mother claims that if he had never flicked the crazy guy off in the first place, the man never would have shot the weapon.

Is this in any way justified? I mean sure the guy could have cooled down on the road but he did not pull any trigger, he did not intend to start a violent conflict.

Anyone care to comment?

That mother/wife should be investigated for being an unfit parent, teaching a child that something like this is acceptable.

How disgusting. Granted- Even if the bird is the word, you should be careful since there are a lot of nutters in this world.

reply to post by Openeye


It sounds like the wife and father didn't have a close relationship, since she seems more concerned about suing him rather than being by his side and assisting him with devastating injuries. Some people are really hard to figure out why they do the things they do.

reply to post by Openeye


Just another case of Vexatious litigation. The guy has brain damage now that he has been shot. I’m sure that this woman will get a whole lot of money. Not.

What a piece of work the mother is. I would suggest that the county look into her and her lifestyle.

T&C prevents me from further posting on this piece.

If you read the entire article you will discover this is about insurance. The idea is to sue the father to force the insurance company to pay the maximum medical benefits on the policy.

First off, HORRIBLE. Thank goodness he survived and i hope to the maker that he will be alright.

Secondly, i think the biggest thing to take away from all of this, is dont flip (yes flip not flick. Anyone here ever "flicked" anyone off before?) people off. Its like adding mentos to a highly carbonated bottle of soda.

Always "Boom!" in the end

just another over excessive use of the suit system. i know the one that peeves me the most off is one i saw a while back (sorry no link). the gist of it was a female officer goes to a call of a child drowning in a pool. while getting to the pool and her partner performs CPR (child survives, score one for the good guys!) the female officer slips and hits her knee on the pool. what does she do, but sue the home owner for a knee scrape because the pool was wet! who would have thought it would be wet around a pool. such a douche bag!

reply to post by schuyler

If you read the entire article you will discover this is about insurance. The idea is to sue the father to force the insurance company to pay the maximum medical benefits on the policy.

n 2007, Teddy Harrison of Anoka County, Minn., successfully sued his parents over a car crash in 2001 that left him permanently disabled. Harrison's parents were willing defendants, as their attorney Robert King explained to The Associated Press at the time. "This suit is about forcing the parents' insurance company to live up to its responsibility," King told the AP.

Yes this seems to be the motivation. But in the article it talks about how Kaitlyn (the daughter) is suing her father. I do not think this is really the case. I do not think this girl knows exactly what the details truly entail, and I believe the mothers motivation is very important.

I would love to believe that the mother and the father are doing this is collaboration to have a unjust insurance system compensate what happened that day since the shooter had no assets and his insurance wont pay because the shooting was intentional (which is bull IMO).

But due to the craziness of the US legal system and how people use it against each other (especially feuding parents). I cant help but wonder if this is just an angry woman's vendetta against her ex to get money. I pray this is not the case

It's certainly the case that Timko's initial insurance was not sufficient for this particular eventuality. Many people only carry the minimal auto insurance, which in Pennsylvania would pay out a mere $5,000 towards medical expenses.

Other than the above text (which says little), no where in the article does it mention how much of the event was covered by the fathers insurance company. Or if the daughter mental health needs were already being taken care of by an insurance company, or by state insurance.

If the insurance company did not pay because of some bull loop hole than suing the father to make them pay, is not much of an issue to me. But if there doing this just to get money because they know they can win the case or get a settlement by exploiting their daughter...then there is a problem.

Um, you are a liar. This never happened (the lawsuit or shooting). Not unusual for ATS, as about 90% of posts that relate stories or ideas are pure fantasy. You asked, and there you go - the truth is that you made it all up.

reply to post by sokpuppet


Who are you referring to as a liar? Me?

What proof do you have that the story is false? I will again post the link to the article describing the event.

THIS IS THE STORY

I hope you are not a troll and have something to actually contribute.