Canadian woman hits and kills 17-year-old cyclist… and is now suing his family

In October 2012, 17-year-old Brandon Majewski and his 16-year-old friends Richard McLean and Jake Roberts were biking abreast along the two-lane rural road in Toronto, Canada at 1:30am, when motorist Sharlene Simon hit the teens from behind. Majewski died soon after the crash, and a police investigation ultimately determined that the “lack of visibility” of the cyclists “was the largest contributing factor” in the accident.

Needless to say, the crash and subsequent death of Majewski was nothing short of a tragedy. But 18 months later, there has been a bizarre turn of events. Simon has decided to sue Majewski’s estate for more than $1 million. According to Canada.com, Simon’s attorney filed a statement of claim in Ontario Superior Court last December stating Simon “has sustained and will sustain great pain and suffering,” including “a severe shock to her system” as a result of the crash. Furthermore, “her enjoyment of life has been and will be lessened.”

On radio this morning, Pat referred to Simon’s lawsuit as one of the most “unbelievable” stories he has ever heard.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

“I’m not sure I have ever seen anything like this,” Pat said. “She blames the boys, calling them ‘incompetent bicyclists.’ Is that inconceivable? That’s inconceivable.”

Perhaps the only possible explanation for the lawsuit is the fact that the Majewski family is suing Simon and Simcoe County for a total of $900,000. The Majewski suit alleges Simon was speeding, under the influence, or texting at the time of the accident.

“So I guess the excuse would be: They started it,” Pat surmised. “Is that it? It’s probably her lawyer, I would imagine, saying, ‘All right, maybe you can scare them out of their suit against you by suing them for even more.’”

But Stu wasn’t convinced that would be the best approach for Simon.

“I don’t see how that is going to happen. What judge, what jury would look at a case like this and say, ‘It’s okay for the person who killed a child to sue the parents of that child because the child was in the way of their car,’” Stu asked. “There’s a level of common courtesy, where you don’t sue the family of the child who you killed because you feel stressed out.”

Front page image courtesy of the AP

  • Jon Galt

    The solution seems obvious. Sharlene should be run over by a car until dead, then her unhappiness and suffering will disappear. I suggest the dead boy’s parents be allowed to decide who gets to run her over.

  • Anonymous

    It’s all about MONEY! The parents obviously took advantage to sue big time. If Simon was charged then the parents have grounds for he suit. But, none of the info is here. If she was NOT charged on the spot, then she’s doing the right thing.

  • Deckard426

    If Simon was speeding, under the influence, or texting at the time of the accident, wouldn’t she have been charged?

  • Anonymous

    many times at the speed limit i have rounded a curve in the country and there in the middle of the lane is a person(s) on a bike, make a quick selection head on and die, crash and burn, or hit the bike ‘abreast’ in the middle of the lane,,, was she charged-no! Was she injured-mentally for life,,, think about it. Who was at fault-the child in the street.

  • Elena

    If she had been under the influence or texting, I would hope the police would have charged her w/vehicular manslaughter.

    What were the kids doing out at 1:30 AM? I do not in any way condone or think they were at fault, but why were they not in bed asleep at that ungodly hour of the morning? Were they not wearing reflector vests? had illuminated bike lamps?

  • landofaahs

    I heard the vehicle driver ran a stop sign but I could be wrong. Wait or the facts.

  • Killawog

    !!!

  • Natalie Robert

    іf­&nbspy○ս­&nbsptհіոk­&nbspD○rіs`s­&nbspst○ry­&nbspіs­&nbspɡ○○d…,­&nbspfіve ­&nbspweeks­&nbspaɡ○­&nbspmy­&nbspsіsters­&nbspfrіeոd­&nbspwհ○­&nbspіs ­&nbspa­&nbspsіոɡle­&nbspm○m­&nbspaсtսally­&nbspearոed­&nbsp$8521­&nbsp sіttіոɡ­&nbsptհere­&nbspa­&nbspsіxteeո­&nbspհ○սr­&nbspweek­&nbspfr○m­&nbsp tհere­&nbspհ○սse­&nbspaոd­&nbsptհey’re­&nbspոeіɡհb○r’s­&nbspհalf-sіster`s­&nbspոeіɡհb○սr­&nbspwas­&nbspd○іոɡ­&nbsptհіs­&nbspf○r­&nbspfіve ­&nbspm○ոtհs­&nbspaոd­&nbspreсіeved­&nbspa­&nbspсհeсk­&nbspf○r­&nbsp○ver ­&nbsp$8521­&nbspрart-tіme­&nbsp○ո­&nbsptհeіr­&nbspmaс.­&nbspaррlіe­&nbsptհe­&nbspіոf○rmatі○ո­&nbsp fr○m­&nbsptհіs­&nbspweb-sіte...&nbsphttp://Foxbestbusiness&#50&#x30&#49&#52applyudi4ar….

    ☗☗☗ �☗☗☗ ☗☗☗ ☗�☗☗ ☗☗☗But Stu wasn’t convinced that would be the best approach for Simon.

  • Anonymous

    wow, trey parker and matt stone were right…canadians are douches, lol.

  • Anonymous

    Canada is full of people like this. They’re not all like ths, but SOOOO many….

  • Anonymous

    You’re supposd to be in control of your vehicle at all times. If you are rounding a sharp corner and can’t see what;s there, it is YOUR responsibility to prevent your car from hitting people.
    That whole “at the speed limit” excuse is crap.

  • Anonymous

    Again, this headline’s sole purpose is to inflame the audience. The same headline is used by progressive media and nobody is giving all the true data. According to the police at the scene, NO charges were laid. The conditions were totally unfavorable for any bicylist to be on that road.The victim’s parents decided to sue Simon and charge her with drunk driving, speeding and texting, for $900,000! Now, who is taking advantage of this mishap?

  • Anonymous

    Of course she would. This was not a hit and run episode. The police had NO reason to charge anybody at the scene of the accident.

  • Anonymous

    Ahem! The US is notorious for suits of all sorts. They even got instant lawyers at almost every accident scene too.

  • sbut01

    Libs gone wild. They can also prosecute you for “hate speech”.

  • sbut01

    I would blame the slimy lawyers for ALL of this. I’m sure it was their idea.

  • Mike Nelson

    R. A. Heinlein for the win!

  • texastruthtweet

    They are “ambulance chasers”, and we all pay for these frivolous lawsuits!

  • Carl-Cathy Wisnesky

    People who ride a bike on a dark unlit winding road while wearing dark clothing & with no lights on the bike are accidents waiting to happen. Hard enough to miss one rider like that, but 3 riding abreast is just about impossible to miss, especially on a curve. There are bike headlights, taillights, & strobe lights available in most stores. Any reasonable person would have these on their bike, if using the bike at night, & any reasonable parent would insist on buying & installing these items on the bikes of their children. Accidents like this happen all the time & the drivers’ are cleared because it is the carelessness of the kids & the parents that caused it – not the driver. Deer & bear are continually being hit at night because they are on the road with no illumination, so why is a person on a dark road with no illumination any different? The lady filed the suit in retaliation to the parents filing a lawsuit first. It is the best defense in a civil non-criminal matter. A reasonable judge, if they exist in today’s world, will throw out both lawsuits. Neither lawsuit would have occurred if there was a “looser pays the other person’s costs” statute in force.

  • Carl-Cathy Wisnesky

    Apparently you have never driven a vehicle on a dark winding country road at night & must be a city dweller. Have you ever hit a deer, bear, pheasant, or wild turkey? You city dwellers with your fully lit roads that are as bright at night as in the day have no idea what it is like to drive a rural country road at night.

  • Anonymous

    Were her headlights on? Was she overdriving the light from them — too fast? Were the kids just around a corner, and seen too late thereby? Could the kids have heard her coming, and cleared the road?

    All sorts of questions like this that could explain a lot about the circumstances beyond a bare-bones report.

    Then a suit — countersuit situation. Sad that it came to this. Headline reportage was a bit one-sided if it were countersuit as well. Inconceivable, yes, but maybe not so much, if we knew more of the minds involved. Anguish can, and should, be overcome, and not allowed to fester to this ridiculous level. Poor spirits on both sides, it would seem. Ah, well, human nature at its baser manifestation, perhaps.

    If we don’t know it all, perhaps we should not judge, but assist in healing.

    Laus Deo

  • jj

    SHOW THE DAMN WOMAN FACE WHO IS SUEING!!!!!!!!! EVERYONE IS PROTECTING HER STUPID @SS

  • Mike Nelson

    Wow, I bet I’d drive those dark, winding, bumpy, unlit roads pretty slowly…

  • Mary Guillemette

    if you can’t tell a deer apart from a boy on a bike then you shouldn’t be driving at night. A deer will jump out into the road without warning. A boy on a bike should be visible with headlights and the person driving should be going slow enough to either brake or go around. There’s a reason cars come with a high beam setting on headlights, it’s so that at night more of the road can be visible.

  • Roberta Crichton

    I’ve found this to be a useful antidote against the superstitions of today’s liberals and progressives, formatted for smartphones: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878

  • chandy2009

    She was not charged because her husband is a police officer.. why was he following behind her at 1:30am ? hmmmm ..