digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at cnn.com —

Driver drops bid to sue family of boy he killed

cnn.com — Tomas Delgado had filed a suit asking the dead boy's parents to pay him €20,000 ($29,400) on the grounds that the collision that killed their teenage son also damaged his Audi A-8.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jquipp, on 01/30/2008, -34/+123The guy kills their son..no criminal charges against him and wants to collect for damages to his car...outrageous!
    • phrozted, on 01/30/2008, -2/+29You must be some kind of detective! Not fair.
    • 00Dan, on 01/30/2008, -11/+100no criminal charges against him

      That's the part most people are conveniently ignoring. If I decide to run across the highway where I'm not supposed to and you hit me and total your car, would you honestly say to yourself "Poor guy, guess I'll have to get a new car and pay off two car loans for the next 5 years"

      On one hand you have two people who just lost a son, on the other you have someone who is now on the hook for $27k.
      • chedabob, on 01/30/2008, -19/+6Except the guy was 15mph above the speed limit. I see your point, but in this case, it's not valid.
        • 00Dan, on 01/30/2008, -3/+14Only if that 15mph above the speed limit contributed to the accident.
          Here's a hypothetical- I'm doing 15mph over the speed limit and someone runs a red light. Does the fact that I was speeding really matter? It's possible that a judge could determine that I would have been less injured had I not been speeding and contributed to my own injuries reducing my settlement, but that would not negate his liability.
          • svander, on 01/30/2008, -1/+16This is correct.

            Not all cases of pedestrian vs. car make the driver automatically liable. If the accident resulted due to the negligence of the kid, then the driver has the right to be compensated for damages to his property.

            Of course none of us know the specific details of the accident (there are thousands of factors that come into play here, facts that only the authorities, lawyers and insurance companies involved know for sure) but it's entirely plausible that the driver was not at fault for this.
          • kooft, on 01/30/2008, -2/+3Braking distance, force of impact and reaction time all factor in the the driver's ability to avoid the accident I don't think this guy should be be on death row or anything, but he was driving recklessly next to a campground and ended up killing a kid. I'm sure he was suing the parents because his insurance company wouldn't pay to fix his car, and why should they?
          • gyrfalcon, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4The driver, Tomás Delgado Bartolomé (43), was never convicted despite later testing positive for alcohol and it being proven that he had been driving at 174km an hour, 84 km an hour above the maximum speed limit of 90km an hour.

            http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/14391/death-c ...

            However, his insurance company was forced to pay the victim's parents €33,000 in compensation.
        • Pake, on 01/30/2008, -1/+8And the kid wasn't wearing reflective gear that Spanish law requires.
          • gyrfalcon, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1But he was wearing a helmet!!! /sarcasm
        • norman619, on 01/30/2008, -2/+3..
      • Navicerts, on 01/30/2008, -9/+7Maybe if it was clear cut the boy's fault, but if you read the article that's not the case at all. If anything it looks like a honest accident with neither party guilty of doing anything that you or I would do on any given day (but they got un-lucky). The article goes on to say the guy was going 70 in a 55, I'm not going to fault the guy for this who hasn't gone that much over, hopefully he is more cautious now. No further action is necessary, it's just bitterness on both sides (parents is more understandable than the Audi driver's but neither in "the right").
        • MxM111, on 01/30/2008, -2/+11"Maybe if it was clear cut the boy's fault, but if you read the article that's not the case at all."
          The article is not the court. The court say that it was not driver fault, it did not say that it was not boy's fault, because that was not the question before the court.
          However, if the driver think that it was indeed the boy's fault, and can prove it, then it is legitimate case that can be heard by the court. I do not see any wrong doing here.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 01/30/2008, -8/+41Yeah it is. The only reason he wasn't charged is because it was demonstrated that he couldn't avoid the accident. The kid died because he didn't respect traffic laws, not because Delgado was speeding. Also going 15 mph over a 55mph might increase stopping distance by about a meter or two, not enough to avoid someone who's not supposed to be there. It's not a crime, it's not reckless driving, it's just mild speeding.

        The article that explained he was suing for damages had a lot more details about the accident.

        And he is in fact allowed by law to sue for damages because the parents are liable for their minor. It's incredibly mean and unsensitive but that doesn't mean it's ethically wrong. He didn't make a mistake that cost someone his life. The kid did.
        • zaqarov, on 01/30/2008, -8/+4Just FYI, being mean and insensitive = ethically wrong
          Should have used "legally" instead of "ethically"

          I completely agree with you though.
          • voyvf, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2That really depends on one's own ethical code.

            I honestly don't think the driver was at fault; the kid wasn't wearing any reflective gear, and had obviously not been paying attention to where he was going. Having been down dark roads before, I know how difficult it can be to see cyclists when they *are* wearing reflective gear and lights on their bikes.
          • zaqarov, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1@voyvf:
            "I honestly don't think the driver was at fault;"
            That's what ElAssoWipo said, and I do agree with him, just pointed out he should have used a different word to be completely correct. But it does indeed depend on one's own ethical code.
          • Rsulliv1, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1"That really depends on one's own ethical code. "

            Aren't morals subjective and ethics objective?

            I've had to take Ethics classes in school, but I never have seen a Morality class. Well, most people create their own morals based on a verity of personal and societal concerns, other people attend Religious Services (i.e., Morality Classes (for those that can't determine their own) == Religion).
        • kooft, on 01/30/2008, -2/+5"Also going 15 mph over a 55mph might increase stopping distance by about a meter or two, not enough to avoid someone who's not supposed to be there"

          The US DOT says different. They list stopping distance at 50MPH as 268ft (sorry, 55MPH wasn't listed) and 70MPH as 464ft. That's a huge difference. In broad daylight the guy would have been clearly guilty but I believe the accident happened at night, or at least dusk, so his visibility was reduced.

          US DOT lists lo-beam headlights as illuminating up to 160ft, which is well short of the stopping distance @ 50MPH, so the accident was unavoidable. Now, the question comes down to impact force on an object 160ft away from the vehicle after it begins braking Either way you're getting hit, but personally I'd rather be hit by someone doing 15MPH rather than someone doing 40MPH.
        • KataLieb, on 01/30/2008, -3/+6Youre completely wrong about the breaking distance of 55 vs 70 mph. The breaking distance increases to the second power of speed, so If speed doubles, breaking distance is FOUR TIMES MORE. This is one of the things many people who dont understand physcis miss. This is why slowing speeds in urban areas dramatically decreases deaths. Slowing from 50 km/h to 40 km/h doubles the chance of surviving being ran over.

          From 70 mph overall stopping distance (reaction+breaking) is 315 ft, from 55 mph it is about 200 feet. So Delgado speeding caused an increase of 115 feet in his breaking distance, possibly making all the difference between life and death for the boy.
          http://www.britain.tv/motoring_carstopdistance.sht ...
          • ElAssoWipo, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Nope. Riding in the street and not respecting circulation killed the boy, as per the judgement. He was in a place he wasn't suppose to be in while not wearing any kind of protective or refelective gear, all things that are equal in severity of offense to speeding.

            They both comitted the same level of infraction.

            The assumption I made about stoping distance was just to illustrate that he couldn't avoid the accident. It's not the argument itself. The stopping distance could have increased a thousand times, the fact remains that going 15 mph over the speed limit is no worse, legally, than not wearing a helmet, not respecting circulation signs, not wearing proper protective gear.
          • kooft, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1"...going 15 mph over the speed limit is no worse, legally, than not wearing a helmet"

            Moire or less, but I agree. The kid was responsible for the lack of protective/reflective gear but the guy was guilty of speeding. The combination of the two made the accident deadly. I don't believe the guy should legally be able to sue for damages considering he was found guilty of violating the law just as I don't believe the parents should be able to sue for the kids wrongful death.

            Now, if new evidence comes to light finding that the guy was drinking before the accident, as is being reported in other articles, then the situation needs to be re-examined and this guy may deserve some serious jail time.
        • cbuddha42, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4US DOT fails @ estimating the stopping distances of decent drivers in cars with good breaks. I mean honestly, they give you a number of feet. Do you really thing some pos car stops as fast as an audi?
        • kooft, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2I agree cbuddha42, but again I was giving the driver the benefit of the doubt. Assuming his Audi was a piece of crap and he had average reaction times, the difference in impact speeds is very significant.
        • Roryking, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2>>going 15 mph over a 55mph might increase stopping distance ... It's not a crime
          uhh.... actually, breaking the speed limit IS a crime
        • chrisatwork, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1@cbuddha

          An Audi doesn't have magical super-friction tires. No matter the technology, stopping distance increases more than linearly with speed.
      • BobOki, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1Too little is actually published about this case in that article to fairly say either way.
        It does not state whos fault it is, but you must draw conclusions based of the initial verdict. It was not stated if his excessive speed caused or could have avoided the accident. It was not stated even if he HIT the boy or the boy HIT him really....
        One way or another, this guy could be in the total right, having endured killing someone, the loss of his car, possible loss of his job due to stress, etcetc.
        All this is null and void if he was guilty of a crime, and not just an unfortunate participant in an even more unfortunate death. If he was... then this son of a bitch deserves to die a slow, horrible death.
        • norman619, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1FTA:
          "Shortly after the collision, a judge dismissed criminal charges against Delgado after concluding that he had committed no criminal infraction, the Spanish newspaper El Pais reported.

          The teen's mother, Rosa, told the newspaper that the family was given three days to appeal the judge's ruling, but they were too distraught to pursue it. She also told the newspaper that her family's lawyer advised her and her husband not to pursue criminal charges."


          This pretty much tells me the courts already said he committed no crime. The family lawyer also advised against seeking criminal charges. What more do you want?

      • drakenlot, on 01/30/2008, -8/+18Sorry, but RTA:

        His son was killed as he cycled back from a nearby village to a campground where his family was vacationing.
        Iriondo Trinidad's father told CNN he heard the screeching of the car from the campgrounds. The teen was struck from behind and dragged 106 meters (347 feet) along the rural highway, the father said.
        A traffic report said Delgado was traveling 113 km per hour (70 mph) in an area where the speed limit is 90 km (55 mph). An independent expert hired by Trinidad's family said Delgado was going 173 km per hour (107 mph).

        Two things strike against your argument,

        one, this happened not on a highway, but on a rural road near a campground. The kid had every right to be where he was, and even if he quickly crossed the road and got hit, it's a driver's duty to be aware.
        two, he may have not been charged, but he damn well should have been. going 113 in an 90 zone? that is considered speeding not matter where you live.

        the driver is almost entirely at fault here, unless some strange ***** went on there. Not to mention, you honestly would care about a ***** car more than a life?
        • CedEx, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3And that 113 kmph is from the traffic report, whereas the other report states 173 kmph, but in either case, requiring 106m to stop the car indicates he was going way faster than he should have.
        • drakenlot, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2I just noticed I wrote rural road instead of rural highway. It doesn't change my opinion, but it kind of shows what living in the middle of Bum-***** nowhere does to your sense of speed.
        • fjc8, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3In many parts of the United States, 15 mph over a 55 mph limit isn't very significant. If driving over the speed limit is the only offense, you're likely to get nothing more than a fine & a record of the infraction that your insurance company may use to raise rates... Many states introduce a more severe charge of reckless driving or something similar at 20-25mph over the posted limit.

          "one, this happened not on a highway, but on a rural road near a campground. The kid had every right to be where he was, and even if he quickly crossed the road and got hit, it's a driver's duty to be aware."
          Riding a bike on a rural highway with a 55 mph speed limit at night does not sound like a good idea.
        • cowboy86, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Last time I checked, if you hit anyone not in a car you were at fault no matter what.
      • fantasticFlan, on 01/30/2008, -5/+1If the kid was at fault then the kid was at fault, not the family.
        • maximusGeek, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4Hes a minor... thats how it works
      • cigawoot, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2In Iowa, fault can be given to the driver regardless because he was speeding and therefore breaking the law. In Iowa he'd be facing vehicular homicide charges, at the minimum involuntary manslaughter.
        • cbuddha42, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2So in Iowa if crazy man sprint out from behind a tree and dives under the wheels of a vechicle on the freeway then the driver gets charged with vehicular homicide? GOOO Iowa!
          • cigawoot, on 01/30/2008, -1/+21) Was the person violating the law?
            2) Was the person who ran out in front of the car suicidal?
            3) Did you stop and assist after hitting the person?

            I'm not a lawyer, but I know the circumstances do apply when charges are filed.
        • cowboy86, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1That's how it is in most states.
      • Kronk42583, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1i agree. and this also looks worse than it is. i'ts not like the family is going to have to shell out the money, they are probably requesting the kids insurance company to pay for repairs. same as would happen in any non fatal accident.
      • mistafreeze, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1This was probably just a ploy, to ensure he looked innocent. I mean (in his mind) if he was guilty, would he be suing for damages for his car?

        He likely dropped the charges once he found out the family was not going to sue him.
    • dualityim, on 01/30/2008, -6/+55Not every automobile/pedestrian collision is the automobile driver's fault. Contrary to popular belief, pedestrians do not ALWAYS have the right of way.
      • Jenovaside, on 01/30/2008, -1/+9In America they do. "you must always yield right of way to a pedestrian"
        If cross the road in a place they are not suppose to, it is illegal and they can be fined, but drivers are still required to yield right of way to them. If they jump out in front of your car from out of your field of sight, they have the right of way; but it is not your fault if you hit them, provided you did everything in your power to avoid hitting then.
        Yes i know this happened in Spain , just pointing out.
        • kungfoolou, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1That's true in some citites, try driving and walking in Atlanta, it's a little different of a story here.
    • debuggercll, on 01/30/2008, -8/+33He should have sold the loot that the kid dropped to buy repairs at the blacksmith.
    • cawpin, on 01/30/2008, -1/+7FTA - "Yet he also said his family will explore the possibility of criminal charges against the man."

      I'm not sure, since it's Spain, but the only people who can bring criminal charges are police.
      • drakenlot, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1They meant they'd contact police about any criminal charges that can be laid this long after.
      • Rsulliv1, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1I think that this is BS because the article stated that the initial court ruling (2 years ago, mind you) showed no criminal neglect on behalf of the driver. Then the family had three days to appeal. They did not.

        But, they wait two years until the Driver drops his charges before deciding they want to go against the initial ruling? I wonder if the driver is considering reinstating his charges.

        I think both parties should put this behind them.
    • glitched, on 01/30/2008, -1/+10The Spanish court found both parties at fault: Iriondo for not wearing any reflective clothing in the dark nor a helmet, Delgado for speeding.
    • Pake, on 01/30/2008, -6/+15So, you're going to blame the guy entirely for an accident both people were responsible for? The kid wasn't wearing reflective materials at the time he was legally suppose to and he didn't pay attention when riding across the road, while the guy was speeding. Both are to blame and you want the guy to be charged with crimes over it? You want him to experience all the financial burden when it was ruled as equal guilt? Why should his insurance company be forced to pay both for the kids life and the car? Shouldn't he pay for the kids life and the family for the car since it's equal guilt?
      • MRintheKeys, on 01/30/2008, -7/+1I don't see one person being dead and a damaged car as equal guilt.
        • Pake, on 01/30/2008, -1/+9Umm, what? Equal guilt means when both parties were equally responsible for the accident, not who received the most damage.
          • MRintheKeys, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1I don't see how wearing reflective gear is going to improve the reaction time of someone who is driving between 70 and 110 mph in a 55mph speed zone.
          • kooft, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2I think the issue is that even if the guy were driving the speed limit and the kid still didn't have reflective gear on, the kid would have been hit anyway. I don't know the nighttime visibility of reflective gear, but I assume it extends well beyond the lo-beam range otherwise bikes would be illegal on that road. So, if the kid had reflective gear on and the driver wasn't speeding, then no accident. They both erred and the kid died as a result.
        • norman619, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Ah yes so if I kill someone who decided to commit suicide by jumping in front of my car I'm the one at fault? It's a bit more complicated than who lived and who died moron. STFU
          • MRintheKeys, on 01/30/2008, -1/+0Yeah, that's why everybody plays the "hey he jumped in front of my car while I was speeding down a darkened road" card. Douche.
          • jsmu, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0Yeah, obviously the kid WANTED to die. Imbecile. STFU
      • kingmanic, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Dead vs repair costs I think both paid for their mistakes. Even though one paid more I think it should end at that.
        • norman619, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1What was his mistake? Driving down that road at that time?
        • Pake, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1I'm just saying that equal guilt should be equal payment. Either he pays them or he pays for the repairs, but not both.
          • kingmanic, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1His insurance paid them. His insurance likely would have paid for his car too but it jacks up his premiums. He's just being a jerk.
          • Pake, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1The simply fact that his insurance paid for the kid means his premiums will be going up. That leads back to the same issue, he's being considered financially responsible for everything in a case where it was considered equal guilt.
    • vertinox, on 01/30/2008, -1/+6Once a kid on a bike fling himself off the side walk right into right into the side of my car. It wasn't in an intersection and luckily I was moving slow and he hadn't decided to do it sooner which would have put himself in front of my car. There was no way I could avoided him since I was on the road and he was on the sidewalk and the last thing you expect is them to do a 90 degrees and ram your car. Even if I had time to react the only place I could go was into oncoming traffic or towards him which would have made it worse. I guess he was doing a bike trick that went wrong and couldn't stop.

      I got out of the car and see if he was ok and needed emregency help and the kid got back on his bike and he fled realizing that he might have dented my car. I called the police to report it just to make sure they new something happened if he went into a hospital later and the last thing I wanted to be accussed of was a hit an run.

      So yeah... Sometimes a pedestrian can cause an accident where they are totally at fault, but suing them is kind of tasteless.
    • bingobongony, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3Again...IGNOIRE the fact that the kid was on a bikie. Becuase htat is meaningless. Thinks of him as just another motorist. Because they is what he legally is. Are you saying that in EVERY car acident in which both aprties are found to be equally responsible for the crash that if one dies, then the other one should go to jail?
      • lust, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1Before submitting your comment check your spelling. It'll make you look like an idiot if you don't.
        • cigawoot, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1It means nothing what his spelling is, his opinion still stands.
    • BlueStarr, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Wow. Just....
    • ywwg, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1way to go, captain obvious
  • stevejobs, on 01/30/2008, -22/+242Tomas Delgado is a piece of *****.
    • VaporBro, on 01/30/2008, -34/+2Steve Jobs announces today the iTomasDelagado(isa)Piece-o-*****.
      • drakenlot, on 01/30/2008, -1/+13so... incredibly stupid..... gonna punch vaporbro in his face
      • ivanisavich, on 01/30/2008, -2/+13That was probably the lamest comment I've ever seen on Digg, vaporbro.

        They should setup a hall of fame for you, where a picture of your face is shown, and eggs are provided for throwing purposes.
      • lust, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2WTF??? I don't get it???
      • VaporBro, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1His screenname is stevejobs. I found it funny that Steve Jobs called the guy a piece of *****. Guess not to many people were on the same funny wavelength as I was. Can't win em all the time.
      • TheDHC, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2this is an epic fail at comedy
      • lordbonzo, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0Samir from office space: "yes, this is horrible"
    • dinobot, on 01/30/2008, -3/+16Tomas Delgado es un pedazo de mierda.

      Hey, someone had to translate it so someone can go ahead and key his vehicle with words he can understand.
    • bitterman316, on 01/30/2008, -2/+5Does Tomas Delgado want the bitty?
    • MRintheKeys, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3I would like nominate him for "***** of the Year." I know it's still early but I think he's a pretty good vote.
      • dinobot, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1No *****! He and John Gibson are seen as early front runners for the award.
    • hawkeye17, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Delgado is a sick *****.
    • RedHairedMan, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1"The businessman had insisted in a recent television interview that he was a victim, too. His lawyer told the court that Delgado felt that the extensive publicity amounted to a public lynching."
      No, it's not a public lynching...yet.
    • foolishwolf, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Can someone create a t-shirt that says "Tomas Delgado is a piece of *****"? I'm sure the child's parents would buy a truckload (as well as me and the rest of the Digg populus).
  • ClockworksNine, on 01/30/2008, -10/+82Someone needs to get punched in the face.
    • Malevolant, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1i think a donkey punch would better fit the crime
    • passedoutghost, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2FALCON PUNCH!
    • iiBeLiEvE, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3I think being hit by an Audi A-8 would be better.
    • BlueStarr, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3More like a solid glass tube shoved up his ass then shattered with a hammer.
    • WanderingK, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0I'd settle for taking a crowbar to his precious Audi.
  • mroffroad, on 01/30/2008, -19/+109There is a hot place in HELL waiting for this man.
    • Raian, on 01/30/2008, -6/+23hmm I didn't know Wal Mart was hiring...
      • lust, on 01/30/2008, -4/+3Screw Wal-Mart. Send him to prison in the US so he can be butt ***** by a 300 lb neo-Nazi fascist pig for the rest of his ***** life.
    • fearlessfx, on 01/30/2008, -6/+3Chained next to Hitler and that space reserved for Uwe Boll, no doubt.
      • drakenlot, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Boll has slightly redeemed himself when he said he's quit though.
    • snyperr2s, on 01/30/2008, -6/+1Saying "man" isnt necessary, more like, "Boy", after all, only a little boy would do something like that
    • skyshock1, on 01/30/2008, -3/+2I disagree. He's on the hook for $30,000+ now because the kid decided to off himself on the dude's car. What is the guy supposed to do, declare bankruptcy just b/c the kid died? I feel bad for his parents and all, but they are still legally liable for him.
      • Gutterpunk, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1You are kind of an idiot aren't you?
      • jsmu, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Yeah, stupid kid, decided to off himself. On the dude's car who was going god knows how fast and could also have had booze in his system. You and Delgado make a great pair.
    • foolishwolf, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1No, hell isn't enough.
  • banido, on 01/30/2008, -9/+91Still an *****.
    • blumer, on 01/30/2008, -3/+4And *that* charge won't get dropped!
    • sdub74, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2This guy is inventing a whole new level of *****.
  • Kardde, on 01/30/2008, -17/+143"His lawyer told the court that Delgado felt that the extensive publicity amounted to a public lynching." It's too bad it hasn't turned into an actual lynching.
    • dinobot, on 01/30/2008, -2/+9agreed, or they could rent an old and busted fiat and ran him over with it, and then charge him for the damages
    • pevensen, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4A much deserved one!
    • Amnesia10, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2Better still a conviction for dangerous and reckless driving.
    • theragu40, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4Yes, because that would have fixed things.
    • MysticSavage, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1I got some rope, does anyone want to drive me down there?
    • BlueStarr, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1Aren't you people Christian? Or better yet for the ones that are, where is Christ influence in your thoughts and posts? Go back and re-read. Practice-Practice-Practice.
      • bentrinh, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Yes, because EVERYONE is Christian
        /sarcasm
      • confusednazgul, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1What on earth makes you assume that anyone is Christian?
  • goerg, on 01/30/2008, -41/+9in america, the drivers ***** you
  • pigfarts, on 01/30/2008, -10/+15*****
    • J4k3, on 01/30/2008, -9/+1Exactly. ***** latino scumbag (and before y'all get your panties twisted, this is coming from someone born in the Caribbean, so I know what I'm talking about).
  • lnxfi, on 01/30/2008, -30/+2That guy has got some major balls.

    Unrelated: That girl in the weight loss ad is freaking hot. Almost makes up for the pimple one.
  • bbhh, on 01/30/2008, -8/+5would this be called justice?
    • plhearn, on 01/30/2008, -5/+7Justice would be him getting run over by a car.
      • thcobbs, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4Justice would be killing someone over not being at fault in a car accident?
    • drakenlot, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4No, justice would be if he got hit by a car leaving the courtroom, then was charged for damaging the BMW
      • bbhh, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2i think that would be irony. but, you're probably right
        • drakenlot, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Irony and justice go hand in hand my friend
    • Navicerts, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Well, you can't demand justice based off the fact that the guy is an ass hole. You could demand justice if the guy was drunk, impaired, reckless driving, but as it stands he is just an ass hole that has poor reaction time. I doubt he was going 107 as a private investigator for the boys family said, i bet it is more along the lines of 70 in a 55 like the official report said.

      Both parties should just drop it, there is nothing but regret in any more actions either of them will/could take imo.
  • troycott, on 01/30/2008, -15/+10what a *****
  • rstarr, on 01/30/2008, -16/+35So, who's up for finding where he lives and kicking his ass?
    • Saffa, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3Hmm, a Digg lynch mob, this I'd like to see
    • Ender008, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Internet tough guy strikes again!
      • rstarr, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1STFU n00b I"LL KICK YOUR ASS!
        /troll

        Listen, this is a guy who serious needs some sense beat into him. He has seriously gone beyond what is sane and moral in spite of mountains of common sense. Either he is actually mentally handicap or he's just a douche of epic proportions. It's jerks like this that make me lose faith in any brotherhood mankind ever had. He definitely deserves to get some sense knocked in him with a 9 iron...which I will sue him for breaking over his kneecap.
  • ticookie, on 01/30/2008, -11/+36Kill their son and take their money...I hadn't realized we'd fallen back to the Middle Ages.
    • Antixian, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6we never left the mentality from that age. look around the whole world lives this way.
      • windandstorm, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1that isn't completely true neither false. Some characteristics are kept from the stone ages while others have left with age. but I would go more with no you're wrong because there are significant changes. We are more careful, this is hard to believe but true, but we do even more dangerous things.
    • jsmu, on 01/31/2008, -2/+0B
      U
      S
      H
  • nikstr, on 01/30/2008, -7/+12now that's an *****
  • PropCulture, on 01/30/2008, -25/+27Suddenly, John Edward has some competition for Biggest Douche in the Universe.
    • mal1964, on 01/30/2008, -3/+4Because he sued hospitals and doctors ? I'm not sure but wasn't he most of the time representing people for doctors mistakes?
      • Logicexe, on 01/30/2008, -0/+5You're thinking of the wrong John Edward. He's talking about the self proclaimed psychic who claims he can talk to dead family members.
    • mal1964, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1@prop, it was a nicely asked and fair question, but I apologize for my lack of knowledge.
      • MysticSavage, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0Perhaps he was referring to that douche that claims to talk to the dead. Now that guy's a superdouche.
        • mal1964, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I see now its Edward, not Edwards
    • nationalist, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edward
      note the lack of an 's'
  • mal1964, on 01/30/2008, -6/+18I bet it was a lawyers idea.
    • ffingers, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3DUMB comment....just because there is a lawsuit involved doesn't me a lawyer came up with it. Believe it or not, people actually go TO lawyers. It's actually against the code of professional responsibility to solicit like you are suggesting. I am not naive and know it goes on, but you are making a blanket statement assuming jackass lawsuits are born from a lawyer's head.

      I got news for you, people are jackasses and unfortunately, sometimes lawyers end up being the conduit for their crap. Sometimes the lawyers are to blame, but I would venture to say 85% or more of the time, it's the individual person's greed that causes these lawsuits!
      • mal1964, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1I'm just guessing because i really don't know, But its what i think. if you say its dumb OK, I can live with that
      • mal1964, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1I'm not a lawyer basher and i don't think this way all the time But this case i do.
    • zionKing, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Say ffingers what line of work are you in?
  • dinobot, on 01/30/2008, -6/+14How do spell douche bag in spanish?
    • Raian, on 01/30/2008, -5/+41Tomas Delgado
      • dinobot, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2I guess from now on, under the spanish version of the Merriam-Webster (or if you wanna be anal retentive, el Real Diccionario de la Lengua Española) is gonna have his photo under 'Douche bag'
      • arunforce, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1That cracked me up, +10 Raian.
    • zenerdiode, on 01/30/2008, -2/+10El Douche' Baggo?
    • WolverineBlue, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3D-E-L-G-A-D-O
    • Linzee82, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1According to google: Douche bolsa. Doesn't quite hold the *umph* as the American version but there you go.
    • beautifulbeast, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Probably something like "cabrón hijo de perra"?
      • techweenie1, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Hmm a bastard son of a bitch just ain't the same as a douche...
    • hansk, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3Bolsa de Sumersión. ?
    • areygadas, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Try "Hijo de puta"... it fits right
  • connorcrehan, on 01/30/2008, -7/+6Total scumbag
  • kgorczyn, on 01/30/2008, -7/+21A Classic Coward. If he's worried about $30k and he's driving an A-8 he should not have been driving that car in the first place.
    • skyshock1, on 01/30/2008, -1/+6I disagree. Maybe he was a car nut, and lived in an apartment going from paycheck to paycheck. Who are YOU to decide how a person spends their money to make them happy?
      • jsmu, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0Uh, learn to read, could you? He is NOT living from paycheck to paycheck.
    • HeroDreamerCS, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3Or....or he's just a dick driving a nice car. No?
    • Rsulliv1, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Sir, you certainly haven't driven an A8. ;)

      And, I'm not sure how being a coward applies here. If anything, not that I approve, but it could be cowardly not to go after that money since he is legally allowed to it. something like, "he's a coward by letting his morals get in the way of his finances". Not that I agree with it.
  • daxsymbiont, on 01/30/2008, -7/+9omg what a ***** prick.
  • andywebb95, on 01/30/2008, -4/+8What a prick.
    At least he dropped the suit though.
    And the picture above is perfect.
    • blackinthmiddle, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2He only dropped it because of the negative publicity (more than likely death threats) he was getting. Hopefully, he'll have to look over his shoulders for the rest of his life.
      • Ravatar, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Why? For a terrible accident that put him almost 30 thousand in the hole? The lending institution doesnt give a ***** what happened, THEY WANT THEIR MONEY.
  • zimmp, on 01/30/2008, -17/+5I could understand asking them for the Euro, the US dollar is crap
    • beautifulbeast, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Well, this happened in Spain where the Euro is the local currency.
  • ghostlywind, on 01/30/2008, -2/+21Something likes this happened to my cousin after his dog got hit buy a car and the guy got out of the car and told my cousin to give him his insurance because his dog dented his car.
    • momsshizzle, on 01/30/2008, -10/+5His girlfriend dented the car?
      • drakenlot, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2I'm sorry, I laughed but it was a stupid sort of pity laugh you give when the local SPED kid tells a joke.
      • Ender008, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2It would be funnier if people understood what you were referencing (the goth on a leash article).
    • Pittance, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4I'd love to be the litigator or adjustor in charge of that insurance battle. Just a little leak to the media would get enough social pressure to get a few hundred/thousand dollar settlement from the drivers insurance paid to the dog owner for damage to property.
    • wtsexton00, on 01/30/2008, -10/+1A little missing with your story. If your dog ran out in front of me causing damage to my car even if I did kill said dog I would ask you to pay for the damages. That or my insurance company will sue you to get back their money when I file the claim.
      Now if the guy ran into the back yard with the car and killed the dog that's another story.
      • Arcesius, on 01/30/2008, -1/+6Yeah, ***** being a decent person about it.
        • wtsexton00, on 01/30/2008, -1/+0Maybe you have great amounts of money but I don't. I would feel sorry for it happening but I'm not swallowing the costs because of the parties irresponsibility.
          Look at how much it would cost to replace your bumper and air bags and tell me you wouldn't want someone to pay for it if it was their fault.
      • Tuto, on 01/30/2008, -0/+8No offense, but if it was my dog you killed and asked me to pay for the damages on the same spot my dog is rotting I would urge you to get back into your car and leave while you still can.
        • wtsexton00, on 01/31/2008, -3/+0No I'd be polite, exchange numbers even offer to give you transportation to vet. But I don't see why you guys are getting upset about me expecting you to take responsibility for your mistake. I have a great number of pets and love them but I'd take responsibility. Then again you don't see many ferrets running out in front of cars so I don't expect it.
          If you tried to commit physical harm to me over, again your problem, you would be in a good bit more trouble.
      • jsmu, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2You and Delgado deserve each other.
    • inverselogic, on 01/31/2008, -2/+0by damn it by! I hate to be the grammar nazi but wtf...
    • chrisatwork, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2His dog shouldn't have been in the road and is/was your cousin's legal responsibility. Keep your damn dog out of the road.

      /devil's advocate, but I do also feel this way about keeping your pets under control
  • bmarks, on 01/30/2008, -7/+1no charges, what a ***** loser
  • Lkr721993, on 01/30/2008, -4/+8time to hire Phoenix Wright
    • Pittance, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0Boot to the head seems like a fitting punishment.
  • PFinn, on 01/30/2008, -4/+12how the hell did that judge find no wrong doing on the driver when he could have been going 100mph in a 55mph zone (yes i realize this isnt in america, but mph makes more sense to me than km per hour)....wtf, speeding and reckless endangerment among other things arent laws over there?
    • cptnawesome, on 01/30/2008, -4/+1I don't know the judicial system in Spain, but I really, really doubt a judge is allowed to act on his own accord. The driver is the plaintiff, so what do you want him to do to the guy? He can't do anything but dismiss and maybe impose some sanctions (although those are likely to be levied against the attorney). Do you think a judge should just feel free to throw him in jail with no kind of trial?
      • PFinn, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3not in the least bit, FTA: "Shortly after the collision, a judge dismissed criminal charges against Delgado after concluding that he had committed no criminal infraction".....this is what i was referring to, he was obviously the defendant in this case where he could have been slapped with infractions for driving like a maniac...he then later sued the family for damages in a completely separate case
    • pu-z, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Not that I'm defending this douchebag at all, but according to a reconstruction video of the incident the boy on the bike ran a stop sign. Now, In America there's stop signs literally everywhere, so I don't know if they have the same meaning as in Europe. But here, they really do mean stop, since the crossing road probably is really dangerous to just get on.
      I can't find the video of the Spanish program right now, but it's out there.
      That being said, Delgado is one of those people who in another setting becomes the Dr. Mengeles, the Pol Pots and the like. Pure cynicism and selfishness.
      • AronT, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3I don't know what you're smoking because in America the pedestrian ALWAYS has the right of way. Even if you're doing the speed limit and a wacko jumps out of the bushes in front of you - it's still your fault.*

        * Unless the pedestrian is somewhere that pedestrians are not permitted, i.e. an interstate highway. But there wouldn't be bushes there anyway.**

        ** At least not the kind of bushes that a whole person could hide in!

        • westway2world, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2So if I'm driving down the road doing the speed limit, and some guy doesn't look and crosses, and I do everything I can to avoid him but still hit him, is it still my fault? Seems like a lot of assholes would be committing insurance fraud.
        • pu-z, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1In the same video, he was on a bike. Now, Spaniards are usually quite respectful towards bikers so this situation is unusual.
    • bfron110, on 01/30/2008, -2/+0no mad mothers against drunk driving of smoking there!
    • Rsulliv1, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1The court approved inspector didn't say he was going 100mph. the inspector with an agenda (hired by the family) did. The court found he was going 15mph over. How many of us have gone 15 mph over on a "highway", rural or not?
  • cellard00r, on 01/30/2008, -12/+1If it was an S-8, I could understand, but an A-8? Unforgivable.
  • albertical, on 01/30/2008, -6/+0the next step is to get in jail to this piece of ***** who soesnt have no respect to nobody but his fuc.. ass.
    hope if get in jail cause someone let him clear
  • ichunxo, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6Now the boy's parents want to sue the guy (again)? Hmm..
    • ukfoole, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1No, they want criminal procedings. Very different system, even in Spain.

      Besides, this guy only had to cough up €33,000 when he ran over the kid and wanted €20,000 of it back. Which would mean the cost of a Spaniards life is about €13,000. Dang, that is cheap.
    • drakenlot, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1The eternal loop of any 'justice' system.

      I was rear-ended four years ago, and I'm still dealing with ***** today from that. The ***** had the gall to sue me for getting rear-ended at a red light.
    • Rsulliv1, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1It's BS to me. the driver was already cleared of any criminal doings. The family passed their time to appeal the case. I don't know how it works in spain, but it sounds like the case should be closed... if it isn't, perhaps the driver can reinstate his case too...
  • MsGo, on 01/30/2008, -3/+16Too late, the world now knows you're an *****.
    I hope everyone treats this *****' like the "NiggerGuy" on South Park.
  • Misinformant, on 01/30/2008, -3/+4I hope the town covers his precious car in thrown bricks.

    Sunovabitch should be grateful he's not rotting in a cell as he deserves.
  • momsshizzle, on 01/30/2008, -2/+15A car is always worth more than a human life.
    • Pittance, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Actually airlines and the US government did a study some years ago about the value of a human life. I ~think~ it came to around 6 million $. The figure could be wrong, but I know its enough to get airlines to change "some" of their policies/fix planes to avoid the lawsuits.
    • elig, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1In the Netherlands where I study, I understand that motorists are automatically at fault in bike motorist collisions. I hope to never find out how this works in practice while riding my bicycle, but the motorists sure seems careful about bicyclists here!
  • moliver000, on 01/30/2008, -2/+22"His lawyer told the court that Delgado felt that the extensive publicity amounted to a public lynching."
    In other words, it's not that he thought it was a bad idea, but people were just being SO MEAN about it.
    • drakenlot, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1You're boned if you do, boned if you don't.
  • sitnspin, on 01/30/2008, -2/+6how is this man still driving i know if i was doing 107 in a 55 and ran a kid over i wouldn't have a license or i would be in prison
    • likwidfuzion, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1You would be in prison.
    • Halligan, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2The investigator the family hired said 107. The police investigation only showed 70, which is what the judge would likely rule on.
  • peaceninja, on 01/30/2008, -2/+9why did the judge dismiss the criminal charges against him?

    PS) if this happened in america, all the non-americans would be jumping down our throats about the litigious nature of this guy
    • drakenlot, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2No all the American wannabe non-americans would be jumping down his throat.

      We just simply don't care much if you want to destroy your country, as long as you leave us alone.
    • Gutterpunk, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0Of course we'd be jumping on your throat. If you read the article, you'll see that the Spanish were so outraged that they walked in the street in support of the familly.
      When is the last time this happened for a stupid lawsuit in the US? And even if it happened, how many time would it happen seeing as such lawsuits happens all the time in the States?
    • retr0grade, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1I bet you've driven 70 in a 55 at least once this week. I do it almost every day, stupid Oregon speed limits.
  • BingoPower, on 01/30/2008, -3/+15"Sorry about your son, but look what he did to my ***** car man?!?!"
    • strel1337, on 01/30/2008, -3/+2Yeah, "Its not my fault the boy hit my car with his body" ... huh?
      • Ravatar, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2EXACTLY. Maybe the boy should have had some reflective gear on??

        What would you do in that situation. You are driving down the road and BOOM you run into something in the dark. You get out and realize its a kid and hes dead. You go to court and the judge determines you did nothing wrong. Your car is now totalled. Since insurance doesnt work the same way everywhere lets say YOU were on the hook for the cost of the car.

        What do you do?
  • espempire, on 01/30/2008, -4/+4so he was a business man? in the business of what? I hope that piece of crap has to beg on the street for the rest of his life. the man needs to be taken down a notch
    • lazyfisherman, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1His business is now being a piece of ***** businessman. Unfortunately, though, this display of ruthlessness will only earn him admiration from other piece of ***** businessmen who only wish they could be so "hardcore."
  • vacuum2440, on 01/30/2008, -5/+9i say we call up dexter, let him take care of this douche
  • AlienMushroom, on 02/21/2008, -9/+5kill him.
  • DiddyWolf, on 01/30/2008, -2/+5Wait... He was never charged with killing the kid? How is vehicular manslaughter not a crime over there?
    • BingoPower, on 01/30/2008, -2/+8I believe the spanish driving-exam involves demonstrating, to the examiner's satisfaction, that you can drive 10 metres without needing a siesta.
      • techweenie1, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Hmm the Mexican version must be 5 metres then.
    • diggdiggerid, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6He wasn't wearing a helmet or wearing reflective materials. At night. With cars. Does that mean he deserved to be killed? No, not at all. But it also means it wasn't completely the other guy's fault. There are laws for your safety for a reason, and if you choose not to follow them and run into the middle of a highway, well, it's not fair to blame whatever vehicle happens to be there.
  • Calcularius, on 01/30/2008, -5/+3Now to drop Tomas Delgado ... off a cliff.
  • jayb1rd, on 01/30/2008, -2/+8People will stop at nothing with this sort of thing. When I was in high school, two of my friends died in a car accident. The driver lived. The family of one of the victims ended up suing about two years later. They didn't sue the driver and his family--they sued the family of the other of my friends who was killed on the grounds that he was the only one with the driver's license and he should have been driving. While this is true, the three involved in the accident were best friends and it really sucked to see this happen. By the way, the people that initiated the lawsuit won. It was truly sickening.
    • Pittance, on 01/30/2008, -4/+0You cant sue someone for not doing something. No one could force someone to walk down the block to stop a steamroller from killing a baby. That would lie in the realm of totalitarianism.
      • lazyfisherman, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3Wrong. You can sue anyone for any reason you want. Your reason might not make any sense and you could lose but money talks.
      • silveravnt, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1They call it negligence.
  • Pittance, on 01/30/2008, -4/+6How did this guy not get sued 2 years ago? He hit and killed another motorist (or pedestrian, which is much worse, depending on where you are). This at least entitles the man to extensive misdemeanor charges for following too close, not yielding, failure to stop, what have you. And those parents' lawyer is TERRIBLE. They easily could have pursued a multi-million dollar civil lawsuit for the death of their son. But...they are in Spain.
    • diggdiggerid, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3It's hard to do any of those things when you can't see the other person because they aren't wearing bright colors or reflective clothing as they are supposed to. It's like driving an invisible car on the road and then complaining when someone crashes into you.
      • drakenlot, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Not really, more like driving a black car with no lights and complaining when someone hits you, which is legitimate yet incredibly stupid.

        When I drive at night, it may be cutting a bit close for comfort, but I can see pedestrians that wear black far enough back to stop in time. But I also don't drive 20-50 over the speed limit either.
        • Ravatar, on 01/31/2008, -0/+115 mph on a rural highway is nothing. Where I live there are dozens of these roads in every direction with 55mph speed limit signs. Most people cruis along at 60-80mph. There are also no sidewalks since they are not meant to be traveled upon by foot/bike/etc.
  • intrepidDesign, on 01/30/2008, -4/+2Normally there would be some moral justice in the fact that the guy would have to live through life thinking everyday that he killed some one, but it seems like this guy is such a prick that he doesn't give it a second thought. I think the judge should be investigated as well and the parents should sue this piece of ***** into poverty. Since when has man slaughter not been a crime ANYWHERE???
    • diggdiggerid, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2It was determined that the other party was at fault, too. It's not manslaughter if you are at a firing range and someone hops in front of the bullets. There are laws for safety and people need to obey them. The cyclist did not. It was night, and he wasn't wearing a helmet, reflective materials, lights, etc. He was putting himself in unnecessary danger, that doesn't mean he should have died but neither does it mean the other guy intentionally "slaughtered" him.
  • Grummond, on 01/30/2008, -5/+8The minute i read "luxury car" i knew people here would be outraged.
    • MysticSavage, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2It's not the "luxury car" thing that outrages, it's the "killing a kid and dragging him then suing the parents for damages to vehicle" part that outrages.
    • skyshock1, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3It IS the "Luxury car" thing that outrages people here. There's a certain level of class-envy that is displayed on digg. If you can't see it in the comments, you're blind. The kid ***** up the guy's car, bottom line. The fact that he died as a result sucks, but legally speaking the parents are liable.
      • jsmu, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1No, there's a certain level of 'imbecilic tool of the rich' that outrages people here. There's a certain level of mindless, soulless dickwad that is displayed on digg. If you can't see it in the mirror, you're blind.
        • silveravnt, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Wow the jealousy is filling the air
    • Gutterpunk, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0Maybe it would be less outrageous if he had sued for 500$ to repair a beaten up Toyota Tercel?
  • centran, on 01/30/2008, -5/+16What the hell is wrong with people.
    It wasn't even like the kid ran into the guy. This dude was going 100+ mph. The article said he dragged the kid's body 347feet. The Audi A8's stopping distance from 100-0 is about 330 feet. So either he was going way too fast or he didn't bother to slam on the brakes.

    You have to be some cold blooded bastard son of the devil for wanting to sue the family after watching their son go splat on your windshield at 100+mph. If anything he should be suing for psychological damages because I know if I hit someone going 100 mph I would be in therapy for the guilt and regret of what I had done.
    I hope this dude burns in hell.
    • Grummond, on 01/30/2008, -0/+7"A traffic report said Delgado was traveling 113 km per hour (70 mph) in an area where the speed limit is 90 km (55 mph). An independent expert hired by Trinidad's family said Delgado was going 173 km per hour (107 mph)."
      • bingobongony, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4The fact that it was hired by the family takes away its independent status.
      • centran, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Doesn't really matter if it was 70 or 100. The point is that he hit the kid going very fast and faster then the speed limit.
        Suing the family is just unbelievable. Most people would be thinking, "Oh god, what have I done" not I am going to sue that bastard. Now if he was going slower and the kid just jumped out from between cars then maybe you can shake it off your conscience but what the hell is wrong with someone to try and sue the family? A bigger question is what is wrong with the lawyer that took this case?
        • Grummond, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Must be great for the insurance companies, following that logic, they never have to pay people if an accident results in a tragic death.
      • silveravnt, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Centran
        No the speed doesnt matter. If he had been going under the speed limit he still would have hit the kid who was in the road where he should not have been.
        That said, if this happened to me the first thing I would do would be to vomit, then cry, then go hysterical over the tragedy.
        Due to the nature of CNNs slant, I bet there is more to the story. I bet the ass was pissed over the family trying to sue him for something that was not his fault (at least in his mind).
  • c_starfish3, on 01/30/2008, -2/+6It is early in 2008 but I think this guy should be douchebag of the year
  • dinobot, on 01/30/2008, -2/+5link to photo of the victim and the douche bag

    http://www.typicallyspanish.com/spain/uploads/2/en ...
    • drakenlot, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2Am I evil for thinking it was a picture of the aftermath?
      Or is that from disensitization?
    • GonadHunter, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Just a guess but victim on the left and douche bag on the right?
      • Gutterpunk, on 01/30/2008, -1/+0You are telling me that the guy on the right is not a 17 years old kid?
        Who would've known...
  • diggdiggerid, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1Cyclists need to obey the law too. It's sad that he died and all but if you walk into the highway you can't blame whoever hits you.
  • Koray, on 01/30/2008, -4/+1Good chance for Audi to step in and throw the family of this kid an A8. Or better yet, an RS6. Even if all they do is sell it.
    • m0neybags, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4"Cool, it's just like the one that ran over our dead son!"
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.