2008 Paralympic runner who is blind being sued for colliding with woman on canal pathway

Another Ottawa runner here. This is a very sad story. I also run along that stretch of the canal and I've seen some pretty bad collisions. It's particularly dangerous during the winter and at night. I've seen the Dunkerley group along here and they always run under control. I'm not too sure how well researched this article was, as the guide's name wasn't even spelled right.

Was she running with an Ipod?

At first, I thought it was a paraplegic runner in which case I would say that if this went to court, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Jackb wrote:

This is just terrible! Accidents happen

http://sportsottawa.com/content/blind-lawsuit

Take care of her 9 year old kid????

What, is the kid still in diapers or something?

Steps notch wrote:

Another Ottawa runner here. This is a very sad story. I also run along that stretch of the canal and I've seen some pretty bad collisions. It's particularly dangerous during the winter and at night. I've seen the Dunkerley group along here and they always run under control. I'm not too sure how well researched this article was, as the guide's name wasn't even spelled right.

So they were under control, and ran right over her.

I agree with the woman, all of them are responsible.

Any of them could have have yelled, "Stop!!!, you're about to run into that woman!" but they didn't do that, and they're responsible for the damage caused by their group.

If she was your wife, daughter, sister, you'd probably feel differently. I don't know any of them, but a group of men doesn't have the right to knock down a woman, from behind, and walk away with no responsibility for their actions.

This woman is suing the entire track team probably because they have insurance and deeper pockets than a guy who makes $1500/month.

The blind guy wasn't out there running by himself.

The group was in charge of him, and was directing where he ran.

So they were under control, and ran right over her.

I agree with the woman, all of them are responsible.

Any of them could have have yelled, "Stop!!!, you're about to run into that woman!" but they didn't do that, and they're responsible for the damage caused by their group.

If she was your wife, daughter, sister, you'd probably feel differently. I don't know any of them, but a group of men doesn't have the right to knock down a woman, from behind, and walk away with no responsibility for their actions.[/quote]

@@@@@@@@@@

You are an idiot! Were you there?? We didn't " run over her". She had an iPod on and didn't hear us when we yelled " on your left" As we aproached her. She moved a bit to the left, the wrong way by the trail safety rules, at the time of pass and we tried to squeeze together but when she "jumped" as iPod runners do when "scared" by people coming up on them because they are in " their own world" there was an

unfortunate collision. With blind runners in our group There was a pile up.

At the time everybody seemed okay and it was no big deal. It now appears that the person per suing the law suit is in financial difficulty and she needs this money to get her out of her troubles.

I for one want to see the medical records. I believe she as not hurt at all.

She ran a 10k several months later and has been seen doing strenuous yard work since the event.

For you Americans on this site, stop bringing up medical bills, that is not an issue in any first world nation except yours.

olden timer wrote:

She was rear ended.

Whoah, Sandusky was nowhere near there at that time...

Oneofthepack! wrote:

You are an idiot! Were you there?? We didn't " run over her". She had an iPod on and didn't hear us when we yelled " on your left" As we aproached her. She moved a bit to the left, the wrong way by the trail safety rules, at the time of pass and we tried to squeeze together but when she "jumped" as iPod runners do when "scared" by people coming up on them because they are in " their own world" there was an unfortunate collision. With blind runners in our group There was a pile up.

If you're really one of the group, she should triple her claim.

anger and aggression wrote:

Oneofthepack! wrote:

You are an idiot! Were you there?? We didn't " run over her". She had an iPod on and didn't hear us when we yelled " on your left" As we aproached her. She moved a bit to the left, the wrong way by the trail safety rules, at the time of pass and we tried to squeeze together but when she "jumped" as iPod runners do when "scared" by people coming up on them because they are in " their own world" there was an unfortunate collision. With blind runners in our group There was a pile up.

If you're really one of the group, she should triple her claim.

Why?

Of course he is angry - people on these two threads are making assumptions without being there to witness the episode. We have all run across runners (if not into) who get startled when wearing an Ipod - they are the ones to blame, just as those using cell phones while driving cars (now illegal in many places) who cause accidents. When you are using public paths you (the runner) should be responsible by being aware of all that is around you. It is the blind people and their group (not that they would) who should be suing her, not the other way around. Nothing pisses me off more than people with Ipods who take offense when someone startles them as they pass them. Take the fricking things off if you can't also be aware of what is going on around you.

anger and aggression wrote:

If you're really one of the group, she should triple her claim.

captain and me wrote:

Why?

Because it shows they were pissed off at her running on their path, and intentionally ran over her.

Why?[/quote]

Because it shows they were pissed off at her running on their path, and intentionally ran over her.[/quote]

This is a good point. We all need to be on the look out for packs of blind runners and their guides looking to intentionally run over people from behind.

The IQ of that statement baffles me! Please tell me what college you went to so I can not send my kids there!

Surethingguy wrote:

Please tell me what college you went to so I can not send my kids there!

I went to the university of intelligence!

I went to the university of intelligence![/quote]

You say this and you think blind runners and their respective guides are intentionally running people over?

Really?

You stand by that statement?

Wow!

Do you have any compassion or understanding for handicapped people at all? Or is your " intelligence " that you speak of not encompass compassion or understanding?

let me explain this to you wrote:

anger and aggression wrote:

If you're really one of the group, she should triple her claim.

captain and me wrote:

Why?

Because it shows they were pissed off at her running on their path, and intentionally ran over her.

Don't let this guy get your goat dude, nobody here thinks the blind runners and their guides ran into this lady on purpose.

what happened? hope she got done from fraud

couple of things that make me suspicious of the plaintiff:

1. part of her injuries are "soft tissue" - i.e., stuff that can't be verified or proven true or false; typical ambulance chaser type of crap

2. she's a lawyer herself; doesn't make her a bad person but means she knows how to work the system