Off Topic

Kevin O'Leary involved in fatal boat crash. 2 dead. 1 man. 1 woman died from brain injuries.

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 26th, 2020 2:16 pm
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
35477 posts
9506 upvotes
Ottawa
antigua1999 wrote: Surprise surprise a civil suit. Called it.
Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back LOL.
Like everyone didn't know that was coming.
And besides, suing Kevin for what? He was not driving, The driver of the other boat is being sued too.
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else.
Deal Addict
Aug 10, 2019
2320 posts
18717 upvotes
Whether you agree or not on the statements made in the article, RFD members should at least read it before commenting.

“The statement of claim argues that Brito’s death was the result of negligence, and it alleges the O’Learys were impaired by alcohol and drugs, distracted by mobile or other electronic devices and did not have Boat Operators Licenses at the time of the collision.

“He was texting, dialing, talking or otherwise using a mobile or electronic device just before and at the time he struck the Ruh power boat,” reads the statement of claim.

The claim further alleges that both of the O’Learys were not wearing corrective glasses despite poor vision and that Kevin O’Leary failed to keep a proper lookout or give the other boat the right of way. He is not facing any charges.

The plaintiffs further allege that Kevin O’Leary knew or should have known that Linda O’Leary was “incapable of operating the power boat with due care and attention” yet let her drive.

“He negligently entrusted his power boat to the defendant, Linda O’Leary, when he knew, or ought to have known, that she was an inexperienced and unsafe driver,” the claim states.

The plaintiffs also assert that Linda O’Leary, who broke her foot in the crash, failed to heed the horn of the Ruh boat.

“She suddenly and without warning drove the O’Leary power boat directly into the path of the Ruh power boat,” the claim states.

None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been proven in court.”
Deal Fanatic
Jun 11, 2005
8517 posts
2301 upvotes
Mississauga
Pete_Coach wrote: Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back LOL.
Like everyone didn't know that was coming.
And besides, suing Kevin for what? He was not driving, The driver of the other boat is being sued too.
Then why didnt anybody including yourself post it?????

Do your own research. Here is the link

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ ... -1.5350154
Deal Addict
Apr 26, 2013
2381 posts
1686 upvotes
Toronto
Pardon wrote: Whether you agree or not on the statements made in the article, RFD members should at least read it before commenting.

“The statement of claim argues that Brito’s death was the result of negligence, and it alleges the O’Learys were impaired by alcohol and drugs, distracted by mobile or other electronic devices and did not have Boat Operators Licenses at the time of the collision.

“He was texting, dialing, talking or otherwise using a mobile or electronic device just before and at the time he struck the Ruh power boat,” reads the statement of claim.

The claim further alleges that both of the O’Learys were not wearing corrective glasses despite poor vision and that Kevin O’Leary failed to keep a proper lookout or give the other boat the right of way. He is not facing any charges.

The plaintiffs further allege that Kevin O’Leary knew or should have known that Linda O’Leary was “incapable of operating the power boat with due care and attention” yet let her drive.

“He negligently entrusted his power boat to the defendant, Linda O’Leary, when he knew, or ought to have known, that she was an inexperienced and unsafe driver,” the claim states.

The plaintiffs also assert that Linda O’Leary, who broke her foot in the crash, failed to heed the horn of the Ruh boat.

“She suddenly and without warning drove the O’Leary power boat directly into the path of the Ruh power boat,” the claim states.

None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been proven in court.”
That's just general legal jargon they use in lawsuits.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
35477 posts
9506 upvotes
Ottawa
WMPCOT wrote: That's just general legal jargon they use in lawsuits.
I agree.
Kevin was not driving so I am not sure what he was doing had anything to do with it.
The key statement is "None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been proven in court.".
antigua1999 wrote: Then why didnt anybody including yourself post it?????

Do your own research. Here is the link

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ ... -1.5350154
Why bother. :rolleyes:
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 31, 2008
11420 posts
1998 upvotes
Toronto
It's also in Canada... good luck trying to get a nice pay day out of this. The O'Leary's also had done alcohol tests, and was cleared already so good luck.
Deal Fanatic
Jun 11, 2005
8517 posts
2301 upvotes
Mississauga
cardguy wrote: lol...yea YOU called it... lol

dont tear a rotator cuff ...you and capt obvious
Nothing wrong with being first. Jealous?
Deal Fanatic
Jun 11, 2005
8517 posts
2301 upvotes
Mississauga
Pete_Coach wrote: I agree.
Kevin was not driving so I am not sure what he was doing had anything to do with it.
The key statement is "None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been proven in court.".


Why bother. :rolleyes:
You asked the question. I was just giving you the link to look up the information.
Deal Fanatic
Jun 11, 2005
8517 posts
2301 upvotes
Mississauga
at1212b wrote: It's also in Canada... good luck trying to get a nice pay day out of this. The O'Leary's also had done alcohol tests, and was cleared already so good luck.
You would be surprised how much Kevin and his wife will pay to make this go away. The problem is we will never know.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 31, 2008
11420 posts
1998 upvotes
Toronto
antigua1999 wrote: You would be surprised how much Kevin and his wife will pay to make this go away. The problem is we will never know.
I'm sure they're using the best lawyers money can buy.
Banned
Aug 23, 2019
899 posts
454 upvotes
apparently hiring a good lawyer is evidence of guilt..

love these forums.
Deal Fanatic
Jun 11, 2005
8517 posts
2301 upvotes
Mississauga
Doebird wrote: apparently hiring a good lawyer is evidence of guilt..

love these forums.
Question? If your innocent and your wife is innocent why hire the best lawyer money can buy?
Banned
Aug 23, 2019
899 posts
454 upvotes
antigua1999 wrote: Question? If your innocent and your wife is innocent why hire the best lawyer money can buy?
because when you have lots of money, you don't give a shit and only buy the best?

did you actually just ask, why would someone with lots of money, hire the best lawyer??
seirously?

lololol omg.

Top