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 Fanatic
Jun 11, 2005
8518 posts
2301 upvotes
Mississauga
Doebird wrote: 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.
You can try and spin this any way you want. For somebody that counts every penny, hires the most expensive lawyer less than 1 week after the tragedy raises some spokian eyebrows.
Temp. Banned
Apr 5, 2013
4848 posts
1928 upvotes
markham
antigua1999 wrote: You can try and spin this any way you want. For somebody that counts every penny, hires the most expensive lawyer less than 1 week after the tragedy raises some spokian eyebrows.
are you serious?...whayt do you think? he is an rfd'r?
anyone he hires for whatever is going to be topnotch...he is not on a budget..if anything he is a baller..and when going to court about anything...the rule of thumb is always get the best you can afford...but someone as smart as you should have already said that..or did you say it first?
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
35494 posts
9518 upvotes
Ottawa
antigua1999 wrote: You asked the question. I was just giving you the link to look up the information.
A link was already posted by @Pardon in Post # 371.
Doebird wrote: apparently hiring a good lawyer is evidence of guilt..

love these forums.
Really? If he hired a shitty lawyer he would have been innocent? :facepalm:
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else.
Banned
Aug 23, 2019
899 posts
454 upvotes
cardguy wrote: are you serious?...whayt do you think? he is an rfd'r?
anyone he hires for whatever is going to be topnotch...he is not on a budget..if anything he is a baller..and when going to court about anything...the rule of thumb is always get the best you can afford...but someone as smart as you should have already said that..or did you say it first?
I know I give up dude. I actually can't believe what I am reading. I actually can't believe I invest time on these forums or this thread... Antiquated is the caliber of person I am replying too..... How do you even respond to a post like that???


If I had a $1 billion dollar networth, the best lawyers would be my best friends...… and would be on my payroll...….. I mean that's just common sense. I wouldn't even "hire" them, because they would already be working for me...
Last edited by Doebird on Nov 9th, 2019 8:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
Banned
Aug 23, 2019
899 posts
454 upvotes
Pete_Coach wrote: A link was already posted by @Pardon in Post # 371.


Really? If he hired a shitty lawyer he would have been innocent? :facepalm:
apparently if you ask antiquated.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
35494 posts
9518 upvotes
Ottawa
Doebird wrote: apparently if you ask antiquated.
antiquated.????
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
5997 posts
1027 upvotes
Ontario / Quebec
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.”
Contrary to what was posted earlier, I think these claims are pretty specific.
And of course they are allegations that have not yet proven in court - that is a given.
But there are a number of allegations that I had never come up before as far as I know.
Deal Addict
Apr 26, 2013
2394 posts
1695 upvotes
Toronto
krs wrote: Contrary to what was posted earlier, I think these claims are pretty specific.
And of course they are allegations that have not yet proven in court - that is a given.
But there are a number of allegations that I had never come up before as far as I know.
You have obviously never dealt with a suit then. These are standard general claims in any suit of this kind, including exactly how the sentence is written.
Banned
Aug 23, 2019
899 posts
454 upvotes
Pete_Coach wrote: antiquated.????

You just quoted the guy.Antigua1999 is antiquated (the person I quoted and you then also quoted them and also quoted me quoting them..)......

Antigua19999999999
Banned
Aug 23, 2019
899 posts
454 upvotes
WMPCOT wrote: You have obviously never dealt with a suit then. These are standard general claims in any suit of this kind, including exactly how the sentence is written.
It seems like common sense that if you were suing someone for millions you would find every nook and cranny.
But hey guys like Antigua will take this lawsuit as an admission of guilt....

They will even go so far to say that if they win money or settle out of court that it’s another admission to guilt....
Lol not knowing that a criminal prosecution and a lawsuit work completely differently and that the reasonability test is much lower.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
5997 posts
1027 upvotes
Ontario / Quebec
WMPCOT wrote: You have obviously never dealt with a suit then. These are standard general claims in any suit of this kind, including exactly how the sentence is written.
How is "not wearing corrective glasses despite poor vision" or "failed to heed the horn of the Ruh" a standard general claim in any suit?

Sure, the sentence structure is pretty much fixed, like in any lawyer's correspondence, but the content is not.
Banned
Aug 23, 2019
899 posts
454 upvotes
krs wrote: How is "not wearing corrective glasses despite poor vision" or "failed to heed the horn of the Ruh" a standard general claim in any suit?
Lol
A good lawyer is going to make up everything under the sun hoping something will stick for the big pay day.

This is not a crown attorney. This is someone suing for a pay day.

Figure that out and then you’ll crack the code....

Again lawsuits are not the same as criminal code.

Lawsuit level of proof is much lower. They just need to create some doubt...
Deal Addict
Apr 26, 2013
2394 posts
1695 upvotes
Toronto
krs wrote: How is "not wearing corrective glasses despite poor vision" or "failed to heed the horn of the Ruh" a standard general claim in any suit?

Sure, the sentence structure is pretty much fixed, like in any lawyer's correspondence, but the content is not.
Since you do not believe me feel free to look up almost any papers which are served as a result of an action brought against someone in which an accident in a motorized vehicle, or pleasure craft is involved and you will find the same exact wording along with a variety of other possible reasons why the person caused the incident, just like the ones quoted in that post.

For the record I'm not talking out of my ass on this which is why I encourage you to look into filings.
Deal Fanatic
Jun 11, 2005
8518 posts
2301 upvotes
Mississauga
Doebird wrote: It seems like common sense that if you were suing someone for millions you would find every nook and cranny.
But hey guys like Antigua will take this lawsuit as an admission of guilt....

They will even go so far to say that if they win money or settle out of court that it’s another admission to guilt....
Lol not knowing that a criminal prosecution and a lawsuit work completely differently and that the reasonability test is much lower.
You should learn how to read. I said hiring the most expensive lawyer 1 week after the tragedy happened raises spokian eyebrows not what you are stating.
Banned
Aug 23, 2019
899 posts
454 upvotes
antigua1999 wrote: You should learn how to read. I said hiring the most expensive lawyer 1 week after the tragedy happened raises spokian eyebrows not what you are stating.
Lol

It’s pretty simple ... the first thing you do when someone dies is lawyer up.
The fact that you can’t understand this and thing it’s an admission of guilt is HILARIOUS.

Top