While the headline is technically correct, it is an insane level of clickbait.
The lawsuit had nothing to do with the murder case, she was injured in an accident and started a lawsuit about that.
Terrible headline, it’s honestly kind of impressive that the chronological order of just two events could be screwed up in a single sentence fragment meant to convey information in an entertaining way.
Man if only that headline wasn’t clickbaiting bullshit… I would literally kill to get $3M for dismembering a landlord.
"Well, your honor we did hit her with a bus but she killed a guy later on in an unrelated matter so we shouldn’t have to pay her for the bus thing. "
The court rejected the transit agency’s arguments that her subsequent conviction should bar or reduce the award.
The fucking audacity
If she caught a head injury from that bus it’s possible the behavior that led to her conviction was related
If we entertain their argument we could also claim that if she’d been given that $3M earlier, she wouldn’t have had that person as her landlord and they’d still be alive therefore these people share responsibility for the landlord’s death.
Clickbait!
The bus company admitted neglect to minimise costs after causing her injuries. It’s a completely separate and unrelated issue to her conviction.The appellate court rejected those claims, ruling that her incarceration and criminal charges were not relevant to the determination of damages for injuries suffered years earlier.
I hope they considered my amicus brief: “She’s probably a deranged psychopath, but what she did sounds kinda based tbh.”
