Do we live in a Litigious Society?


PDA






TheeBadOne
December 26, 2003, 10:56 PM
2-year-old model sues city after playground mishap

STAMFORD, Conn. -- A 2-year-old model and actor who cut his head at a playground is seeking unspecified lost wages and other compensation from the city.

Konrad Mader of Greenwich was running toward a treehouse at a playground Nov. 4 when he crashed into a railing, according to a claim filed last week by his mother and reported today by The Advocate of Stamford. The blond toddler received several stitches.

Deena Mader, the boy's mother, did not specify how much she is seeking on behalf of her son.

In a letter to officials, she demanded compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering and a ``lost wage amount due to his inability to audition or take modeling or commercial jobs while his head heals.''

Mader blamed the boy's injury on a green railing, which she said blends in with the landscaping. Mader said the railing should be painted a brighter color.

``This accident was preventable had the railings and safety measures been correct at this park, `` Mader wrote in her claim.

Tom Cassone, the city's director of legal affairs, said his office is investigating the claim.

Joe Falzone, a facilities manager in charge of maintaining city parks, said he is not aware of defects in the playground and there are no plans to make changes.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1451/4287787.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

:rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Do we live in a Litigious Society?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jimpeel
December 26, 2003, 11:07 PM
Mader blamed the boy's injury on a safety orange railing, which she said blends in with the roadway signs on the nearby freeway. Mader said the railing should be painted a brighter color. She suggested green as an alternative.

"I just don't understand", Mader said, "he used to be able to run right under that railing. His shoes seem to have gotten larger also."

P95Carry
December 26, 2003, 11:25 PM
Do we?? .... Hell yeah!!

This sorta stuff is endemic ..... if not pandemic in the western world. Guess tho here it is about max'ed out!

Much I am afraid seems to revolve around the seeming ''easy buck'' syndrome .... whereby if someone thinks they can sue and make a bundle . they'll try it .... and to go with that are the attornys queuing up to get their share of the ''pickings''.

Much of it these days I find repulsive and obscene ... because it is so excessive and symptomatic of unmitigated ''gold digging''.:barf:

Art Eatman
December 27, 2003, 12:16 AM
It was back around 1966 that the lawyers we've elected to Congress started changing tort liability laws. This provided job security for their brethren "back in the world" beyond the Beltway. They got away from the ageold concept of strict liability and suchlike, and engendered what has become known as the "deep pockets" syndrome.

Between laws and court decisions, there is no longer supposed to be such a thing as an accident. Somebody is liable for anything that happens and, accordingly, somebody must pay.

Art

HBK
December 27, 2003, 12:43 AM
It's about time we threw some of those laws out. :barf:

Baba Louie
December 27, 2003, 01:01 AM
Do we live in a Litigious Society?
I hereby vote for the above quote as the inaugural understatement of THR's first 12 month period...
Does a large omnivorous mammal of the family Ursidae leave their scat in yon forest?

Amish_Bill
December 27, 2003, 01:37 AM
I'd love to comment on this being a litiginous country but I'm afraid of being sued for offending some whiny little free-luncher.

Bainx
December 27, 2003, 09:55 AM
Do we live in a Litigious Society?

Why else would Michael Jackson suddenly take up Islam and try desparately to get Johnny Cockroach as his lawyer?
This one is going to get ugly.:barf:

clubsoda22
December 27, 2003, 10:18 AM
Hmm, the things i'd do if i were the judge....

Award her full compensation on the condition that she wrap her child in bubble wrap and lock him in a cage to prevent future occurances.

Or perhaps order the mother to repay the municipality for a biohazard clean up and repainting charges stemming from the incident. Insist that with the high occurance of blood born pathogens, the mother should also compensate the maintenence worker who had to clean up the blood hazard pay.

Or maybe insist that the mother prove that her son did indeed hit his head on the bar through extensive DNA testing and a full lab analysis on her dime...then dismiss the case, have a beer and congradulate myself on what a bastard i am.

Spot77
December 27, 2003, 11:07 AM
Where's the icon of me laughing so hard I pee myself?:D

wolf
December 27, 2003, 02:25 PM
you can sue fast food resturants for:
1. making you fat
2. burning you with hot coffee, if it spills in your lap while driving
3. making you addicted to fast food

Years ago, people would have laughed at the above list..today..the list is getting longer..much longer

Playgrounds are an easy hit..most are owned/maintained by a city or school/daycare center etc. In many playgrounds in southern california, they have special low impact "ground" around the swings etc. and "warning signs" noting that this equipment may require supervision to operate-type of warning.

Almost every electricial appliance has warning signs on it, stating that you should not sleep with the device or take a bath with it, don't let children operate it with out instructions & supervision..keep the dame thing away from the family pets!!

Every new car has at least 15 mins worth of reading material that states all the hazards the vehicle you are about to operate may have and you basically agree to operate at your own risk.

new guns have warnings stamped on them..they can be dangerous they tell us.. they may cause harm to family or friends

Its not that the companies that produce products want us to know they are really dangerous and not intended to perform the task they were designed for, no..these warnings are the last attempt that companies have to show courts that they have the public's safty in mind when they design their products..and to show how safty is intergrated in every step of the design process..even in the last step...climbing up the stairs to court

WARNING: THESE STEPS MAY TAKE AWAY ALL YOUR MONEY AND MAY MAKE YOU LOOSE YOUR MIND..DO NOT TAKE THESE STEPS TWO AT A TIME..DO NOT SKIP A STEP..DO NOT STEP BACK..DO NOT STEP ON THE LAW..DO NOT STEP DOWN..STEP CHILDREN NOT ALLOWED..STEP AROUND SLOWER MOVING STEP TAKERS

wolf

longeyes
December 27, 2003, 02:39 PM
God should be sued for letting bad things happen.

Oh wait a minute, God was abolished by the ACLU...

QuarterBoreGunner
December 27, 2003, 02:45 PM
We have met the enemy... and they are us.

My example:

In my single (and fingers crossed ONLY) SD shooting, the bad guy lived. PD and the DA cleared it as a righteous shoot. During the trial, the knucklehead sues me and the shooting range, where I was employed and where the incident occurred. If I recall I was sued for ‘negligent discharge of a firearm’ (uhm…no, I damn well MEANT to shoot him).
The lawyer for the insurance company covering the range and I as an employee started making noises to settle out of court. I and the others involved were furious. I told the lawyer that NO FREAKING WAY does that scumbag get dime one. After we calmed down (and believe me, that took awhile) the lawyer explained it like this:
“Yes his case is BS, but what if it goes to trial. And what if he gets a sympathetic judge and jury- you could lose your house, your business, basically everything. But if I can make this whole thing go away with a one time only, limited time, no negotiating, offer of $5000, where he signs off on giving up his rights to any other litigation, and I didn’t do it, I wouldn’t be doing my job.”
Explained that way, it makes sense. But as long as lawyers are willing to settle out of court instead of taking the case to trial and putting an end to these nuisance suites, we will continue to be a litigious society.

P95Carry
December 27, 2003, 02:54 PM
QBG ..... crazy eh!! I was thinkin .... pity the scumbag lived .... better dead. But then I guess it's open season for perp's family to try and sue the crap outa you.

I have said before and feel it strongly .... someone who has committed a felony resulting in them getting shot, as an SD situation .... should lose normal rights enabling them to sue ...... it should be cut and dried.

longeyes
December 27, 2003, 08:42 PM
"Between laws and court decisions, there is no longer supposed to be such a thing
as an accident. Somebody is liable for anything that happens and, accordingly,
somebody must pay."

Very true and yet ironically there is, on the personal level, less an less moral accountability with each passing day. Who needs morality and individual responsibility if you have a good mouthpiece? We've exchanged honor for plea bargains and out-of-court settlements.

jimpeel
December 27, 2003, 09:59 PM
The Stella Awards were inspired by Stella Liebeck. In 1992, Stella, then 79, spilled a cup of McDonald's coffee onto her lap, burning herself. A New Mexico jury awarded her $2.9 million in damages, but that's not the whole story (http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html). Ever since, the name "Stella Award" has been applied to any wild, outrageous, or ridiculous lawsuits -- including bogus (http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html) cases! We search for true cases, and you can subscribe by e-mail for free to get the case reports as they're issued.

Go HERE (http://www.stellaawards.com/) to subscribe to the Stella Awards.

P95Carry
December 27, 2003, 11:44 PM
What dismays and appalls me is .... for every ''Stella'' case there is that succeeds (and has succeeded since '92) ... the next ''Stella'' case is even more likely, again, to succeed.

Usually against all ''normal'' logic.

It's a snowball situation .... and where does it stop?!:(

Ed Brunner
December 28, 2003, 12:15 AM
where the plaintiff's lawyer sued the plaintiff's insurance agent because he didn't sell the plaintiff enough insurance.

P95Carry
December 28, 2003, 12:37 AM
because he didn't sell the plaintiff enough insurance OMG!!!! That takes the absolute bacon!!!

Let's go a stage further (seeing as this is totally in the realms of the absurd) ...... so let's not blame the insurance agent at all .. let's instead realize that the plaintiff did in fact refuse adequate cover and decided to downgrade a bit ... maybe premiums too high?! Yeah.

Let us then therefore have the plaintiff's lawyer ..... have the plaintiff - -SUE HIMSELF ....... eh??? Be about as damn logical! :p :D

Sheesh ... I am at a loss for further words.:banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "Do we live in a Litigious Society?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!