OT: NJ Woman sues Little Leaguer

[CameronFrye]

And vice versa. I suspect we share a strong Libertarian streak.

As a nation, we need to move away from attempts at overly complex socialized "solutions" to "spread risk" (historically they have never worked because there are too many non-producers feeding at the trough that are dependent on overly optimistic actuarial assumptions) and back to simpler notions like personal freedom and personal responsibility.

You suspect correctly. You just happened to explain your reasoning far more eloquently than I did.

 

[Stokes1931]

You suspect correctly. You just happened to explain your reasoning far more eloquently than I did.

Wow! Cam and Mays actually agreeing on something? Maybe the Mayans were right about 2012 after all.

BTW, I would agree with you both, for what it is worth. From the reporting, I find this lawsuit reprehensible in intent and spirit. And the "pain and suffering" and the taking away the "consort", what the hell is that?

So if my wife spends time watching kids in the nursery, and gets a cold from one of them, which deprives me of marital pleasures for a few days, I can then sue the family of the little rugrat who passed on said germs to my wife?

What a country!

I am sorry the woman was having a picnic in the bullpen of a Little League game because her cheapskate husband couldn't find any other more romantic place on the cheap. But then again, if it caused some hurt to these shallow narcissists, maybe karma was served.

 

[tzill]

Little leagues insurance doesn't cover spectator injury. The ambulance chaser is going after their home owners insurance, but that only covers one of the three counts the family is suing for.

I shit you not, her husband is also suing them for loss of his wife while she 'copes' with this injury.

Loss of consortium is always plead as one of the counts in an injury tort. Nothing new to see here, move along.

 

[tzill]

Yup. There are just some people who do not deserve to live in organized and civilized society.

Very similar to what Hitler argued in Mein Kamph.

 

[tzill]

If that is all she wanted, I would have no problems at all. But the bitch is suing for $150,000 and extra for pain and suffering. Plus, she is alleging that the kid made his errant throw on purpose.

As a correction, she's not suing the league. She's suing the KID.

Plus, the ****'s husband is suing as well. I hope they both develop incurable diseases and die early.

Do you REALLY not understand how lawsuits are filed? Just because you're asking for XX dollars doesn't mean that you actually expect to recover more than a fraction of that if you prevail.

Second, do we know for sure the kid DIDN'T throw the ball at her on purpose? Doesn't it change the whole scenario if he did?

Maybe it's because I'm in the game, but none of this rises to the level of even meriting attention. It's fact specific and we don't know the facts; you're ASSUMING it was an innocent errant throw during the course of a game and the couple are gold diggers. Could be.

Could also be that the kid is a turd, has thrown at people before, has a history of ill will with the plaintiff, etc.

So, please, stop with the knee-jerk judgements and the callous approach to the worth of human life. It's disturbing.

 

[tzill]

NO.

She was at a Little League game, for goodness sake. There is a presumption of risk. Unless there was malice or intent, stuff like this happens. There is a cost for every additional nanny state lawsuit like this and regulation that is out there, and each one adds to the toll, and eventually more and more people come to the conclusion that it isn't worth it to run a business or be involved in sports for kids.

She needs to pay her own damn medical bill and get hit with the reality of the ridiculous cost we all have for this stuff. Then she needs to pay the legal bill for the Little League for this absurd lawsuit. There needs to be a substantial cost to the plaintiff for frivolous lawsuits.

Or unless there was a negligent existing condition -- faulty screening, previous incidents, etc.

Look, I get your tilting at the legal industry windmill -- and I don't necessarily disagree. But you're assuming a lot of facts not in evidence here.

BTW, all States, I believe, have frivolous lawsuit laws. Proving it is extremely tough.

 

[tzill]

And vice versa. I suspect we share a strong Libertarian streak.

As a nation, we need to move away from attempts at overly complex socialized "solutions" to "spread risk" (historically they have never worked because there are too many non-producers feeding at the trough that are dependent on overly optimistic actuarial assumptions) and back to simpler notions like personal freedom and personal responsibility.

As a registered, card carrying Libertarian who has NEVER voted for a Republican or a Democrat, I heartily agree.

However, I am not against the concept of risk spreading when it comes to catastrophic events.

 

[tzill]

Wow! Cam and Mays actually agreeing on something? Maybe the Mayans were right about 2012 after all.

BTW, I would agree with you both, for what it is worth. From the reporting, I find this lawsuit reprehensible in intent and spirit. And the "pain and suffering" and the taking away the "consort", what the hell is that?

So if my wife spends time watching kids in the nursery, and gets a cold from one of them, which deprives me of marital pleasures for a few days, I can then sue the family of the little rugrat who passed on said germs to my wife?

What a country!

I am sorry the woman was having a picnic in the bullpen of a Little League game because her cheapskate husband couldn't find any other more romantic place on the cheap. But then again, if it caused some hurt to these shallow narcissists, maybe karma was served.

In your hypo, no. Contracting a minor disease would be considered assumption of the risk. Now, if one of the brats brought in a handgun and shot your wife, and the kid's parents were found to have negligently allowed the kid access to it, then yes -- you could (and likely would) enter loss of consortium as one of your pleadings.

See the difference?

Of course, Cam would just grab the gun, storm over to the parent's house and shoot them both, since "they don't deserve to live."

 

[CameronFrye]

In your hypo, no. Contracting a minor disease would be considered assumption of the risk. Now, if one of the brats brought in a handgun and shot your wife, and the kid's parents were found to have negligently allowed the kid access to it, then yes -- you could (and likely would) enter loss of consortium as one of your pleadings.

See the difference?

Of course, Cam would just grab the gun, storm over to the parent's house and shoot them both, since "they don't deserve to live."

I am not a violent person. I wished for disease to kill them. And when I say that some people do not deserve to live in civilized society, that does not mean I want them dead. It just means that it sickens me that people have no sense of personal obligation and responsibility. I don't think anyone who does not look out for his fellow man deserves to reap the benefits of that society. This lawsuit rises to the standard of the bitch not regarding the well being of her fellow man.

Am I assuming it was an errant throw? Absolutely. Could it possibly be that the kid meant to throw the ball at the lady? Sure. But the incident happened two years ago. If there was malice and it was provable, the lawsuit would not have been simply civil nor would it have taken so long to file. that's just my opinion, but I am pretty sure I am right.

 

[CameronFrye]

Or unless there was a negligent existing condition -- faulty screening, previous incidents, etc.

Look, I get your tilting at the legal industry windmill -- and I don't necessarily disagree. But you're assuming a lot of facts not in evidence here.

BTW, all States, I believe, have frivolous lawsuit laws. Proving it is extremely tough.

But since the lady is suing the boy and not the league, that statement is irrelevant.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Very similar to what Hitler argued in Mein Kamph.

Cars are transportation.

These three cars are blue.

Thus, all transportation must be blue.