Woman sues Little League player after being hit in face with ball

[garbon]

Uhm I don't understand the outrage about it. It's not criminal prosecution but a civil lawsuit - it's pretty normal for minors to be sued (or more specifically, their parents being sued) for damage caused by the minors. Why should the woman be required to pay her medical expenses out of her own pocket only because she was harmed by a kid?

See?  Lawyers have to die.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Uhm I don't understand the outrage about it. It's not criminal prosecution but a civil lawsuit - it's pretty normal for minors to be sued (or more specifically, their parents being sued) for damage caused by the minors. Why should the woman be required to pay her medical expenses out of her own pocket only because she was harmed by a kid?

Unless there was negligence on the part of the kid or his parents why would they have to pay? You go to a ballfield with the understanding that you may get wacked in the face by a stray ball.  Otherwise you get shit like this which makes everyone afraid of stupid lawsuits and the enormous mone it'll cost.  In otherwords, every body is afraid to do anything.

[Ideologue]

Uhm I don't understand the outrage about it. It's not criminal prosecution but a civil lawsuit - it's pretty normal for minors to be sued (or more specifically, their parents being sued) for damage caused by the minors. Why should the woman be required to pay her medical expenses out of her own pocket only because she was harmed by a kid?

Unless there was negligence on the part of the kid or his parents why would they have to pay?

They wouldn't.  Good job!  YOU GET A GOLD STAR.

But I think it's wonderful that you all opine on this without:

1)reading the complaint.
2)reading the answer.
3)knowing what the law of New Jersey is.

Such efficiency, coming to conclusions of fact and law based on a sketchy news article, would surely make for a much better justice system.

[garbon]

Uhm I don't understand the outrage about it. It's not criminal prosecution but a civil lawsuit - it's pretty normal for minors to be sued (or more specifically, their parents being sued) for damage caused by the minors. Why should the woman be required to pay her medical expenses out of her own pocket only because she was harmed by a kid?

Unless there was negligence on the part of the kid or his parents why would they have to pay?

They wouldn't.  Good job!  YOU GET A GOLD STAR.

But I think it's wonderful that you all opine on this without:

1)reading the complaint.
2)reading the answer.
3)knowing what the law of New Jersey is.

Such efficiency, coming to conclusions of fact and law based on a sketchy news article, would surely make for a much better justice system.

It seems odd for you to try and claim the high ground given your initial post in this thread.

[Kleves]

Unless there was negligence on the part of the kid or his parents why would they have to pay?

She at least alleges that the kid intentionally hit her with the ball. If true, that would put rather a different spin on things, don't you think? That said, she does also claim that the kid was "engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity" which seems like complete bullshit, given that the kid was warming up a pitcher in the bullpen during a baseball game.

[Ideologue]

Uhm I don't understand the outrage about it. It's not criminal prosecution but a civil lawsuit - it's pretty normal for minors to be sued (or more specifically, their parents being sued) for damage caused by the minors. Why should the woman be required to pay her medical expenses out of her own pocket only because she was harmed by a kid?

Unless there was negligence on the part of the kid or his parents why would they have to pay?

They wouldn't.  Good job!  YOU GET A GOLD STAR.

But I think it's wonderful that you all opine on this without:

1)reading the complaint.
2)reading the answer.
3)knowing what the law of New Jersey is.

Such efficiency, coming to conclusions of fact and law based on a sketchy news article, would surely make for a much better justice system.

It seems odd for you to try and claim the high ground given your initial post in this thread.

That's a good point.  I was caught up in a moment of empathy.

Let's just say it seems like something a judge and, perhaps, a jury should sort out.  If it's frivolous, it won't get past summary judgment.  And I wouldn't anticipate defense costs being ridiculous--there's not much prospect of an onerous discovery process, the research and writing involved simple and minimal.  Shit, the parents could probably do it themselves.

However, wouldn't their homeowner's insurance--since it's the real party in interest here--pony up for a lawyer anyway?

[Ideologue]

Unless there was negligence on the part of the kid or his parents why would they have to pay?

She at least alleges that the kid intentionally hit her with the ball. If true, that would put rather a different spin on things, don't you think? That said, she does also claim that the kid was "engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity" which seems like complete bullshit, given that the kid was warming up a pitcher in the bullpen during a baseball game.

Maybe it means he wasn't doing it right.  I have no idea how baseball works since it's America's dullest sport, but don't they usually fence that area off, or at least partly fence it off, to avoid people getting beaned in the head?

[garbon]

However, wouldn't their homeowner's insurance--since it's the real party in interest here--pony up for a lawyer anyway?

Maybe you should read the article.

[Ideologue]

However, wouldn't their homeowner's insurance--since it's the real party in interest here--pony up for a lawyer anyway?

Maybe you should read the article.

The article doesn't answer that question.

It simply says that the homeowner's insurance doesn't cover intentional torts.

[alfred russel]

That's a good point.  I was caught up in a moment of empathy.

Let's just say it seems like something a judge and, perhaps, a jury should sort out.  If it's frivolous, it won't get past summary judgment.  And I wouldn't anticipate defense costs being ridiculous--there's not much prospect of an onerous discovery process, the research and writing involved simple and minimal.  Shit, the parents could probably do it themselves.

However, wouldn't their homeowner's insurance--since it's the real party in interest here--pony up for a lawyer anyway?

There must be a course in law school where they remove a person's soul. 

Ide, who knows what really happened. But for a normal family, getting hit with a $150k lawsuit, which it doesn't appear homeowner's insurance will fully cover, is a big deal. Maybe you could handle that yourself, but you went to law school. Most people are going to have to find a lawyer--which is time consuming and stressful--and then pay that lawyer. Maybe it would only be a few thousand dollars, but that is a lot of money to most people. That loss of time also may seem a lot bigger of a burden when you have a wife and kids.

We don't have a loser pays system, and it isn't hard to see how this could be set up for abuse of that. A woman is hit in the face with a ball, and breaks a bone. She goes to a lawyer on a contingency fee who starts adding up the damages--including some really dubious stuff like loss of consortium-- and we end up at a very high figure. They demand a jury trial. If they offer to settle for a few grand, what option does the family have? They either pay up, or pay their own lawyer, and run the risk of a jury trial where the key defense witnesses are 11 year olds subject to say god knows what on the stand.

[Ideologue]

No, I realize it sucks for the family.  At the same time, without knowing more, I can't say that the plaintiff's claims are dubious.  Medical costs are quantifiable and very real.  Loss of consortium is not a new theory of damages.  Pain and suffering are difficult to reduce to numbers, and there have been ridiculous examples of pain and suffering damages, but these are headlines-grabbers, not the norm.

There is potential for abuse, but there are avenues to explore if a claim is truly frivolous--countersuit, bar complaints, and so forth.

The most potentially frivolous and unethical claim is the intentional tort.  I'm not sure what the goal there is, as opposed to the negligence claim, which the homeowner's insurance is will either settle or fight (and do so within the constraints of good faith, or be subject to a lawsuit themselves).  Perhaps to put direct pressure on the defendant family?  Or maybe the kid really did just chuck a baseball at her face, which I think we should all concede is possible.

The consensus on Languish seems to be that it's never cool to sue private individuals, regardless of their negligence, which is silly.

And I say this as someone who, generally, does not like the plaintiff's bar (except insofar as they provide me work) and the scope of damages available to plaintiffs (see above).  Yeah, sometimes mass-marketed products kill you, BFD.

[alfred russel]

No, I realize it sucks for the family.  At the same time, without knowing more, I can't say that the plaintiff's claims are dubious.  Medical costs are quantifiable and very real.  Loss of consortium is not a new theory of damages.  Pain and suffering are difficult to reduce to numbers, and there have been ridiculous examples of pain and suffering damages, but these are headlines-grabbers, not the norm.

There is a caveat that we only have a news story of dubious validity so neither of us can say anything with certainty. I'm going to make an assumption that the kid didn't intentionally peg the adult. But a few points:

--I'd rather see the (re?)adoption of a theory of risk assumption that has an absolute bar to legal awards from bats and balls going into the stands at baseball games. The woman got a busted face. Someone has to pay for that. Since everyone should know that bats and balls will go into the stands, there is a solid argument of assumption of risk. By leaving open the possibility of successfully suing, you bring in very significant dead weight costs of the legal system, and also remove the incentive to control medical costs (and in reality, often provide an incentive to explode them).
--Loss of consortium may be an old theory, but it is quite prone to abuse since it is difficult to disprove. I'm not sure how a woman getting pegged in the face by an 11 year old leads to this, for example, but it obviously can dramatically inflate a damage estimate.
--As far as pain and suffering damages, my problem is more with the randomness of the awards. It isn't a just system that allows for a kind of liability lottery. Not too long ago I read a story about amounts awarded in wrongful death lawsuits in New York City: the amounts are all over the map.

There is potential for abuse, but there are avenues to explore if a claim is truly frivolous--countersuit, bar complaints, and so forth.

I don't think most people want to explore these avenues. They just want to be left alone.

[Neil]

I don't think most people want to explore these avenues. They just want to be left alone.

Ide is an immoral scumbag, so his prime concern is to ensure that his priesthood retains their importance.

[Barrister]

I wish I could remember the name - there's a Lord Denning decision which deals with an errant cricket ball, where he waxes eloquent on the beauty of cricket (and of course finds no negligence for an errant cricket ball)...

[Barrister]

Miller v Jackson [1977] 3 All E.R. 338

The best part?  I just realized I own a paper copy of this case.   I'm reading it now as I type.

Lord Denning really liked cricket.  The first paragraph:

In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club house for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practise while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there any more. He has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket. But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that when a batsman hits a six the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at week-ends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the judge to stop the cricket being played. And the judge, much against his will, has felt that he must order the cricket to be stopped: with the consequence, I suppose, that the Lintz Cricket Club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.