What a bitter bitch! :angry:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20120622/new-jersey-little-league-lawsuit/
QuoteWoman sues Little League player after being hit in face with ball
MANCHESTER TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) -- A New Jersey woman who was struck in the face with a baseball at a Little League game is suing the young catcher who threw it.
Elizabeth Lloyd is seeking more than $150,000 in damages to cover medical costs stemming from the incident at a Manchester Little League game two years ago. She's also seeking an undefined amount for pain and suffering.
Lloyd was sitting at a picnic table near a fenced-in bullpen when she was hit with the ball.
Catcher Matthew Migliaccio was 11 years old at the time and was warming up a pitcher.
The lawsuit filed April 24 alleges Migliaccio's errant throw was intentional and reckless, "assaulted and battered" Lloyd and caused "severe, painful and permanent" injuries.
A second count alleges Migliaccio's actions were negligent and careless through "engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity" near Lloyd. She continues to suffer pain and anguish, incur medical expenses and has been unable to carry out her usual duties and activities, the lawsuit says.
And Lloyd's husband, in a third count, is suing for the loss of "services, society and consortium" of his wife. They've demanded a jury trial.
Anthony Pagano, a lawyer for the Migliaccios, said the lawsuit is frivolous and without merit.
"I just think that it's disgusting that you have people suing an 11-year-old kid for overthrowing his pitcher in the bullpen," Pagano said. "It's horrible this can actually happen and get this far. Ultimately, hopefully, justice will prevail."
The count alleging negligence and carelessness is covered by homeowner's insurance, Pagano said, but the other counts are not. Little League has denied any coverage.
Lloyd's lawyer was out of the office Friday and could not be reached for comment.
Steve Barr, a spokesman for Little League, declined to comment on the litigation. He said each local league is required to have accident insurance, but that only covers personnel.
"That includes coaches, players, even concession stand workers. But it does not cover spectators," Barr said.
Matthew's father, Bob Migliaccio, said they were concerned for Lloyd when it happened. Then his son started receiving threatening and nasty letters, he said, and he started getting angry.
"The whole thing has almost been surreal," Migliaccio said. "We keep thinking it's just going to go away, and then a week and a half ago a sheriff shows up at my door to serve my son the papers."
Migliaccio said if his son had been horsing around, he would feel differently. But Matthew was doing what his coaches told him to do, he said, and noted Little League players aren't always accurate in their throws.
"It's absurd to expect every 11-year-old to throw the ball on target," Migliaccio said. "Everyone knows you've got to watch out. You assume some risk when you go out to a field. That's just part of being at a game."
Migliaccio said he and his wife, Sue, would love to beat the charges in court, but it could cost them tens of thousands of dollars. They also don't want to put their son and other kids on the team through all the questions and depositions a trial would bring.
"It's to the point now where we just want it to be over," he said.
Matthew, described by his father as a "baseball junkie," still plays on three different teams. But Migliaccio and his wife have stepped down from coaching and managing the concession stand because of the suit.
Migliaccio said as angry as he is about the lawsuit, he's almost more angry with Little League. He said they've volunteered hundreds of hours over the years, and he believes Little League should assist in defending their son.
"Somebody else has to step in here and help us out," Migliaccio said. "I just feel people should know about this, and maybe Little League can figure out a way to protect these kids."
Yeah, her face got fucked up so hard by some stupid kid her husband can't fuck her without a bag over her head. I'd be bitter too. I hope their homeowner's insurance bleeds money.
Is/was she hot?
See? Lawyers are bad and the practice of law should be banned.
The husband sues the kid because his wife now gives better blowjobs? :wacko:
Whatever ambulance chaser took this on needs to be kicked out of the bar so hard he's going to be reminiscing about the pain in his ass for decades.
I suspect the damage is done, since the suit doesn't seem to have been dismissed. They're shooting high, aiming low, and after the threat of a frivolous lawsuit countersuit, they'll "concede" by settling for more money than they should have been entitled to in the first place. Ambulance chaser's probably working on a contingency fee, which means he's going to be gunning for a settlement anyway, since NJ court rules let lawyers skim off an even bigger percentage of out-of-court settlements than from judgments.
If I were the little leaguers' lawyer, I'd be gunning hard to get ambulance chaser sanctioned for this. The "inappropriate physical activity" portion in particular needs to be called out for the malicious and inappropriate suit that it is.
This really is the kind of thing that makes the American legal system the laughing stock of the world (and is increasingly creeping into the UK too :().
This kind of crap really should be cracked down on
Quote from: Tyr on June 24, 2012, 08:18:17 AM
This really is the kind of thing that makes the American legal system the laughing stock of the world (and is increasingly creeping into the UK too :().
This kind of crap really should be cracked down on
I suspect there will be at least the threat of sanctioning the ambulance chaser. With any luck, AC will lose their nerve and have the couple drop the suit instead of pushing for a settlement. There are ways to deal with this, primarily sanctioning the attorney (which can get them kicked out of the bar in extreme cases, what I'd like to see happen) or counterclaiming a frivolous lawsuit against the plaintiffs and their attorney (what will probably happen).
Quote from: Tyr on June 24, 2012, 08:18:17 AM
makes the American legal system the laughing stock of the world
:yeahright:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 24, 2012, 08:23:31 AM
There are ways to deal with this, primarily sanctioning the attorney (which can get them kicked out of the bar in extreme cases, what I'd like to see happen) or counterclaiming a frivolous lawsuit against the plaintiffs and their attorney (what will probably happen).
The way I'd like to see it dealt with is by having a group of thugs slip into the homes of the couple and their attorney, and beat them to death in their sleep with baseball bats.
OK, not really, but shit like this lawsuit shouldn't be allowed to happen. And Little League needs to step up and help out the kid's family.
Quote from: Maladict on June 24, 2012, 10:25:34 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 24, 2012, 08:37:31 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 24, 2012, 08:18:17 AM
makes the American legal system the laughing stock of the world
:yeahright:
Indeed. It already was.
Indeed we should take a cue from our European brethren and only lightly punish dangerous criminals.
Or African legal systems and retain the death penalty for witchcraft.
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?
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 10:51:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
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.
:yes:
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 24, 2012, 11:28:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2012, 05:13:20 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 24, 2012, 11:28:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 24, 2012, 11:28:51 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2012, 05:43:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2012, 05:13:20 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 24, 2012, 11:28:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
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?
Quote from: Kleves on June 24, 2012, 05:58:04 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 24, 2012, 11:28:51 AM
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?
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2012, 06:24:55 PM
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. :)
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2012, 06:34:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2012, 06:24:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2012, 06:24:55 PM
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. :P
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.
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2012, 08:48:00 PM
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.
QuoteThere 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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2012, 09:19:01 PM
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.
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)...
Miller v Jackson [1977] 3 All E.R. 338
The best part? I just realized I own a paper copy of this case. :punk: I'm reading it now as I type.
Lord Denning really liked cricket. The first paragraph:
QuoteIn 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.
I do love having my own personal copy of the All ERs (up to 1981). -_-
hey, thats my town. :lol:
Sounds like a pretty stupid decision was made there. :hmm:
Quote from: Tyr on June 24, 2012, 11:44:02 PM
hey, thats my town. :lol:
Sounds like a pretty stupid decision was made there. :hmm:
It seems reasonable. Faggots who hate people playing cricket should kill themselves.
BTW, I'm inferring (yes, I realize that's dangerous ground where torts are concerned), but one of the comments in the article suggests the defendants' theory is that the kid was practicing catching with a partner and overshot a throw to the partner which ended up hitting the woman. Since fastballs are a part of the sport, that seems reasonable enough to me- I'm with AR on the risk assumption theory. If balls always hit their target exactly, there would be no game; ignoring the risk of a stray ball doesn't pass the reasonable man standard, IMO.
She probably ought to be hit with more baseballs, not fewer.
It is a frequent whine BB, someone buys a house adjoining a village cricket ground and then throws a fit when a window gets broken. Which is insanely counter-productive of course as all the villagers instantly hate the whinging incomer.
Quote from: fahdiz on June 25, 2012, 01:51:21 AM
She probably ought to be hit with more baseballs, not fewer.
Classy.
The bottomline is that there is damage done at a conflict of two legal interests here, so whether the lawsuit is justified or not, it is certainly not frivolous and merits a trial.
Kid must have a pretty good arm if he can break the bitch's face with a wild throw back to the pitcher.
Love Denning's prose.
His judgements were sometimes a bit dubious but always so readable.
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2012, 11:24:00 PM
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)...
Miller v Jones, which I think is to do with nuisance and now considered a bit dodgy.
There's another judgement about a woman being hit by a cricket ball, Bolton v Stone, which I also think is Denning...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2012, 04:34:50 AM
Kid must have a pretty good arm if he can break the bitch's face with a wild throw back to the pitcher.
You seen the size of kids these days? Holy shit. The hormones in the milk are producing a breed of super-child.
We don't play cricket but have similar problems with the Portland airport and auto race track. People buy houses near them, presumably cheap because of the noise then bitch about the noise.
That's probably everywhere though.
Quote from: Martinus on June 25, 2012, 03:45:55 AM
The bottomline is that there is damage done at a conflict of two legal interests here, so whether the lawsuit is justified or not, it is certainly not frivolous and merits a trial.
:blink: Again, I'm taking it that the kid didn't intentionally lob the ball in the woman's face, but I can't think of any way the kid and his parents should be held liable for this. If you discount the "intention" to throw the ball in the woman's face (and if she was injured that badly, why isn't there mention of a police report for assault and battery?), I see potential for two torts, and both fall squarely on the Little League:
1) Assuming a reasonable assumption of risk, like me and AR, accidents should be considered foreseeable, and should be insured by the Little League. The Little League inadequately insured the event (and honestly, what event DOESN'T have some kind of bulk insurance on the spectators? This seems like a slam dunk to me), and should be held liable for such.
2) Assuming a reasonable assumption of spectator safety (which I don't- it's a physical sporting event, and there's going to ALWAYS be some risk- see hockey players that break through the glass), the Little League should be held liable for inadequate protective facilities. Again, the kids' parents are volunteers and shouldn't be held liable for the facilities that are most likely provided by the Little League or a third-party property owner; either way, since it's a Little League game, Little League should have oversight responsibility to make sure the facilities are safe.
I don't endorse what CC is writing. He is on his own.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2012, 09:22:58 AM
I don't endorse what CC is writing. He is on his own.
:yes:
I don't think CC has posted a word in this thread that is correct.
Quote from: grumbler on June 25, 2012, 09:28:37 AM
I don't think CC has posted a word in this thread that is correct.
You guys are full of crap. A coaching volunteer or his kid should be held liable for facilities provided by the league? Procurement of insurance for sporting events? I'm sorry; to my mind, this is akin to suing a part-time store clerk for a slip-and-fall from a refrigerator that leaked. If there's a tort, it's not with the volunteer and definitely not with his kid.
I wish this had come up in my Tort exam, I think I could have done a great problem answer.
In England I don't think there'd be a case.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 25, 2012, 09:48:30 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 25, 2012, 09:28:37 AM
I don't think CC has posted a word in this thread that is correct.
You guys are full of crap. A coaching volunteer or his kid should be held liable for facilities provided by the league? Procurement of insurance for sporting events? I'm sorry; to my mind, this is akin to suing a part-time store clerk for a slip-and-fall from a refrigerator that leaked. If there's a tort, it's not with the volunteer and definitely not with his kid.
My thoughts are that if you are at a baseball game, pay attention and be prepared to protect yourself, or face the consequences.
PUN INTENDED!
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2012, 11:35:15 PM
Miller v Jackson [1977] 3 All E.R. 338
The best part? I just realized I own a paper copy of this case. :punk: I'm reading it now as I type.
Lord Denning really liked cricket. The first paragraph:
QuoteIn 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.
I wish he liked line breaks as well.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 11:52:35 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 24, 2012, 11:44:02 PM
hey, thats my town. :lol:
Sounds like a pretty stupid decision was made there. :hmm:
It seems reasonable. Faggots who hate people playing cricket should kill themselves.
The decision seems to be to give
compensation to the woman
for cricket balls that go into her garden.
Quote from: Tyr on June 25, 2012, 10:12:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 11:52:35 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 24, 2012, 11:44:02 PM
hey, thats my town. :lol:
Sounds like a pretty stupid decision was made there. :hmm:
It seems reasonable. Faggots who hate people playing cricket should kill themselves.
The decision seems to be to give
compensation to the woman
for cricket balls that go into her garden.
No.
Quote from: Tyr on June 25, 2012, 10:12:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 11:52:35 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 24, 2012, 11:44:02 PM
hey, thats my town. :lol:
Sounds like a pretty stupid decision was made there. :hmm:
It seems reasonable. Faggots who hate people playing cricket should kill themselves.
The decision seems to be to give
compensation to the woman
for cricket balls that go into her garden.
BB just quoted the opening paragraph. FYI, most Court of Appeal decisions are longer than a paragraph.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2012, 10:08:45 AM
I wish this had come up in my Tort exam, I think I could have done a great problem answer.
In England I don't think there'd be a case.
Last year I was at a major league game, which has always had standard language on the tickets that if you get tagged by a bat or ball in the stands that is your problem.
A sharply hit ball was hit near me and moved a couple seats over to try to barehand it (the seats were unoccupied). From what I was told, when the ball hit my hand/wrist, there was a loud pop that could be heard in the section: it definitely smarted for an inning or two, but I wasn't hurt. The team sent someone over a couple times to see if I was hurt, check out my hand, and were very aggressive in trying to get me to fill out a report. It got to be obvious to me that they had some procedures to try to limit their liability: despite their disclaimer on the ticket, I'm sure they are getting successfully sued left and right. Which is a shame, in my view.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2012, 10:21:25 AM
Last year I was at a major league game, which has always had standard language on the tickets that if you get tagged by a bat or ball in the stands that is your problem.
A sharply hit ball was hit near me and moved a couple seats over to try to barehand it (the seats were unoccupied). From what I was told, when the ball hit my hand/wrist, there was a loud pop that could be heard in the section: it definitely smarted for an inning or two, but I wasn't hurt. The team sent someone over a couple times to see if I was hurt, check out my hand, and were very aggressive in trying to get me to fill out a report. It got to be obvious to me that they had some procedures to try to limit their liability: despite their disclaimer on the ticket, I'm sure they are getting successfully sued left and right. Which is a shame, in my view.
Did you get the ball? I've never gotten a foul ball or home run ball at an MLB game, as many as I've been to :(
I always tell my son I'll give him the second ball I catch. First one is mine, and I'll push little kids, old ladies, etc. out of my way to get it.
Quote from: derspiess on June 25, 2012, 10:25:06 AM
Did you get the ball? I've never gotten a foul ball or home run ball at an MLB game, as many as I've been to :(
I always tell my son I'll give him the second ball I catch. First one is mine, and I'll push little kids, old ladies, etc. out of my way to get it.
I got the ball. I dropped it though and got it off the ground--since it is the only one I'll probably ever have a chance to get, I wish I was able to snag it in the air.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2012, 10:21:25 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2012, 10:08:45 AM
I wish this had come up in my Tort exam, I think I could have done a great problem answer.
In England I don't think there'd be a case.
Last year I was at a major league game, which has always had standard language on the tickets that if you get tagged by a bat or ball in the stands that is your problem.
A sharply hit ball was hit near me and moved a couple seats over to try to barehand it (the seats were unoccupied). From what I was told, when the ball hit my hand/wrist, there was a loud pop that could be heard in the section: it definitely smarted for an inning or two, but I wasn't hurt. The team sent someone over a couple times to see if I was hurt, check out my hand, and were very aggressive in trying to get me to fill out a report. It got to be obvious to me that they had some procedures to try to limit their liability: despite their disclaimer on the ticket, I'm sure they are getting successfully sued left and right. Which is a shame, in my view.
The terms and conditions under which you buy a ticket shoudl surely be made clear to you before you buy it, rather than on the ticket itself. I think Denning had a decision on this as well regarding liability in a car park.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2012, 10:32:34 AM
I got the ball. I dropped it though and got it off the ground--since it is the only one I'll probably ever have a chance to get, I wish I was able to snag it in the air.
It still counts. And a scuff-mark just adds character :)
Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2012, 10:11:21 AM
My thoughts are that if you are at a baseball game, pay attention and be prepared to protect yourself, or face the consequences.
PUN INTENDED!
Which was my initial reaction. The other options were more mental masturbation than anything else. It was more a case of "if they were going to try to bilk money out of the Little League, why wouldn't they try this more feasible way?" :blush:
Quote from: Gups on June 25, 2012, 10:50:13 AM
The terms and conditions under which you buy a ticket shoudl surely be made clear to you before you buy it, rather than on the ticket itself. I think Denning had a decision on this as well regarding liability in a car park.
I'm sure they are in the pages of legalese you are supposed to review before you buy a ticket online, or posted outside the ticket booth at the stadium.
But in the case of a youth game, you can usually just walk up and watch.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2012, 11:32:53 AM
I'm sure they are in the pages of legalese you are supposed to review before you buy a ticket online, or posted outside the ticket booth at the stadium.
Could a person acting reasonably be expected to read all that?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2012, 11:32:53 AM
Quote from: Gups on June 25, 2012, 10:50:13 AM
The terms and conditions under which you buy a ticket shoudl surely be made clear to you before you buy it, rather than on the ticket itself. I think Denning had a decision on this as well regarding liability in a car park.
I'm sure they are in the pages of legalese you are supposed to review before you buy a ticket online, or posted outside the ticket booth at the stadium.
But in the case of a youth game, you can usually just walk up and watch.
I'll look the next time I'm at the Reds ticket booth, but I think they have a fairly simple to read sign posted above the window.
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2012, 11:34:50 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2012, 11:32:53 AM
I'm sure they are in the pages of legalese you are supposed to review before you buy a ticket online, or posted outside the ticket booth at the stadium.
Could a person acting reasonably be expected to read all that?
I can't remember the specific details, but a few years ago the courts ruled that the boilerplate legal language at the bottom of emails could not protect accounting firms from certain types of legal liability--the disclaimer needed to be highlighted to their clients in order for protection to be effective. At least one major firm's solution: put that section in large type and bold it within the boilerplate.
If you take away the potential physical danger of a ball flying into the stands then nobody will be left awake by the end of the game. It's a vital part of the American pastime.
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2012, 11:34:50 AM
Could a person acting reasonably be expected to read all that?
A person acting reasonably would be expected to know that balls go into the stands without reading any of it.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 10:51:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
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.
Why would you make assumptions about any general populations from anything Marti says? Besides, wouldnt Marti first have to be a lawyer before condemning all lawyers for what he says?
Quote from: grumbler on June 25, 2012, 09:28:37 AM
I don't think CC has posted a word in this thread that is correct.
Tinker with the time stamps and we have grumbler admitting that Marty's a lawyer. :D
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2012, 06:23:25 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 25, 2012, 09:28:37 AM
I don't think CC has posted a word in this thread that is correct.
Tinker with the time stamps and we have grumbler admitting that Marty's a lawyer. :D
I don't think that's what it'd mean if CC's questions were wrong.
Besides, you'd also have to willfully misunderstand who grumbler was talking about.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2012, 10:13:25 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 25, 2012, 10:12:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 11:52:35 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 24, 2012, 11:44:02 PM
hey, thats my town. :lol:
Sounds like a pretty stupid decision was made there. :hmm:
It seems reasonable. Faggots who hate people playing cricket should kill themselves.
The decision seems to be to give
compensation to the woman
for cricket balls that go into her garden.
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson
QuoteThe Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 6 April 1977. Geoffrey Lane and Cumming-Bruce LJJ held that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiffs and their property from the cricket balls and the club could not prevent accidents from happening. The club was guilty of negligence "on each occasion when a ball comes over the fence and causes damage to the plaintiffs".[2] The repeated interference with their property was also held to be an actionable nuisance. Following Sturges v. Bridgman, the fact that the Millers had "come to the nuisance" was no defence. On that basis, the Millers were awarded damages. Lord Denning MR dissented from the finding of negligence and nuisance, holding that "the public interest should prevail over the private interest".[3] However, on the basis that the club had agreed to pay for any damage, Lord Denning was "content that there should be an award of £400 to cover any past or future damage".[3]
Geoffrey Lane LJ would have upheld the injunction. However, Lord Denning MR and Cumming-Bruce LJ held that damages were a sufficient remedy, holding that the discretionary equitable remedy of an injunction was not necessary. In the words of Cumming-Bruce LJ, the court had to "strike a fair balance between the right of the plaintiffs to have quiet enjoyment of their house and garden without exposure to cricket balls occasionally falling like thunderbolts from the heavens, and the opportunity of the inhabitants of the village in which they live to continue to enjoy the manly sport which constitutes a summer recreation for adults and young persons".[4] The Millers had bought a house with the benefit of an open space adjacent to their land, and had to accept that the innocent and lawful use of the open land could restrict the enjoyment of their garden.
It is notable that the court did not hold that holding cricket matches on the ground was negligent, per se; rather, there were separate negligent acts each time a ball left the ground. It is not clear why attempting to hit a ball for six should be negligent, since it is one of the objects of playing cricket.
:unsure:
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2012, 06:52:45 PM
I don't think that's what it'd mean if CC's questions were wrong.
Besides, you'd also have to willfully misunderstand who grumbler was talking about.
CC= Chocolate City = CDM. Duh.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2012, 06:01:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2012, 10:51:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
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.
Why would you make assumptions about any general populations from anything Marti says? Besides, wouldnt Marti first have to be a lawyer before condemning all lawyers for what he says?
You make a good point. I'll take your sober second thought into account.