I wonder how it feels to sue an 11 year old boy? If you were a lawyer would you take a case like this one?
NJ woman sues Little League player
- Thread starter KilljoyKlown
- Start date
Depending on the woman's health care coverage or lack thereof, I can somewhat understand pursuit of any avenue that might gain some financial ground if she has incurred considerable expense and is suffering ongoing discomfort.
Unless intent to harm can be proven, there seems little point to this case given that the potential for personal injury exists in many sports and activities.
The husband's claim seems rather frivolous to me. Sure, one can make the arguments but really?
I wonder what the effect will be on homeowner's insurance if this case should win?
Unless intent to harm can be proven, there seems little point to this case given that the potential for personal injury exists in many sports and activities.
The husband's claim seems rather frivolous to me. Sure, one can make the arguments but really?
I wonder what the effect will be on homeowner's insurance if this case should win?
Depending on the woman's health care coverage or lack thereof, I can somewhat understand pursuit of any avenue that might gain some financial ground if she has incurred considerable expense and is suffering ongoing discomfort.
Unless intent to harm can be proven, there seems little point to this case given that the potential for personal injury exists in many sports and activities.
The husband's claim seems rather frivolous to me. Sure, one can make the arguments but really?
I wonder what the effect will be on homeowner's insurance if this case should win?
The insurance Co. probably has good lawyers on staff. But they always run a cost assessment on any case and if legal costs are going to be higher than than the payout, they just pay without going to court. But given the nature of the case I doubt the insurance Co. would hold the homeowner responsible and raise their insurance or drop them.
Notes on the Village Idiots of Manchester Township
I'm pretty sure the precedent on this goes back to the nineteenth century. I'm still searching for the incident, but in the late 1800s, a fan was hit in the face by either a home run or foul ball, and since then the rule of thumb has been that, barring some obvious negligence by organizers, or specific deviation from stadium conduct by participants, if you go to a baseball game, it's up to you to know where various balls are throughout.
I did, however, find a recent article from Cecil Adams:
It should be noted that the Alice Roth case, while interesting insofar as it might be, is also vaguely predictable in a certain sense. The theory goes that if the pitcher is generally ahead of the hitter, the foul balls will carry straight back into the fence or netting behind home plate. As a hitter catches up and comes around on the pitches, the foul balls will start to carry up the lines. Most people notice the end point of this process more than anything else, when suddenly a pitcher collapses and a string of hitters pick up consecutive base hits. The idea that consecutive foul balls would travel similar vectors is not so strange in and of itself, and with a century to play with, something like the Roth incident will eventually happen.
But that is, of course, the major and minor leagues.
This is little league.
What do we expect of little league?
Well, the facilities are observably inferior to major league parks. The players are young, and observably inferior to major league players.
Sure, the ball is coming slower, but that only means you have more time to recognize the hazard. Otherwise, expect something akin to chaos. Little league is nearly funny to people who don't take baseball seriously; hell, some of the kids don't even know which direction to run around the bases.
The burden of demonstrating intentional recklessness ("assaulted and battered"; count one) will be difficult for Ms. Lloyd and her lawyers.
The second count, "engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity", is a head-scratcher. If the bullpen isn't an appropriate place for a pitcher and catcher to throw, what is?
The third count, pertaining to "services, society, and consortium" of the wife, ought to be hilarious if the whole thing makes it to trial. Were I the Migliaccios' lawyer, I would grill the Lloyds about their sex lives in open court, to ensure that their regular consortium does not cause any sense of pain—no hard thrusts, no slapping of the ass, no hands on the throat, no pulling hair, &c.—in order to establish a threshold index describing the point that Ms. Lloyd was unable to screw her husband for the pain of her facial injuries.
I mean, if she can deep throat? I have no idea which way a jury will break on that, but I can certainly imagine the courtroom having difficulty suppressing laughter.
Which brings us back to the point: This complaint probably won't make it to trial. And the Lloyds have forever branded themselves in Manchester Township as village idiots.
____________________
Notes:
Adams, Cecil. "Baseball Games: More Dangerous Than Cecil Once Thought". The Straight Dope. April 6, 2012. Washington City Paper. June 23, 2012. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/...games-more-dangerous-than-cecil-once-thought/
I'm pretty sure the precedent on this goes back to the nineteenth century. I'm still searching for the incident, but in the late 1800s, a fan was hit in the face by either a home run or foul ball, and since then the rule of thumb has been that, barring some obvious negligence by organizers, or specific deviation from stadium conduct by participants, if you go to a baseball game, it's up to you to know where various balls are throughout.
I did, however, find a recent article from Cecil Adams:
One comprehensive medical study found 291 injuries from foul balls during baseball games attended by 7.7 million spectators—a rate of roughly one injury per 26,000 attendees. That's an order of magnitude worse than the figure I came up with for injuries during the 1977 season based on an informal phone survey—1 in 298,000. My apologies to any injured parties or their heirs and estates.
With so many balls ending up in the stands (on average a few dozen per game, judging from several small-scale counts), it's remarkable deaths and injuries aren't more frequent. As it is there have been some bizarre incidents. On Aug. 17, 1957, center fielder Richie Ashburn of the Philadelphia Phillies hit fan Alice Roth twice with foul balls during a single at-bat: the first foul broke her nose, and then Ashburn lined a second ball into her as she was being carried off on a stretcher.
Given the risks, you'd think MLB clubs would have been sued back to the sandlot by now. However, the courts have generally held, even recently, that spectators at baseball games don't have to be protected from common and expected risks. Case law from before World War I absolves park owners from liability for foul balls and broken bats. That's not to say the clubs are immune to lawsuits. Patrons have successfully sued after being hit by foul balls that passed through protective netting, stumbling over loose bats, falling into holes, or tripping and falling down stairs. The common thread seems to be that the hazards involved couldn't reasonably have been anticipated.
Generally speaking, though, the law considers that when you go out to the old ball game you're willingly assuming the risk of injury or death ....
With so many balls ending up in the stands (on average a few dozen per game, judging from several small-scale counts), it's remarkable deaths and injuries aren't more frequent. As it is there have been some bizarre incidents. On Aug. 17, 1957, center fielder Richie Ashburn of the Philadelphia Phillies hit fan Alice Roth twice with foul balls during a single at-bat: the first foul broke her nose, and then Ashburn lined a second ball into her as she was being carried off on a stretcher.
Given the risks, you'd think MLB clubs would have been sued back to the sandlot by now. However, the courts have generally held, even recently, that spectators at baseball games don't have to be protected from common and expected risks. Case law from before World War I absolves park owners from liability for foul balls and broken bats. That's not to say the clubs are immune to lawsuits. Patrons have successfully sued after being hit by foul balls that passed through protective netting, stumbling over loose bats, falling into holes, or tripping and falling down stairs. The common thread seems to be that the hazards involved couldn't reasonably have been anticipated.
Generally speaking, though, the law considers that when you go out to the old ball game you're willingly assuming the risk of injury or death ....
It should be noted that the Alice Roth case, while interesting insofar as it might be, is also vaguely predictable in a certain sense. The theory goes that if the pitcher is generally ahead of the hitter, the foul balls will carry straight back into the fence or netting behind home plate. As a hitter catches up and comes around on the pitches, the foul balls will start to carry up the lines. Most people notice the end point of this process more than anything else, when suddenly a pitcher collapses and a string of hitters pick up consecutive base hits. The idea that consecutive foul balls would travel similar vectors is not so strange in and of itself, and with a century to play with, something like the Roth incident will eventually happen.
But that is, of course, the major and minor leagues.
This is little league.
What do we expect of little league?
Well, the facilities are observably inferior to major league parks. The players are young, and observably inferior to major league players.
Sure, the ball is coming slower, but that only means you have more time to recognize the hazard. Otherwise, expect something akin to chaos. Little league is nearly funny to people who don't take baseball seriously; hell, some of the kids don't even know which direction to run around the bases.
The burden of demonstrating intentional recklessness ("assaulted and battered"; count one) will be difficult for Ms. Lloyd and her lawyers.
The second count, "engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity", is a head-scratcher. If the bullpen isn't an appropriate place for a pitcher and catcher to throw, what is?
The third count, pertaining to "services, society, and consortium" of the wife, ought to be hilarious if the whole thing makes it to trial. Were I the Migliaccios' lawyer, I would grill the Lloyds about their sex lives in open court, to ensure that their regular consortium does not cause any sense of pain—no hard thrusts, no slapping of the ass, no hands on the throat, no pulling hair, &c.—in order to establish a threshold index describing the point that Ms. Lloyd was unable to screw her husband for the pain of her facial injuries.
I mean, if she can deep throat? I have no idea which way a jury will break on that, but I can certainly imagine the courtroom having difficulty suppressing laughter.
Which brings us back to the point: This complaint probably won't make it to trial. And the Lloyds have forever branded themselves in Manchester Township as village idiots.
____________________
Notes:
Adams, Cecil. "Baseball Games: More Dangerous Than Cecil Once Thought". The Straight Dope. April 6, 2012. Washington City Paper. June 23, 2012. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/...games-more-dangerous-than-cecil-once-thought/
Tiassa
How true.
Maybe they could sue their lawyer for giving bad advice and making them look like village idiots?
How true.
Maybe they could sue their lawyer for giving bad advice and making them look like village idiots?
Lawyers and Rocks
Maybe, but bad lawyers are like rocks on the ground. If you're not tripping over one, you'll end up tripping over another.
Unfortunately, we don't know—and probably aren't allowed to know—just how many lawyers the Lloyds had to shop through before finding one willing to file the suit.
Actually, strike the "unfortunately". We probably don't want to know.
This whole thing is grim, though I can't wait to see the photos of Mrs. Lloyd's damaged face. I mean, come on. All we have so far are pictures of a slightly husky teenage boy. That's not good for public exposure as far as the Lloyds' case is concerned. He's not an ugly or mean-looking kid; without images of Mrs. Lloyd's injuries, young Mr. Migliaccio is getting the upper hand in the requisite PR battle.
KilljoyKlown said:
Maybe, but bad lawyers are like rocks on the ground. If you're not tripping over one, you'll end up tripping over another.
Unfortunately, we don't know—and probably aren't allowed to know—just how many lawyers the Lloyds had to shop through before finding one willing to file the suit.
Actually, strike the "unfortunately". We probably don't want to know.
This whole thing is grim, though I can't wait to see the photos of Mrs. Lloyd's damaged face. I mean, come on. All we have so far are pictures of a slightly husky teenage boy. That's not good for public exposure as far as the Lloyds' case is concerned. He's not an ugly or mean-looking kid; without images of Mrs. Lloyd's injuries, young Mr. Migliaccio is getting the upper hand in the requisite PR battle.
Is there anything that people would not sue for anymore? After reading Tiassa's response and the article that you brought up KilljoyKlown this song comes to mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_vrzsgdktY It is utterly pathetic what people will sue over nowadays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_vrzsgdktY It is utterly pathetic what people will sue over nowadays.
"I would grill the Lloyds about their sex lives in open court, to ensure that their regular consortium does not cause any sense of pain—no hard thrusts, no slapping of the ass, no hands on the throat, no pulling hair, &c.—in order to establish a threshold index describing the point that Ms. Lloyd was unable to screw her husband for the pain of her facial injuries I mean, if she can deep throat? I have no idea which way a jury will break on that, but I can certainly imagine the courtroom having difficulty suppressing laughter."
You, would make a good lawyer..Tiassa
You, would make a good lawyer..Tiassa
Bells
Staff member
I have to admit I laughed out loud when I saw that her husband was suing for that.
I went through every scenario possible in questioning the both of them in court and getting to explain how and why and in every single scenario, they would come off looking like money hungry retards.
I mean really... She gets hit in the face with a ball and her husband sues for loss of consortium. You could not write comedy this gold!
But at the end of the day, it is ridiculous that she is suing, let alone her husband. As you covered with your points, the boy was pitching in the appropriate place (field), and sitting at a nearby picnic table, she should have been aware of her surroundings. Unless she can prove that the 11 year old was aiming for her head deliberately, honestly... Nothing more needs to be said.
One really has to question one's society when people are suing children because they threw the ball wrong on a sporting field and the husband is suing for loss of consortium...
It is an insanely stupid charge and one that should never make it to trial.
But stupid charges happen everywhere. Like the woman in Queensland who is suing a water park for not gathering enough momentum in a waterslide and getting stuck at the base of a loop, where she then had to reach up and open a hatch above her head and apparently was too stupid to stand up and step out of the slide, and instead, apparently decided to lift herself out of the slide using one arm, which she allegedly damaged in doing so... No, really.. Stuck in water slide, escape hatch above your head.. you don't stand up to get out of it? The way the hatch is designed, you literally would just have to sit up and then stand up.. But no, this Darwin award winner decided to apparently lift herself out using just one arm...
She is also suing because of the fear and terror she felt that someone would come behind her and crash into her... when the slide operator does not send anyone down those slides until the person in front has exited down below and it is semi-clear slide and would have been obvious she was stuck beneath the escape hatch for those who don't gather the momentum going down...
Stupid people everywhere.