This is ridiculous--Little Leaguer getting sued

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by Mountaincoach

The bottom line is the woman sued a CHILD. Any kind of explanation or justification is just plain wrong. Here's a quote from her lawyer. I'd be ashamed.

"He throws his best fast ball over the bullpen into the picnic area, striking my client in the face," Elizabeth Lloyd's attorney told the Press about the little league lawsuit, which she filed after attempts to settle with insurance companies failed.

This video is like a picture--worth a thousand words. Pay particular attention to the words they use in the lawsuit to describe how the CHILD "intentionally and recklessly assaulted her".

NJ woman hit with ball sues Little League player

I've been resisting the urge to weigh in here - there is really too much we don't know ... can't know, really ... about what actually happened.
IF [and it's a damn big "if"] the kid INTENTIONALLY "threw his best fastball" at her and cause damage, the suit against the kid probably has merit.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I went ahead and watched the video link in the post quoted above, which purports to show the "scene of the crime" - the locus in quo, as us lawyers say [when we're being pretentious].

If this is the bullpen, fence, and picnic table involved, in the same condition and location as at the time of the occurance, then the lawsuit is bulls#!t, and probably doomed to failure in any half-way sensible Court. The fence is about 6 feet high, the table is less than 15 feet from the fence - no way is she getting hit by anybody's best fastball, intentional or not: the ball is being thrown from the other end of the bullpen, and is gonna resemble an ephus slow-pitch softball trajectory to hit her, not a MLB frozen rope. Simple negligence [a terrible return throw] won't cut it to impose liability on the kid, and at that range, I'll call BS preemptively on his being able to intentionally throw the ball over that fence and have it hit the table with enough force to do serious damage, at that range.

Not gonna make liability against the kid on "inappropriate sporting activity" in proximity to the table - he's IN the F'ing bullpen, doing what it's designed for, and HE's not responsible for where the Park puts the benches/ tables. The "heads up"-type sign pretty much exempts the Park, League, and the rest of the universe from liability: there is real good precedent [iirc, from NY, not NJ - but the principle is still taught as universal] that getting hit by random errant baseballs is a known risk of attending a BB game, such that every spectator is said to "assume the risk" - precluding any recovery for NEGLIGENT [but not INTENTIONAL] beaning of a spectator.

My read: Plaintiff's lawyer is a moron, hoping that whoever ends up representing the Defendant(s) is a bigger moron. Hell- it happens.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Breach of contract. Don't need that or another policy to be able to do that.

Oh this is getting even more goofy - What contract and what was the breach? You're just making stuff up and throwing words on the screen

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Oh this is getting even more goofy - What contract and what was the breach? You're just making stuff up and throwing words on the screen

One possibility: The contract with her health insurance company to cover various injuries and illnesses. Unless you're saying no insurance company has ever tried to not pay what they were obliged to pay.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

One possibility: The contract with her health insurance company to cover various injuries and illnesses. Unless you're saying no insurance company has ever tried to not pay what they were obliged to pay.

Her health insurance company (if she has one) has not (based on the OP) denied her benefits. Which, by the way, has nothing to do with her lawsuit against a third party (check out the Collateral Source rule).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Her health insurance company (if she has one) has not (based on the OP) denied her benefits. Which, by the way, has nothing to do with her lawsuit against a third party (check out the Collateral Source rule).

There's nothing in the article that mentions her insurance company at all, so there isn't nearly enough information. All we know is she's claiming $150,000 in medical bills. That's pretty clear to me (given that the claim is for an errant baseball throw) that there has been no insurance payments involved.

I know with my auto insurance, if you have uninsured motorist coverage, the insurance company will pay out and in turn sue the guilty driver. Since she's suing, I'm assuming she either doesn't have health insurance or her insurance company refused to pay for some reason.

Regardless, you didn't ask if it was likely, and none of us indicated it would be. You asked:

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Pray tell, Mr. Darrow, under what insurance policy is she going to "sue her insurance company"?

The scenario isn't all that far fetched, in general.

All that said, this really seems like the dumbest couple ever. I wonder if they got a cousin with a law degree to file this one.

If I was the parents of the kid, I'd counter-sue for everything I could. People like this really need to be on the hook for legal fees when they file frivolous suits.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There's nothing in the article that mentions her insurance company at all, so there isn't nearly enough information. All we know is she's claiming $150,000 in medical bills. That's pretty clear to me (given that the claim is for an errant baseball throw) that there has been no insurance payments involved.

I know with my auto insurance, if you have uninsured motorist coverage, the insurance company will pay out and in turn sue the guilty driver. Since she's suing, I'm assuming she either doesn't have health insurance or her insurance company refused to pay for some reason.

Regardless, you didn't ask if it was likely, and none of us indicated it would be. You asked:



The scenario isn't all that far fetched, in general.

All that said, this really seems like the dumbest couple ever. I wonder if they got a cousin with a law degree to file this one.

If I was the parents of the kid, I'd counter-sue for everything I could. People like this really need to be on the hook for legal fees when they file frivolous suits.

OK, I'm done. I've been a lawyer for 35 years. You don't have a clue about what you're saying. On what possible basis are the parents going to "counter-sue" the lady who got hit?

I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions, but comments like yours have zero factual/legal basis.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

OK, I'm done. I've been a lawyer for 35 years. You don't have a clue about what you're saying. On what possible basis are the parents going to "counter-sue" the lady who got hit?

I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions, but comments like yours have zero factual/legal basis.

I know they can't. I wish they could. I'll leave it there.

Then again, what would you have said if someone had told you a lady would sue a little league player who hit her with a baseball in the course of a game?

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by cbfoulds

I've been resisting the urge to weigh in here - there is really too much we don't know ... can't know, really ... about what actually happened. IF [and it's a damn big "if"] the kid INTENTIONALLY "threw his best fastball" at her and cause damage, the suit against the kid probably has merit.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I went ahead and watched the video link in the post quoted above, which purports to show the "scene of the crime" - the locus in quo, as us lawyers say [when we're being pretentious].

If this is the bullpen, fence, and picnic table involved, in the same condition and location as at the time of the occurance, then the lawsuit is bulls#!t, and probably doomed to failure in any half-way sensible Court. The fence is about 6 feet high, the table is less than 15 feet from the fence - no way is she getting hit by anybody's best fastball, intentional or not: the ball is being thrown from the other end of the bullpen, and is gonna resemble an ephus slow-pitch softball trajectory to hit her, not a MLB frozen rope. Simple negligence [a terrible return throw] won't cut it to impose liability on the kid, and at that range, I'll call BS preemptively on his being able to intentionally throw the ball over that fence and have it hit the table with enough force to do serious damage, at that range.

Not gonna make liability against the kid on "inappropriate sporting activity" in proximity to the table - he's IN the F'ing bullpen, doing what it's designed for, and HE's not responsible for where the Park puts the benches/ tables. The "heads up"-type sign pretty much exempts the Park, League, and the rest of the universe from liability: there is real good precedent [iirc, from NY, not NJ - but the principle is still taught as universal] that getting hit by random errant baseballs is a known risk of attending a BB game, such that every spectator is said to "assume the risk" - precluding any recovery for NEGLIGENT [but not INTENTIONAL] beaning of a spectator.

My read: Plaintiff's lawyer is a moron, hoping that whoever ends up representing the Defendant(s) is a bigger moron. Hell- it happens.

Ambulance chaser?

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Ambulance chaser?

You asking about me or the lawyer for the allegedly injured party?

Me? Nope, I defend innocent people being wrongfully persecuted by the G'ummint [and a few guilty folk, too].

Guy representing this plaintiff? I've heard the species so described; to distinguish them from the noble breed of Personal Injury lawyers who make a living helping people harmed by the careless irresponsibility of others [including many big Corporations and some Insurance Companies] receive fair compensation for their injuries.

Have you a point in asking about the applicability of this particular label?

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by cbfoulds

you asking about me or the lawyer for the allegedly injured party?

Me? Nope, i defend innocent people being wrongfully persecuted by the g'ummint [and a few guilty folk, too].

Guy representing this plaintiff? I've heard the species so described; to distinguish them from the noble breed of personal injury lawyers who make a living helping people harmed by the careless irresponsibility of others [including many big corporations and some insurance companies] receive fair compensation for their injuries.

Have you a point in asking about the applicability of this particular label?

+1

[LMan]

Originally Posted by cbfoulds

You asking about me or the lawyer for the allegedly injured party?

Me? Nope, I defend innocent people being wrongfully persecuted by the G'ummint [and a few guilty folk, too].

Guy representing this plaintiff? I've heard the species so described; to distinguish them from the noble breed of Personal Injury lawyers who make a living helping people harmed by the careless irresponsibility of others [including many big Corporations and some Insurance Companies] receive fair compensation for their injuries.

Have you a point in asking about the applicability of this particular label?

Don't go crying because the bad 95% screw it up for the other 5% of you.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Oh this is getting even more goofy - What contract and what was the breach? You're just making stuff up and throwing words on the screen

Making stuff up? Hell no.

An insurance policy is a contract between the insurance company and you.

You asked why she would sue her insruance company. Not some other party's company - her own.

If they deny coverage then she can sue for breach.

Understand better now?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Making stuff up? Hell no.

An insurance policy is a contract between the insurance company and you.

You asked why she would sue her insruance company. Not some other party's company - her own.

If they deny coverage then she can sue for breach.

Understand better now?

BSUmp16:

Rich isn't a lawyer, he just plays one on the internet.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

BSUmp16:

Rich isn't a lawyer, he just plays one on the internet.

+1
'Nuff said

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

BSUmp16:

Rich isn't a lawyer, he just plays one on the internet.

I'm not an attorney either, but a quick study of the subject of suing your insurance company for breach of contract shows that it's not just an option, it's a very plausible option. In fact you don't have to go so far as to sue them for breach of contract if you can prove only that they acted in bad faith while representing you in a claim.

Tim.