This is ridiculous--Little Leaguer getting sued

[waltjp]

I'm not defending her lawsuit, just saying there's more to this than has been reported. As usual, the media has jumped on the story about a Little Leaguer being sued.

This woman received multiple fractures and reconstructive surgery. She hasn't been able to settle with her insurance company and was facing the deadline for filing a suit under NJ's personal injury law.

It's all just legal maneuvering.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by waltjp

I'm not defending her lawsuit, just saying there's more to this than has been reported. As usual, the media has jumped on the story about a Little Leaguer being sued.

This woman received multiple fractures and reconstructive surgery. She hasn't been able to settle with her insurance company and was facing the deadline for filing a suit under NJ's personal injury law.

It's all just legal maneuvering.

It might be maneuvering, but it's wrong. She should be suing her insurance company for a covered injury, not going after the kid, his family, the league, the umpires, etc.

The insurance company would not be traumatized by the lawsuit, and it would not be frivolous or likely to be dismissed without a trial.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It might be maneuvering, but it's wrong. She should be suing her insurance company for a covered injury, not going after the kid, his family, the league, the umpires, etc.

The insurance company would not be traumatized by the lawsuit, and it would not be frivolous or likely to be dismissed without a trial.

When you say "She should be suing her insurance company for a covered injury" you simply have no clue as to what you're talking about. For starter's check out the difference between "First Person Coverage" (eg uninsured motorist, or Health Insurance coverage) and "Third Person Coverage" (eg your typical automobile or homeowners coverage).

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

This kind of comment is no different than a Hawk Harrelson umpire rant

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

When you say "She should be suing her insurance company for a covered injury" you simply have no clue as to what you're talking about. For starter's check out the difference between "First Person Coverage" (eg uninsured motorist, or Health Insurance coverage) and "Third Person Coverage" (eg your typical automobile or homeowners coverage).

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

This kind of comment is no different than a Hawk Harrelson umpire rant

If her insurance company attempts to deny coverage for a covered injury, she would need to get an attorney.

Oh wait, that never happens anywhere. Never mind.

[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

[CT1]

I haven't read anywhere (other than waltjp's post) that the injured lady even had any health insurance. If she did, why is the insurance company not fulfilling their obligation to her? Is she claiming some outlandish amount for "pain and suffering"?

Regardless, unless she can prove gross negligence or willful intent, she doesn't have much of a chance.

[kylejt]

In one of the stories I read about this, the lawyer did indeed state that the kid intentionally threw the ball at her, thus the suit.

So, we're not getting the whole story here. Was she a parent from the other team? Perhaps she was a loudmouth, and the kid let one "slip" in her general direction. There's something missing here.

And I know some folks think it's heartless to sue a kid, but they're actually suing the folks reasponsible for the kid. His parents (and their homeowners insurance.) are the ones they're going after.

[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.

[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?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

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

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

[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).

[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.