The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountaincoach View Post
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.

Last edited by cbfoulds; Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 02:50pm.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 29, 2012, 04:00pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSUmp16 View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 29, 2012, 09:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:40pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSUmp16 View Post
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSUmp16 View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 30, 2012, 12:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 30, 2012, 07:20am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSUmp16 View Post
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?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.

Last edited by Adam; Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:23am.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 30, 2012, 12:32pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbfoulds View Post
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?
__________________
I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me?
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 30, 2012, 02:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Tyler View Post
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?

Last edited by cbfoulds; Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 02:46pm. Reason: cause I can't spell
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 01, 2012, 12:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbfoulds View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 05, 2012, 11:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbfoulds View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 06, 2012, 11:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSUmp16 View Post
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?
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 06, 2012, 12:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 06, 2012, 03:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrUmpire View Post
BSUmp16:

Rich isn't a lawyer, he just plays one on the internet.
+1
'Nuff said
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jul 07, 2012, 07:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South Bend, In.
Posts: 2,192
Send a message via AIM to BigUmp56 Send a message via Yahoo to BigUmp56
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrUmpire View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OMG - local ref gets sued on People's Court Mark Padgett Basketball 15 Fri Jul 12, 2013 03:47pm
OT - NCAA sued by AAU coach Mark Padgett Basketball 2 Mon Mar 14, 2011 07:24pm
Ridiculous Legislation BigUmp56 Baseball 18 Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:21pm
Ridiculous Shot bwbuddy Basketball 8 Thu Dec 23, 2004 03:22am
Coach sued for $1.5M after child does not make V Rookie Basketball 11 Fri Dec 14, 2001 07:50am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1