This is ridiculous--Little Leaguer getting sued
 

Nonsense like this is destroying our country.

Woman Sues Little Leaguer for $150,000 after Being Hit by an Errant Ball | NewsFeed | TIME.com

Disagree. Anybody can sue anybody. If the case isn't thrown out at pre-trial and goes to a jury, THAT will be cause for concern.

Now the husband has a case. ;)

I'm filing a class action lawsuit against the woman and her husband for wasting 5 minutes of my life reading the article and typing this response. Anyone want to join me?

I'm in...But I'm dimwitted, it took me 7 minutes to read the article. I should get more money than you 5 minute readers

-Josh

I going to sue and name the woman in the suit because I had to read about umpires whining about how long they spent reading the article.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Why should I believe what you say...provide the link to the other side of the story. Or are you the husband who is also suing for "for the loss of ”services, society and consortium" LOL!

There are a lot of people who make a good living filing personal injury lawsuits. These two sound like the type.

Sure, it sounds like it, given what we've read and know about how this stuff happens. I would also add that very rarely are these things as bad as they first come across.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that it gets tossed, but I also wouldn't be surprised to find that this kid purposefully nailed her with a fast ball. It's not like we've never known a kid that age to do something stupid that could have caused injury.

I'm 95% sure this is a stupid lawsuit, but there's always a chance.

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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?

+1

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

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.

+1
'Nuff said

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.