Little Leaguer Being Sued

Good God. This lady -- and her lawyer -- are full of it.

 

Overthrows happen in Major League Baseball, where the fine motor skills are much more advanced. 11-year-olds? They don't know where the ball's going anywhere close to the frequency of major-leaguers. Sorry for her injuries, but they're as much a product of where she chose to sit as they are from anything the kid did. Intentional? Well, from what we have in these stories, he intended to throw the ball. That's it. Hardly unusual in a baseball park. When you enter, you have to know that there are projectiles in the area and make decisions accordingly.

 

Horrible idea. Can't do it without closing the doors of the courts to meritorious cases.

 

From this longer version, I am going to guess that they get some kind of settlement. It sounds like they might have initially gone after Little League but discovered that the organization's policies were well-written to prevent such occurrences. And the kid's dad is already talking about how much it would cost to fight the charges in court even if they do win. The homeowner policy covers stuff like this. I don't figure they will get close to the amount they are seeking, but I will not be surprised at all if they get something in the $25K-50K range.

 

One of the biggest problems I have with our court system. Someone can file a ridiculous lawsuit against you and you have to pay thousands just to prove how ridiculous it is. I think judges should have the power to deem a lawsuit ridiculous and force the person who filed it to pay for the others lawyers. It should be used sparingly and only in the worst cases but something should be done to stop all these stupid lawsuits.

 

Many states--including the one in question here--have laws that shift the cost of attorneys if claims truly are frivolous.

 

If the bus monitor can raise $500,000 on the internet, I think we can scrape together some legal fees for this kid and his family. I'll put in the first $20.

 

Yes, what really bothers me about this apparently ridiculous lawsuit is that it will compel people to cry, "Tort reform!" And as you said, that will make it harder for the legitimate cases to be taken seriously. Namely the people in the documentary "Hot Coffee" whose access to the judicial system has been suppressed in the name of tort reform.

 

If the 11-year-old did it on purpose, I want him pitching for my team.

 

This is the same country where a woman got a seven-figure settlement for spilling hot coffee on herself.

These days nothing surprises me.

 

You should read up on that, it is not as simple as a woman spilling coffee on herself. That particular McDonald's had been cited numerous times for having coffee much hotter than the health and safety regulations allow. The woman "spilled" coffee in the sense that many of us spill beverages out of cheap styroform cups while driving, and suffered third degree burns.

Frivolous cases, on the other hand, routinely go nowhere. Insurance policies (homeowner, auto, whatever) assess a value based on a number of factors, and most of them understand very well that if they are too generous toward the frivolous, then they will see an exponential increase in frivolous lawsuits. They would rather pay their lawyer $15,000 then give away $15,000 to someone that does not deserve it. That said, there is a nuisance value that often attaches to these cases----my guess is the lawyer hired by the homeowner's insurance policy will offer no more than $5000.

 

I have to tell you, this is the same thing that I thought of. I'll put in the second $20.