Lawsuits causing swing sets to be removed from schools

[BloodEclipse]

Swing sets removed at some W.Va. schools - Yahoo! News

I am so sick of this sue happy world in which we live.

The kids jumps out of a perfectly good swing, gets hurt and his parents sue and settle for $20,000.

Are you freaking kidding me?

If our parents were like these parents, all of the kids today would be inserted into protective bubbles, to keep them from getting a boo boo.

We need a serious rewind.

 

[jeremy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100901/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_swing_sets_removed_1
I am so sick of this sue happy world in which we live.

The kids jumps out of a perfectly good swing, gets hurt and his parents sue and settle for $20,000.

Are you freaking kidding me?

If our parents were like these parents, all of the kids today would be inserted into protective bubbles, to keep them from getting a boo boo.

We need a serious rewind.

I personally think the Parents should have been hurt for even suggesting this lawsuit...

 

[Instant=.40cal=Karma]

Broken system in my opinion... The only question shouldn't be why are we so quick to file lawsuits, but why the FUNK are these cases being heard in court?

 

[stilllearning09]

 

[Eddie]

Broken system in my opinion... The only question shouldn't be why are we so quick to file lawsuits, but why the FUNK are these cases being heard in court?

A part of the problem is with the way insurance works. The school's insurance policy likely says that it pays the cost of defense but the school pays any judgment. The cost of defense (paying for the attorney, depositions, expert witnesses and such) was likely in the 30-40k range so the insurance company agreed to settle for 20k. The next time the school's policy comes up for renewal the insurance company tells the school to get rid of the swingset or their premiums will go up. Fun eh?

 

[dross]

A part of the problem is with the way insurance works. The school's insurance policy likely says that it pays the cost of defense but the school pays any judgment. The cost of defense (paying for the attorney, depositions, expert witnesses and such) was likely in the 30-40k range so the insurance company agreed to settle for 20k. The next time the school's policy comes up for renewal the insurance company tells the school to get rid of the swingset or their premiums will go up. Fun eh?

I don't blame lawyers for this, or even people who sue. There will always be people who want to take financial advantage of life's accidents. I just think we need some sort of mechanism in the system where a silly lawsuit can get nipped in the bud before it ruins someone financially. That's the real problem - by the time you're in the system deep enough to get out of a lawsuit the plaintiffs weren't going to win anyway, you've had to invest so much financially. Also, you've had it hanging over your head for a long time, because of how slow the wheels grind.

We need some kind of reform to make suits like this painful for those who bring them.

I also think we need a legal principle introduced that certain things, like ladders, swingsets, bicycles, guns, and other products that we've used for many years shouldn't be subject to lawsuit if they were functioning properly.

Shoot yourself with a gun because the trigger was too light? Too bad, shouldn't have your finger on the trigger anyway.
Fall off a swingset? Take little Timmy to the doctor and shut up.
Stand on the top step of a stepladder? Removal of idiots is good for the gene pool.

Another area of reform should be if you built your building under the government imposed code at the time, with government approved materials, you should be immune from lawsuits if that material turns out to be dangerous, unbeknownst to everyone. Now, if you had some special knowledge about the material that no one else had, fine.

Also, drugs. The U.S. has an onerous drug approval process. Completing that process should remove your liability, unless of course you suppressed information that would have kept the drug from being approved.

 

[jedi]

Entitlement breads a lack of personal resposniblity. This is the mentality of America 2.0.

 

[Ogre]

I don't blame lawyers for this, or even people who sue. There will always be people who want to take financial advantage of life's accidents. I just think we need some sort of mechanism in the system where a silly lawsuit can get nipped in the bud before it ruins someone financially. That's the real problem - by the time you're in the system deep enough to get out of a lawsuit the plaintiffs weren't going to win anyway, you've had to invest so much financially. Also, you've had it hanging over your head for a long time, because of how slow the wheels grind.

We need some kind of reform to make suits like this painful for those who bring them.

I also think we need a legal principle introduced that certain things, like ladders, swingsets, bicycles, guns, and other products that we've used for many years shouldn't be subject to lawsuit if they were functioning properly.

Shoot yourself with a gun because the trigger was too light? Too bad, shouldn't have your finger on the trigger anyway.
Fall off a swingset? Take little Timmy to the doctor and shut up.
Stand on the top step of a stepladder? Removal of idiots is good for the gene pool.

Another area of reform should be if you built your building under the government imposed code at the time, with government approved materials, you should be immune from lawsuits if that material turns out to be dangerous, unbeknownst to everyone. Now, if you had some special knowledge about the material that no one else had, fine.

Also, drugs. The U.S. has an onerous drug approval process. Completing that process should remove your liability, unless of course you suppressed information that would have kept the drug from being approved.

I agree! rep'd

 

[rmabrey]

I think the kids textbook rental should be $20,000 next year

 

[308jake]

This is a serious, serious issue that needs more attention.

I received a near fatal papercut today and I'll be damned if Georgia Pacific isn't going to pay royally for this one. My attorney at Dewy, Cheatem and How says brother is set for life.

 

[UncleMike]

What a crock!!!
When I was a kid one of our favorite games was to see who could land farthest from the swing.
We skinned our hands and knees a lot but that was just the price we paid for trying to be the best at something.
Anyone who whined to their parents usually got the,
"Well dumb ***. If you don't want to get hurt. Don't do that!!" speech while the Merthiolate was being applied.
(I wonder how many of out younger members don't know what Merthiolate is. )
Mike

 

[Expat]

We have too many lawyers in this country. They have to make a living so there is going to be one in town that will take your case no matter what happened. Like said before, they know that they have a good shot at legally extorting something out of the insurance company or business. We don't have winner takes all like in England, where if they sue and lose they have to pay costs. So they have nothing to lose by suing and trying to grab that brass ring. Oh I hear someone out there saying, you can seek costs for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Pretty tough to get a judge to do that isn't it?

The real problem though is the same problem all of us on here complain about all the time. The general public. Yep, the same sheeple that are destroying our political system have been at work destroying our judicial system for many years. They get on the jury and find for plaintiffs in cases they shouldn't and way too often award sums all out of balance with the damages incurred. I think many of them feel that next time it may be their turn to get the golden egg.

 

[Benny]

What a crock!!!
When I was a kid one of our favorite games was to see who could land farthest from the swing.
We skinned our hands and knees a lot but that was just the price we paid for trying to be the best at something.
Anyone who whined to their parents usually got the,
"Well dumb ***. If you don't want to get hurt. Don't do that!!" speech while the Merthiolate was being applied.
(I wonder how many of out younger members don't know what Merthiolate is. )
Mike

We also played that game, but the swing set was in pea gravel, so it was pretty hard to hurt yourself unless you were really uncoordinated or injury prone.

 

[UncleMike]

We also played that game, but the swing set was in pea gravel, so it was pretty hard to hurt yourself unless you were really uncoordinated or injury prone.

YUP!!
That was us!!
One of the kids on my block had a huge playground swing in his backyard. He also had an in ground trampoline. That puppy was the cause of a lot of bruises and a couple of broken bones!
Not a single lawsuit though!!!
Our parents figured that if we were dumb enough to risk our lives that way we deserved a few bruises and the occasional broken bone.
They were firm believers in Darwin's Theory.
If we survived we would be tough and make good breeders.
Mike

 

[Ogre]

What a crock!!!
When I was a kid one of our favorite games was to see who could land farthest from the swing.
We skinned our hands and knees a lot but that was just the price we paid for trying to be the best at something.
Anyone who whined to their parents usually got the,
"Well dumb ***. If you don't want to get hurt. Don't do that!!" speech while the Merthiolate was being applied.
(I wonder how many of out younger members don't know what Merthiolate is. )
Mike

Yep, I used to get the "tinchture merthiolate" or Iodine treatment at my grandparents house when I was a little kid. They'd pull out the dusty little glass bottles that looked to be mfg'd in approx. 1951, pull out the cap affixed applicator stick and procede to turn me red or orange. .. good stuff though!

 

[downzero]

I don't blame lawyers for this, or even people who sue. There will always be people who want to take financial advantage of life's accidents. I just think we need some sort of mechanism in the system where a silly lawsuit can get nipped in the bud before it ruins someone financially. That's the real problem - by the time you're in the system deep enough to get out of a lawsuit the plaintiffs weren't going to win anyway, you've had to invest so much financially. Also, you've had it hanging over your head for a long time, because of how slow the wheels grind.

We need some kind of reform to make suits like this painful for those who bring them.

I also think we need a legal principle introduced that certain things, like ladders, swingsets, bicycles, guns, and other products that we've used for many years shouldn't be subject to lawsuit if they were functioning properly.

Shoot yourself with a gun because the trigger was too light? Too bad, shouldn't have your finger on the trigger anyway.
Fall off a swingset? Take little Timmy to the doctor and shut up.
Stand on the top step of a stepladder? Removal of idiots is good for the gene pool.

Another area of reform should be if you built your building under the government imposed code at the time, with government approved materials, you should be immune from lawsuits if that material turns out to be dangerous, unbeknownst to everyone. Now, if you had some special knowledge about the material that no one else had, fine.

Also, drugs. The U.S. has an onerous drug approval process. Completing that process should remove your liability, unless of course you suppressed information that would have kept the drug from being approved.

I actually think you're mostly wrong about that. I don't think we have too much torts litigation. I think we have: 1. not enough and 2. only certain people bring suit.

The answer to your first problem is insuring against the loss. It's the best we'll ever have. If, as a defendant, your lawyer can't find a way to get the case dismissed or for you to win on summary judgment before it ever gets to trial, your case probably isn't entirely meritless. If it is, I'm sorry for you, really. But I think those case are far more rare than you might think.

Products liability lawsuits are severely screwed up. I agree with that. I don't know of a good way to reform it. Perhaps one way is to cap punitive damage awards, but punitive damages are very rare. I wouldn't support any cap on compensatory damages. The distortive effects of such a cap on compensation would ruin capitalism forever.

I think the compliance with regulations issue likely would go in the defendant's favor. That's actually one of the reasons I disfavor government regulation and prefer tort liability. Mere compliance with a regulation probably would be enough to win. But it shouldn't be, and society loses as a result. If someone is negligent, they should pay. The problem comes when juries assume and demand an unnecessarily high level of care.

The drug approval process should be totally eliminated and tort liability substituted for the exact reasons you mention.

It is a myth that we have too much tort litigation in this country. Certain high profile cases have made the tort system look bad in the media, but that doesn't mean that plenty of legitimate plaintiffs haven't been able to prove a case (or never bring one), either.

If you cause economic harm to someone else, you have to pay and there absolutely must be a process for that. A world of no liability means no precaution, and trust me, you don't want to live in that world.

 

[1032JBT]

I actually think you're mostly wrong about that. I don't think we have too much torts litigation. I think we have: 1. not enough and 2. only certain people bring suit.

The answer to your first problem is insuring against the loss. It's the best we'll ever have. If, as a defendant, your lawyer can't find a way to get the case dismissed or for you to win on summary judgment before it ever gets to trial, your case probably isn't entirely meritless. If it is, I'm sorry for you, really. But I think those case are far more rare than you might think.

Products liability lawsuits are severely screwed up. I agree with that. I don't know of a good way to reform it. Perhaps one way is to cap punitive damage awards, but punitive damages are very rare. I wouldn't support any cap on compensatory damages. The distortive effects of such a cap on compensation would ruin capitalism forever.

I think the compliance with regulations issue likely would go in the defendant's favor. That's actually one of the reasons I disfavor government regulation and prefer tort liability. Mere compliance with a regulation probably would be enough to win. But it shouldn't be, and society loses as a result. If someone is negligent, they should pay. The problem comes when juries assume and demand an unnecessarily high level of care.

The drug approval process should be totally eliminated and tort liability substituted for the exact reasons you mention.

It is a myth that we have too much tort litigation in this country. Certain high profile cases have made the tort system look bad in the media, but that doesn't mean that plenty of legitimate plaintiffs haven't been able to prove a case (or never bring one), either.

If you cause economic harm to someone else, you have to pay and there absolutely must be a process for that. A world of no liability means no precaution, and trust me, you don't want to live in that world.

So you think it's ok to sue someone if your kid got injured on something at there place of residence/school/work/whatever even if the item in question was working and functioning properly??? And do I understand you correctly that you think we need more lawsuits???? Honestly.......I'm just trying to understand if that's what you are saying.

 

[littletommy]

What a crock!!!
When I was a kid one of our favorite games was to see who could land farthest from the swing.
We skinned our hands and knees a lot but that was just the price we paid for trying to be the best at something.
Anyone who whined to their parents usually got the,
"Well dumb ***. If you don't want to get hurt. Don't do that!!" speech while the Merthiolate was being applied.
(I wonder how many of out younger members don't know what Merthiolate is. )
Mike

I used to love the smell of merthiolate. Hell, I'd get hurt just so's I could smell the stuff.

 

[Eddie]

I used to love the smell of merthiolate. Hell, I'd get hurt just so's I could smell the stuff.

My school had a big gallon jug of that green soap that seemed to be the standard treatment for everything.

 

[downzero]

So you think it's ok to sue someone if your kid got injured on something at there place of residence/school/work/whatever even if the item in question was working and functioning properly??? And do I understand you correctly that you think we need more lawsuits???? Honestly.......I'm just trying to understand if that's what you are saying.

Yes we need more lawsuits. Medical malpractice is one of those areas. About 5% of doctors create 95% of malpractice claim. If every willing plaintiff came forward, those doctors would lose their licenses and save our society a lot of money. But they don't, and so they stay on the job for years, causing harm to God knows how many people before they lose their license, if ever.

I wouldn't opine generally on the idea of something "functioning properly," but there are some truly gruesome tort suits that could convince even you that some of these lawsuits are entirely legitimate.

There are and have been plenty of instances of things that were defective by design. Do I think plaintiffs should recover in those cases? Absolutely. Bad businesses should be out of business. Those who do right by society's standard stay in business. This is absolutely essential to a functional capitalist free market system.

Nobody should get a free pass. The purpose of the tort system is to change the social standards, and encourage ALL of us to drive more carefully. And if you're wondering who the biggest tortfeasor is, look in the mirror! Most torts involve auto accidents, and I'd be willing to bet some $$ that everyone in this thread has caught themselves not being sufficiently careful when driving. I know I have.