Texting teen falls in hole, famiy intends to sue

texas*princess · #1 07-11-2009, 05:49 PM

GC-Lawyers/law students, would the family actually have a case?

Story

Quote:

By Victoria Cavaliere
NBCNewYork.com
updated 12:19 p.m. CT, Sat., July 11, 2009

We all know that walking and texting is a tough combination -- but a Staten Island teen learned the hard way when she fell into an uncovered sewer manhole while trying to send a message.

Now, the family of Alexa Longueira, 15, intends to sue.

The girl suffered a fright and some scrapes on her arms back after she dropped into the hole on Victory Boulevard.

Kevin · #2 07-11-2009, 05:59 PM

I think a lot depends on New York's act concerning tort claims against the state or city. That aside, I think she's going to have some serious issues with contributory negligence. I don't think it's much of a case. And it doesn't seem that the girl suffered any major damages. It sounds like the mother is a very simple person who sees a payday in her future.

On these facts, I'd probably decline to represent her.

KSigkid · #3 07-11-2009, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think a lot depends on New York's act concerning tort claims against the state or city. That aside, I think she's going to have some serious issues with contributory negligence. I don't think it's much of a case. And it doesn't seem that the girl suffered any major damages. It sounds like the mother is a very simple person who sees a payday in her future.

On these facts, I'd probably decline to represent her.

That's what I was going to say - contributory negligence could be a huge issue, especially if NY is a state (I don't know that it is) where either:

1) Any comparative negligence knocks you out of damages, or;
2) More than 50% comparative negligence knocks you out.

Plus, there's case law in some states (like CT for example) where courts have found that individuals have a responsibility to keep a good lookout for their surroundings.

Either way I'd agree, she doesn't have a great case.

Kevin · #4 07-11-2009, 06:11 PM

What sort of duty of care do municipal workers owe to the public when they're maintaining municipal facilities (like streets) which the public may happen upon? Just reasonable care? Or something more?

ThetaPrincess24 · #5 07-11-2009, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Plus, there's case law in some states (like CT for example) where courts have found that individuals have a responsibility to keep a good lookout for their surroundings.

That's common sense. It's ashame a law has to be on the books to state that...then again common sense seems to go futher down the drain with each generation so I guess I shouldnt be suprised.

ThetaPrincess24 · #6 07-11-2009, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

What sort of duty of care do municipal workers owe to the public when they're maintaining municipal facilities (like streets) which the public may happen upon? Just reasonable care? Or something more?

You'd think they would have it marked and covered with a board if they werent presently working on it. If they were working on it, they should probably have it marked with someone standing around to prevent such an accident.

pshsx1 · #7 07-12-2009, 12:45 AM

heh, I half expected this to be a story from The Onion.

I guess both sides are kind of at fault... the cones should have been down before the hole was open and.. well.. basic awareness should have kicked in on her side.

DGTess · #8 07-12-2009, 02:54 PM

"Watch where you're going" is a lesson normal people learn before they're potty trained.

Seems she forgot the basics. Texting must have been more important.

And we wonder why our courts are overburdened.

Psi U MC Vito · #9 07-12-2009, 03:03 PM

No our courts are overburdened because people can get away with stupid stuff like this. Remember the McDonald's case?

ThetaPrincess24 · #10 07-12-2009, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

No our courts are overburdened because people can get away with stupid stuff like this. Remember the McDonald's case?

Yes, that is an excellent example of stupid!

Kevin · #11 07-12-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Remember the McDonald's case?

Actually, read up on the McDonald's case. There was nothing frivolous about it.

KSigkid · #12 07-12-2009, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Actually, read up on the McDonald's case. There was nothing frivolous about it.

Exactly - if you want cases of frivolous lawsuits, there are plenty of other examples.

Psi U MC Vito · #13 07-12-2009, 05:43 PM

Just read up on it. I didn't realize how serious the woman was hurt or how much a difference there was between McDonalds and other place's coffee.

Kevin · #14 07-12-2009, 06:04 PM

You have to realize that the McDonald's case, the 'missing pants' case and others are regurgitated to the media by special interest groups who are usually seeking to drive public policy to protect their wealthy clients from civil liability in courts and then reprinted as 'news.' The spin becomes 'fact' which makes people want to support politicians who support things like tort reform.

99% of the time, when you hear about frivolous lawsuits, they are one suit out of millions and you're only getting the facts someone wants you to have.

KSigkid · #15 07-12-2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

You have to realize that the McDonald's case, the 'missing pants' case and others are regurgitated to the media by special interest groups who are usually seeking to drive public policy to protect their wealthy clients from civil liability in courts and then reprinted as 'news.' The spin becomes 'fact' which makes people want to support politicians who support things like tort reform.

99% of the time, when you hear about frivolous lawsuits, they are one suit out of millions and you're only getting the facts someone wants you to have.

Yup, it ends up being part of a larger debate between the trial lawyers associations and the tort reform groups.