Who is liable.......

[Hunny]

Not too far from where I live there was a sledding accident...a little girl died...one in a coma...
Local News - Hartford Courant
The accident happened on someone else's property....and in todays society, there is always someone who comes back to sue...My question is...who is responsible ...the people who owned the land, the youth group who asked permission to use the land, all the above, or noone????

I know growing up, the hill in my backyard was where all the kids in town came to sled because it was the biggest hill and the only one with a clear path to the bottom...Had someone got hurt, I would only assume my parents would have been liable...

Lets say the kids came on the land to sled without the owners permission..then what?? What steps can be taken to avoid being liable.

[sbp]

Some lawyers would love to sue the people who own the land. And its due to that a lot of fun has been taken out of everything and this is why silly labels are seen on products.

One way to avoid being liable is building a fence to keep people out and not allow anyone to use the land. Even then a few lawyers would sue if someone without permission came onto the land and got hurt.

How about no one is liable. We can't live in a perfect, risk free society.

[Hunny]

Originally posted by sbp
Some lawyers would love to sue the people who own the land. And its due to that a lot of fun has been taken out of everything and this is why silly labels are seen on products.

One way to avoid being liable is building a fence to keep people out and not allow anyone to use the land. Even then a few lawyers would sue if someone without permission came onto the land and got hurt.

How about no one is liable. We can't live in a perfect, risk free society.

Let me throw in another question then ...

If it were YOUR child...what would you do?

[Grimm]

The land owners could be legaly liable. It is unfortuinate but true.

Accidents are just accidents. It's not like the owners were negligent in any way. They just were kind enough to let their land be used.

As to who can get sued:
The landowners
The youth group
Any affiliated church
The persons supervising the event
The persons who arranged the event
The sled manufactures
Anyone who sponsored the event
Anyone who supplied a sled

[zenbooty]

Who could get sued: Anyone

Who should get sued: no one

[whitak24]

/me waits for ufcrusher to come and give the definitive answer.....

[molecularfire]

Originally posted by Hunny



Let me throw in another question then ...

If it were YOUR child...what would you do?

What does this have to do with anything? I mean, yes it sucked for the parents of the kid, but I don't see how seeking revenge on someone who was nice enough to let a youth group use their property is going to help anything. I know that this is going to sound callous but unfortunately, bad things happen sometimes for no good reason. I don't see how blindly attacking well intentioned people is going to make anything better.

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by molecularfire


What does this have to do with anything? I mean, yes it sucked for the parents of the kid, but I don't see how seeking revenge on someone who was nice enough to let a youth group use their property is going to help anything. I know that this is going to sound callous but unfortunately, bad things happen sometimes for no good reason. I don't see how blindly attacking well intentioned people is going to make anything better.

I bet there are lawyers slipping business cards under there door right now provoking the whole thing.

[Hunny]

Originally posted by molecularfire


What does this have to do with anything? I mean, yes it sucked for the parents of the kid, but I don't see how seeking revenge on someone who was nice enough to let a youth group use their property is going to help anything. I know that this is going to sound callous but unfortunately, bad things happen sometimes for no good reason. I don't see how blindly attacking well intentioned people is going to make anything better.

I meant nothing more with that added question other than to put another twist to the original question " Who is liable"...
I agree...sueing someone for an unfortunate accident isn't right, though for some people, I imagine they would sue to cover hospital expenses and such because their insurance didn't...or because they had none...
The added question wasn't asked to "stump" anyone..and it does have alot to do with this question...its like the other thread I was in.."giving advice and not taking it"...
We can say it's not right to sue because accidents are just that..." and thats why they're called "accidents"...but putting the shoe on the foot is sometimes a whole new ball game...
As far as your statement

unfortunately, bad things happen sometimes for no good reason.

I agree...and everything happens for a reason...but.......I still think that second question was a fair one....Setting aside whats right and whats wrong...what would you do if it were your child?...anyone?????????

[sbp]

Originally posted by Hunny



Let me throw in another question then ...

If it were YOUR child...what would you do?

Be at a funeral or hospital.

[ufcrusher]

There are many variables that could actually change liability in this case.

First off, unless the family that owns the land had the church group sign a waiver of liability, they would theoretically still be liable. Even if the kids went on the land without permission, it would be called an attractive nuisance and they would still be liable. Its the reason why you have to have a fence around your pool.

Secondly, the church group would be liable, since they were sponsoring the trip, got permission from the owner, and were supervising the kids.

Third, the manufacturer of the inner tube would be liable if it could be shown to have a product defect. (The lack of proper warning not to use on ice would be a product defect)

The parents of both children can sue both the owners and the church group, although the church group would be the better defendant since they asked permission and were supervising. Theoretically, they had the responsibility to check that the hill was safe on the day that they were going.

Now, if you are trying to protect yourself, you need to take steps to prevent children from getting onto your property. Setup and maintain a fence, post signs on the fence, and police it. Even then if a kid gets through and gets injured because of a known or unknown danger while coming to an attractive nuisance. BUT YOU WOULD WANT TO CHECK YOUR LOCAL STATE AND COUNTY LAWS.

What would I do...cry. Then decide whether it was worth it to sue anyone. And if I decided to sue, it would only be the church group since they were responsible and should have known that sledding on ice is unsafe, especially if there are trees on the hill.

[eSDee]

Of course ufcrusher is right on, so I am not challenging it. I just want to say that the only realistic idea is that the Church is liable, for not testing or researching the hill very well. I mean, the fact that the girls wiped out on the first run of the day shows shotty planning. But they didn't really mean any malice by it, so I think you gotta forgive them. If it were MY KID (which makes no difference but I'll play along) I think I would definitely have my doubts and probably look for someone to blame, but eventually I think I would chalk it up to just being a horrible accident. Atleast that's what I hope I would do, because if not then I think it's a torturous life that I would lead.

My heart goes out to all those involved

[welfareloser]

sports carry an implicit risk of injury and death. it's a small one, but it's always there. if you let your child participate in a sport or other physical activity, you are allowing that risk to be taken. if the hill was just an obvious bad idea (i mean ridiculously unsafe: big rocks and trees everywhere, way too steep) and it was my child (that is a fair question) - i would certainly entertain thoughts of suing the youth group. people who work with kids need to have an idea of what is age-appropriate, and if they don't have a friggin clue, they shouldn't bill themselves as "i work with kids!"

edit: just read the article... these were middle-school kids, not the kindergarteners i think i was envisioning. a lot of people sled on the hill... they wouldn't if it was really unsafe (yeah, a few people still would, but most people aren't entertained by slamming their butts on boulders all day). yes, it could have been prevented, (by not allowing the kids to do anything fun outside the house!) but this is nobody's fault.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Most likely, (if the parents decide to sue) everyone involved will get sued. Whoever has the most money will be pursued with the most zeal (probably the church.) It has nothing to do with who's responsible, the stinkin' lawyers will sue everyone, and let the courts sort it out.

Several years ago, a local pastor was invited to accompany some of his parishioners on a deer hunting trip. It was his first time hunting. He tripped on a branch, his gun went off, and a guy was killed.

Of course, this can't be considered just a horrible accident - no, someone must pay. So the family sued the church. The lawyer argued that a pastor is ALWAYS representing the church, so the church is ALWAYS responsible for his actions. I think they ended up settling out of court.

[Cubsfan]

I'd say that if it's a church group, the propability of them being sued is probably pretty low. I think most people would find it difficult to sue their own church.

But second, why is there always an idea that if one of your family members dies, you should get money? I understand if it's the main breadwinner of the family, but since it's a child, I would think that enough money to cover hospital and funeral expenses would be enough. It's not like giving millions to the family is going to bring her back. I just hate the idea of profiting because a family member died...

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by Cubsfan
But second, why is there always an idea that if one of your family members dies, you should get money? I understand if it's the main breadwinner of the family, but since it's a child, I would think that enough money to cover hospital and funeral expenses would be enough. It's not like giving millions to the family is going to bring her back. I just hate the idea of profiting because a family member died...

Sadly, today our society places more value on victimhood than adulthood.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by zenbooty

Sadly, today our society places more value on victimhood than adulthood.

unfortunately true.

If it were my child I would ask the church to cover the expenses for the funeral and internment. Any church that wouldn't, considering the circumstances, is run by heartless morons who deserve to beaten up in court. But as far as making any money off it, it would make me feel sick to take a profit from my childs death.

[molecularfire]

Originally posted by Hunny



I meant nothing more with that added question other than to put another twist to the original question " Who is liable"...
I agree...sueing someone for an unfortunate accident isn't right, though for some people, I imagine they would sue to cover hospital expenses and such because their insurance didn't...or because they had none...
The added question wasn't asked to "stump" anyone..and it does have alot to do with this question...its like the other thread I was in.."giving advice and not taking it"...
We can say it's not right to sue because accidents are just that..." and thats why they're called "accidents"...but putting the shoe on the foot is sometimes a whole new ball game...
As far as your statement


I agree...and everything happens for a reason...but.......I still think that second question was a fair one....Setting aside whats right and whats wrong...what would you do if it were your child?...anyone?????????

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come off sounding harsh. Actually, I was just answering the question. I'll paraphrase what I was getting at... I don't think what people do when they're at their emotional lows is necessarily the right thing to do. I don't think that the law should let people do things that are wrong just because they feel bad for them.

Now... sbp's response... I don't know if it's a really simple profound statement or whether it's just insensitive... how was it intended?

[caribiner23]

....Setting aside whats right and whats wrong...what would you do if it were your child?...anyone?????????

Speaking as a parent, I can honestly say that I don't know what I would do. The emotions that would go along with losing a child are emotions I can't even begin to imagine.

It's easy to logically think things through in the relative calm of "someone else's kid" but to ask what I would do if my child were involved is, I think, an unfair question.

All that said, we are in a litigious society, and everyone's a** is up for grabs no matter what you do. (I believe Lenny Bruce once said that...)

I do a lot of work with my kids' school district, and district- and school-sponsored outings are looked at very carefully from a liability standpoint. Usually, the school will send home a permission slip that allows the kids to participate in the activity and also limits the liability of the school, transportation company, etc.

In this case, I am not sure whom a court would see as the liable party, but the non-emotional logical side of my brain says it was an accident and there is no liability.

And this may be a stupid question, but most of the hills I used to go sledding on (and I take my kids on now) don't have any trees nearby. Surely someone had the foresight to say "now, steer away from the trees, guys."

[brainsmile]

this whole thing sucks

[molecularfire]

All that said, we are in a litigious society, and everyone's a** is up for grabs no matter what you do. (I believe Lenny Bruce once said that...)

So true. In class yesterday, one of my teachers was telling us about this heart surgeon who was going to do surgery on a malpractice insurance lawyer. Anyways, he gave this long informed consent speech to the lawyer wanting to make sure that he covered himself. Anyways, the speech worried the lawyer who then had a heart attack, sued and won.

[thresher]

Move down to Florida with us rednecks...
no snow, damn few hills and a whole lot less lawyers. plus, the fishing is great year round.