Thoughts on Law Suits

.

"I'd watch out for Woody and his hsbasbeallweb addiction. He's over 18000 posts. He might get you for carpel tunnel."

Hey RJM...I've got my tunnel problems well covered.



My microscopic tiny orange guys have everything under control. You can relax Mom!



.

quote:

Originally posted by cabbagedad:
Some rules that have been issued to our HS coaching staff in recent years-

Our players can't throw front toss BP from behind a net to each other...

I have to laugh because my son was doing this with his travel team at a local HS where his coach is on the staff. There was apparently a hole in the L-screen and a ball managed to go right through it and then into my son's nose, breaking it pretty badly.

Technically, I believe the coach could have been in hot water for having the team use the cages - but I wasn't going to say anything to anyone to cause that to happen.

Fortunately our insurance picked up the cost of everything except about $1000 in copays for the repair surgery.

Son learned a lesson - check the net for holes.

maybe the local LE agency should be investigating the parents on a child neglect charge. If they are claiming the pitcher threw too fast then they may be on the hook for placing their kid in a level of play that he is obviuously not qualified to participate in, but the "my little johnny can play with the older kids he is so good" mentallity is setting in fast for them...just kidding of course.

I am sure if you asked the kid he wants nothing to do with this other than he wants to play ball.

The parents need to stop the sillyness and ask why the team insurance is not helping to cover this

Joe,

We see very few that use a helmet with a cage. I think that is more common with younger ages.

quote:

We see very few that use a helmet with a cage. I think that is more common with younger ages.

Understood. I have older kids and realize that once you are over 12 the use of them is rare. What I was pointing out was the fact that there was a way to mitigate the risk of a broken jaw and just because its not generally done the player made the choice to not wear a cage which then takes the liability off of the tourney organizer and places it back on the player.

I guess I am going back to the few law classes I had. If you can foresee an issue and don't take steps to mitigate the problem then you are liable. A lawyer could easily argue the player was responsible for his own injury. He knew there was a risk of getting hit in the face (foreseeable) he choose not to mitigate that risk by wearing a cage as its uncool at his age. Thus the negligence is with the player and not the tourney organizer.

I really hate frivolous lawsuits.

Joes87,

That makes sense. All this stuff boggles my mind. Actually, I would be OK with making those face masks mandatory.

Problem is... Not sure the top teams would want to play in our tournaments if we did that. But there's no doubt it would help eliminate some injuries.

Rawlings came out with a new helmet that was much safer a few years ago. Most players didn't want to use it.

A few years ago I used the batting cages at Sports at the Beach in Delaware.The L screen was terrible as was the cage itself. I jotted off an email a few days later warning them about possible future injuries and law suits. Never heard a word in reply. You can be sure that if they get sued, they will be crying "foul".

.

"I really hate frivolous lawsuits."

I wonder where all of these frivolous lawsuits got started?



.

I'drop it. No moral high ground here. Fight the suit and here is what you get. They control your money (it will be expensive) they control your thoughts (impossible not to think about it at all) they control your emotions ( don't tell me it won't be frustrating) they control your time ( you'll spend your day with lawyers while the rest of us are at the park). Don't be their puppet.

Last year I was forced to close a business that I had built for the last 17 years because I could no longer afford to pay the escalating insurance bills due to fraudulent law suits (mostly workers compensation). We had all the proof you would think necessary to win the cases but our representation was inept and the judge was an idiot, bleeding heart liberal. Once employees learn they can make any claim they want without fear of the truth or common sense prevailing you're dead in the water, they see it as an early retirement program.

PG, I hope there is a way to keep the suing player/family away from any and all PG events if not baseball in general.

My son was hit in the face with a ball sending him to the E.R.. Thirteen stitches later we went back to the hotel for a nap and then back to the field for the championship game. He ended up not playing but was there to support his team win the tournament. My insurance company sent me letters trying to get me to implicate others as responsible parties. I just ignored the letters and they covered the treatment.

I fear this type of thing will only increase with the implementation of Obama Care. Bigger deeper pockets and a lack of personal involvement will lend itself to fraud.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Someone mentioned, that sometimes law suits are settled simply because it's far less expensive to settle on a payment than it is to fight. Been there... Done that!

You can be 100% positive you are right and will win in any court. To fight... Your cost is estimated to be $50,000 plus your time. To settle... $20,000 and it's over. I actually wanted to fight, but even our attorney said that would be stupid, so we settled.

What would you do?

Therein lies one of the biggest problems within our legal system, and it is akin to the fox supervising the hen house.
Politicians, many of whom are lawyers, rarely come up with positive legislation to regulate their brethren. Yet tort reform can come in many different forms.
For instance, having laws that stipulate if a lawsuit is deemed frivolous, the party being sued can recoup all legal expenses. That would put a monkey wrench into the works. These contigency sharks cruising in the muddy water just biting blind hoping to hit flesh would grind to a halt.
Judges of course are also typically lawyers, so they might throw out the suit, but not want to deem it meeting the criteria of frivolous. So anytime you have people with a built in bias policing themselves, little seems to get done.

As to what I would do? In my present financial situation I'd have to cave into the system and agree to settle.
However if I had substantial wealth and could afford to take a few financial hits, I'd fight someone to the end of the earth if I was not at fault. The more you allow the blood suckers to win by bringing suits knowing they are without merit, the more it will increase the problem.
The long term solution of course is to find ways to elect politicians who have the same passion about tort reform, and hope enough of them get elected to overcome the trial lawyers lobby. Another alternative would be to start an organization to lobby politicians just like the blood ******* trial lawyers lobby does. Sometimes you must fight fire with fire.
If I ever win the lottery or have someone bequeath a large some of money to me, this issue would be in my top 3 things to get done, as it perverts our entire legal system.

`

quote:

Originally posted by Rob T:

quote:

Originally posted by cabbagedad:
Some rules that have been issued to our HS coaching staff in recent years-

Our players can't throw front toss BP from behind a net to each other...

I have to laugh because my son was doing this with his travel team at a local HS where his coach is on the staff. There was apparently a hole in the L-screen and a ball managed to go right through it and then into my son's nose, breaking it pretty badly.

Technically, I believe the coach could have been in hot water for having the team use the cages - but I wasn't going to say anything to anyone to cause that to happen.

Fortunately our insurance picked up the cost of everything except about $1000 in copays for the repair surgery.

Son learned a lesson - check the net for holes.

That reminds me... another rule is that we are not allowed to fix the netting on our screens for fear of liability. So we have to leave the holes until we can get a whole new screen. My head is still spinning on this one.

quote:

For instance, having laws that stipulate if a lawsuit is deemed frivolous, the party being sued can recoup all legal expenses. That would put a monkey wrench into the works. These contigency sharks cruising in the muddy water just biting blind hoping to hit flesh would grind to a halt.

I like the Canadian system. At some point (not sure exactly where) during the legal process a hearing is held to determine who pays legal fees. Essentially if you bring a frivolous law suit and loose you end up paying everyone's legal fees.

I hope the lawyers and insurance companies don't force PG participants into wearing face masks. As a visible entity it would filter down to all levels of baseball. Then when a kid gets a broken rib getting hit by a pitch, hitters will be forced to wear bubble wrap. Players will end up looking like the Michelin Man.

quote:

Originally posted by cabbagedad:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob T:

quote:

Originally posted by cabbagedad:
Some rules that have been issued to our HS coaching staff in recent years-

Our players can't throw front toss BP from behind a net to each other...

I have to laugh because my son was doing this with his travel team at a local HS where his coach is on the staff. There was apparently a hole in the L-screen and a ball managed to go right through it and then into my son's nose, breaking it pretty badly.

Technically, I believe the coach could have been in hot water for having the team use the cages - but I wasn't going to say anything to anyone to cause that to happen.

Fortunately our insurance picked up the cost of everything except about $1000 in copays for the repair surgery.

Son learned a lesson - check the net for holes.

That reminds me... another rule is that we are not allowed to fix the netting on our screens for fear of liability. So we have to leave the holes until we can get a whole new screen. My head is still spinning on this one.

My son's high school coach needed school board approval to allow players to groom the infield after practices and games due to union restrictions of the maintenance department.

We raised enough money for dugouts and a building that would be a concession stand, storage area, bathroom facilities and a second floor announcers/ scores room for both baseball and softball. The problem was much of the budget was based on donated materials and labor by the community. The maintenance union defeated he proposal. We raised enough money for the school maintenance department to build mediocre dugouts for both fields.

Just this past week, I wrote the check for my annual individual liability policy....The policy provides General Liability coverage of 3 million dollars...it also supplies coverage against an assault....

Now its not terribly expensive, but it is something I dont feel comfortable umpiring without...

The Official Rules of Baseball says the umpire is responsible for the conduct of the game in accordance with the rules and maintaining discipline and order on the playing field during the game.

There is enough room in the that statement to make insurance a must for me.....

This year I will hear:

Its not raining that hard, let them play...
The lightning has passed, we dont have to wait 30 minutes..
The field isnt too muddy to play on...
Its not too dark to get another inning in...
We always sit outside the dugouts on buckets...
Its just a little blood on his uniform...
Games over due to mercy rule, but we want to play another inning or two...

and this issue is why we cant deviate from the rules.....

.



.

I'm probably in the minority here but, this seems as if the players medical expenses should be paid by the insurance companies. I don't know why some people get so upset by litigation. Some even take it personally. Sometimes litigation is the only way to recover your loses. I don't think it's right for companies to offer insurance then bail on the client once a claim is filed.

.

"I don't think it's right for companies to offer insurance then bail on the client once a claim is filed."

I absolutely agree with you!

.

quote:

Originally posted by Texas Crude:
I'm probably in the minority here but, this seems as if the players medical expenses should be paid by the insurance companies. I don't know why some people get so upset by litigation. Some even take it personally. Sometimes litigation is the only way to recover your loses. I don't think it's right for companies to offer insurance then bail on the client once a claim is filed.

I agree with part of what you said, that being the portion about coverage being denied even though the person was covered. However, I'd think most people would use their own primary insurance for such things. There are two main reasons for this. First you typically do not have to wait for treatment(excluding ER care)because your coverage is known and defines what type of coverage you are entitled to. Secondly, most peoples coverage allows them to get a choice of doctors, hospitals, etc., vs. having to get treated by someone or some facility that is under the other persons plan. I do my research and prefer to get the best doctors and treatment, not be told I must go to a particular doctor regardless of his abilities.

All that said, why should a person be able to get medical coverage from PG's insurance coverage when there is a known and inherent risk they accept by playing in the tourney?
I am not talking about unforeseen negligence such as might be the case if a PG employee runs over someone with a golf cart.
Rather I am talking about getting hit with a baseball while playing baseball. If little Johnny gets hit at the local sandlot, there is no insurance coverage for them playing there. So why go after PG if they only provide the venue, but are not directly responsible for the ball hitting the kid?

This kind of reminds me of a game that was being played right by a busy road. A decent amount of foul balls would be caught by the netting, yet some would go into the street, most never hitting cars. However every once in a while a car would get hit. One night a kid hit a foul ball that went into the road, and everyone heard the thump of a ball hitting metal. A few minutes later a guy came onto the field(pretty ballsy when you think of it) and asked who it was who threw or hit the ball. The ump and coaches explained that it was just a typical foul ball and that nothing malicious had occurred. As it turns out this guy was a lawyer and from what I could hear and was told, started to demand names so that he could be "made whole for the damages".

Needless to say that type of an attitude is exactly what we have been talking about in this thread.

`

quote:

Originally posted by gotwood4sale:
.

"I don't think it's right for companies to offer insurance then bail on the client once a claim is filed."

I absolutely agree with you!

.

Sometimes the clients lie or misrepresent the truth on the application which voids the policy. Sometimes the truth doesn't arise until the situation occurs.

.

I agree with that also.

.

There are a lot things that are not right. People who have legitimate claims of wrong doing by others are hurt by those who file bogus claims such as the one PG is dealing with in this case. During my Law Enforcement career I was sued 4 times. I was told while at the academy that if you never got sued during your career then you were not doing your job. In every case in which I was sued the case was ultimately dropped. But the kicker was and still is this. "It's not about right or wrong. It's about money. If we can settle for less than the defense of this case will cost we will settle." That's what I was told in each of these cases.

Just to give you an idea in one case I was assigned to an entry take down team on a buy bust. Two bad guys were attempting to sell 2 kilos of cocaine to 2 undercover officers in a motel room. The bad guys pull guns and attempt to rip off the officers. One bad guy fires wildly and kills the other bad guy. Fire is returned and the other bad guy is shot. He does not die. One officer is shot in the leg and has to retire due to the injury.

The family of the dead bad guy sues us. The bad guy that doesn't die get 20 yrars and sues from prison. The motel sues us. After several years of dealing with this what happens? Pay them off and put it behind us. That's what the city did and does in almost every case. So what happens? It's a never ending cycle of bs.

Many officers simply do everything they can to "stay out of bs" which means you end up with a bunch of guys simply collecting a pay check. Ever wonder why you see so many cops hanging out at Dunkin Doughnuts? Hand cuffs were put on too tight and I can't feel my fingers anymore. Give me 10k and I will drop the suit. The city thinks its going to cost way more thn that to pay their lawyers to defend the case so they pay. Another happy customer and another cop at Dunkin Donughnuts.

Ther are legitimate claims. But the problem is those cases as well many times are settled because it ends up being about the money. And nothing changes. It's just a never ending cycle. Why? Because its not about right and wrong. It's all about the money.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
There are a lot things that are not right. People who have legitimate claims of wrong doing by others are hurt by those who file bogus claims such as the one PG is dealing with in this case. During my Law Enforcement career I was sued 4 times. I was told while at the academy that if you never got sued during your career then you were not doing your job. In every case in which I was sued the case was ultimately dropped. But the kicker was and still is this. "It's not about right or wrong. It's about money. If we can settle for less than the defense of this case will cost we will settle." That's what I was told in each of these cases.

Just to give you an idea in one case I was assigned to an entry take down team on a buy bust. Two bad guys were attempting to sell 2 kilos of cocaine to 2 undercover officers in a motel room. The bad guys pull guns and attempt to rip off the officers. One bad guy fires wildly and kills the other bad guy. Fire is returned and the other bad guy is shot. He does not die. One officer is shot in the leg and has to retire due to the injury.

The family of the dead bad guy sues us. The bad guy that doesn't die get 20 yrars and sues from prison. The motel sues us. After several years of dealing with this what happens? Pay them off and put it behind us. That's what the city did and does in almost every case. So what happens? It's a never ending cycle of bs.

Many officers simply do everything they can to "stay out of bs" which means you end up with a bunch of guys simply collecting a pay check. Ever wonder why you see so many cops hanging out at Dunkin Doughnuts? Hand cuffs were put on too tight and I can't feel my fingers anymore. Give me 10k and I will drop the suit. The city thinks its going to cost way more thn that to pay their lawyers to defend the case so they pay. Another happy customer and another cop at Dunkin Donughnuts.

Ther are legitimate claims. But the problem is those cases as well many times are settled because it ends up being about the money. And nothing changes. It's just a never ending cycle. Why? Because its not about right and wrong. It's all about the money.

That's what I love about Federal law enforcement. The US government won't settle if it feels it is in the right, and FTCA indemnifies individual liability if incurred during the proper execution of duties.

.

FTCA

The FTCA permits private parties to sue the United States in a federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the United States. The FTCA constitutes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity.

.

When I was in 5th grade, I played on a travel team and our coach required us to wear facemasks when batting. We all hated it so near the end of the season, we convinced him to remove some of them. That afternoon I was hit in the eye with a pitch which led to us spending 3 hours in the ER, but ended up being simply a black eye.

Looking at this thread, there are those who would say that we could have sued that coach for removing that facemask. It would have had to have been a pretty serious injury for my parents to even consider something like that..

When I started practicing law almost 30 years ago, I was a trial lawyer. Over the 10 years I spent in that practice, I saw a change in how the system was used (and overused). It is unfortunate, as it is a valuable system of resolving disputes.

Oh we were covered by the cities attys if the action resulted while on duty or performing duties off the clock to speak. But, IAD would perform a lengthy investigation to see if they felt the officer was in the right and or if there was any culpability on the officers part. They reserved the right to refuse assistance if they thought backing you would not be in the cities best interest. At that point the officer was left with having to hire own atty. there many instances where this happened which led to officers serious mistrust of IAD. Many times decisions to back officers was based on political concerns and not the facts of the case.

This in many instances leads to totally reactive report takers instead of proactive police officers. My brother retired from ATF 2 years at and is still taking depositions in 2 separate law suits. He has the backing of the Gov and knows he did nothing wrong. But that doesn't change the fact he has been going through this bs for over 3 years. The types of suits Jerry is talking about are simply stupid. Hey people might get hit with a ball at a game. Pay attention and take the risk or stay home.

It doesn't matter if you are working for a municipality, a state or federal law enforcement. If you are a line officer - the so-called backbone of the department- you are going to get sued. Your administration will throw you under the bus to save their reputations or pensions. That is why you have to be constantly updated on current legal issues, newly enacted laws, recent court cases and have a good working understanding of the US Constitution and your own State's Constitution.

This kind of knowledge is just as important as proficiency with your tools of the trade (firearms, driver's safety, body armor, etc.) Some departments are much better than others at keeping their officers current on these things and there is a direct correlation between hours and money spent on defending actions and hours and money spent on training.

The Bureau of Professional Responsibility received a complaint on me. The process wasn't fun. You are in the barrel so to speak for a long time and you feel like a criminal. In my case, the complaint was a blatant false accusation worthy of filing criminal charges for false reports against a law enforcement officer. The department chose not to pursue it.

They said it wasn't worth it. No civil law suit followed but I felt betrayed anyway. From that point forward, I made sure everything I did was double and triple documented, by the book, with my career on the line - that's how I had to approach it. It tends to make you a cynic. When you interact with someone, you ask yourself, "Is this guy or gal out to get me?"

If I were Perfect Game......I would double my efforts to train everybody on the staff about current legal issues specific to the types of showcases and programs that are driving your business. If you are making money believe me, someone is paying attention and they are going to find a way to separate you from that money. Constant frivolous law suits are like dying of a thousand paper cuts.

I guess that's why I like hunting and fishing so much. So far, the animals haven't figured out how to milk the system.

We, as a society, should have the right to investigate accidents in order to see if there is a case for lititgation but something has got to be done to stop the frivilous lawsuites. If someone is truly at fault then they need to be held responsible but if it's an accident then let it go. People just want to get paid or find someone to blame because it's sometimes too hard to accept bad things happen on occasion.

When I was 22 I was just out of college and substitute teaching and driving a school bus in eastern Kentucky. My route took me into the back "hollars" on these really narrow, windy roads. This particualr road did not have a yellow lane dividing line and I was getting ready to make a right turn onto an even smaller road in an almost blind curve. It had been misting rain all morning and the roads were slick. I was as close as I could get to the edge of the road (on my side) without going off the road. I didn't want to go off the road because as soon as the pavement stopped the ground went down into a creek.

I'm stopped getting ready to make my turn and this car comes around the curve flying. The wet roads and her speed made it impossible for her to stop. She hit me head on and even if she was coming very slowly the road was so narrow it would have taken extreme effort on both our parts to get by one another. Luckily for her I wasn't moving.

I checked on my kids and then got out to check on her. She was banged up pretty bad and her car was tore up really bad but nothing life threatening. Her husband shows up and he's ticked - blaming me and all kinds of stuff. I just walked away before I started running my mouth and it escalated.

Ambulance, police and county bus people show up and I have to give a statement about what happened. The bus guys pulled the bus over onto the road I was trying to turn onto and they almost put it in the ditch. I think that helped me when it came to the deposition because it showed that to safely turn onto that road I have to take up the majority of the road.

Anyway, it's almost a year later and I've moved 5 hours away to take a full time teaching job. I get a phone call saying I have to go back to give a deposition because she was suing me and the school system. I was terrified because I didn't know if I would be covered under the school's lawyer / insurance because I no longer worked for them. I found out that I was still covered and when I got to her lawyer's office the county attorney was there.

Her lawyer started asking me all kinds of questions and I would either restate the question to answer it in a way to benefit me or kept asking I didn't understand the question. Basically I didn't allow his lawyer talk to trip me up. When we left the office school's attorney started cracking up because her lawyer was getting so mad.

She was suing for around $800,000 and I was covered up to $1 million under their insurance. I asked what the next step was and he said he would be in contact with me. I got a letter saying the court date was on such and such date. A few days before the court date I called the school system to ask if there was anything I needed to do and that's when I found out they settled out of court months earlier.

Ticked me off they didn't even tell me it was settled out of court because I was worried to death over it. I don't know how much she got but the secretary said it was cheaper to give her money than to fight it. I hate the fact she got hurt but whatever she got was too much because I did nothing wrong. Narrow road, wet road and the fact I came through there same time every day should have been the reasons the school system and I won.

It's not a fun thing to get sued even if you're completely in the right.

Yeah, Lawyers Are Great

I owned a health club. I had this little old man use my hot tub for 15-20 years. Every day like clockwork. One day he gets out of the tub and collapses on the pool deck. Paramedics come, he comes to his senses.

He tells the paramedics he's fine. Drives home and that night dies.

His family sues me for wrongful death because he had high blood pressure and says I should have known he had high blood pressure and should have stopped him from using the hot tub.

My defense is if I stopped him from using the hot tub, he would have sued me for breach of contract. The hot tub was part of the facility use.

Goes to summary judgment. My lawyers show that the customer signed a waiver and agreed to notify me in writing --in advance--if there was a known medical condition I should be aware of. He didn't.

Case gets thrown out. 40k spent on attorneys. Insurance pays out and raises my premiums.

Big reason I sold out and work for the government today. Like Coach May says, bs.

So I'm just wondering whether any of the lawyers in the room has PM'ed the OP yet...

Or did you think, "I can't believe PG's lawyers didn't set them all down and tell them...should I tell him?...Naaaaaaaahhhh...he's not my client...besides, this thread is too intriguing!!!"

quote:

Originally posted by Bum:
I owned a health club. I had this little old man use my hot tub for 15-20 years. Every day like clockwork. One day he gets out of the tub and collapses on the pool deck. Paramedics come, he comes to his senses.

He tells the paramedics he's fine. Drives home and that night dies.

His family sues me for wrongful death because he had high blood pressure and says I should have known he had high blood pressure and should have stopped him from using the hot tub.

My defense is if I stopped him from using the hot tub, he would have sued me for breach of contract. The hot tub was part of the facility use.

Goes to summary judgment. My lawyers show that the customer signed a waiver and agreed to notify me in writing --in advance--if there was a known medical condition I should be aware of. He didn't.

Case gets thrown out. 40k spent on attorneys. Insurance pays out and raises my premiums.

Big reason I sold out and work for the government today. Like Coach May says, bs.

Bum,
One of my daughter's BF father died of a heart attack while at the health club (many many years ago). No known previous condition. It was determined later on that he 'might' have survived if the health club had a defib machine. They ruled in the families favor, and this set a precedent for it to be mandatory.

Big news story here for weeks, I do believe the family acutually took them to court and won.

So sometimes good stuff can come out of the bad.

quote:

One of my daughter's BF father died of a heart attack while at the health club (many many years ago). No known previous condition. It was determined later on that he 'might' have survived if the health club had a defib machine. They ruled in the families favor, and this set a precedent for it to be mandatory.

In the state of Illinois, all fitness facilities must have an AED on-hand AND have a trained person available. This also includes schools and their athletic facilities. It's a great law (one of few).

When I attended CPR recertification last, the instructor was impressed I knew where the AEDs were located at the multiple offices I work out of. Most of the course attendees couldn't tell you where one was in their buildings..

At my high school, we have three of them. One right outside of the main gymnasium, one next to the outside door closest to all the outdoor athletic facilities, and one portable unit that I take to outdoor sports.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:

quote:

One of my daughter's BF father died of a heart attack while at the health club (many many years ago). No known previous condition. It was determined later on that he 'might' have survived if the health club had a defib machine. They ruled in the families favor, and this set a precedent for it to be mandatory.

In the state of Illinois, all fitness facilities must have an AED on-hand AND have a trained person available. This also includes schools and their athletic facilities. It's a great law (one of few).

When I attended CPR recertification last, the instructor was impressed I knew where the AEDs were located at the multiple offices I work out of. Most of the course attendees couldn't tell you where one was in their buildings..

At my high school, we have three of them. One right outside of the main gymnasium, one next to the outside door closest to all the outdoor athletic facilities, and one portable unit that I take to outdoor sports.

While I personally have no issue with places having AEDs, it being mandated may very well have grown out of lawsuits because certain places were successfully sued for not having them. Again I think it is a case of lawyers coming up with any theory possible to sue and settle or maybe even win with a jury who has no problem throwing other peoples money around.
In theory, why not mandate that each facility have a trained paramedic on staff with all the needed equipment to save someone no matter the medical emergency. Next thing you know someone might sue saying why only have a paramedic when you can have a doctor who specializes in emergency medicine?
My point is that using Bum's example, these blood ******* lawyers and the people who hire them will float any theory to justify a suit and try to win money. When you look to throw mud, sooner or later something will stick and we as a society will all pay the price because of it.

`

quote:

Originally posted by Vector:

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:

quote:

One of my daughter's BF father died of a heart attack while at the health club (many many years ago). No known previous condition. It was determined later on that he 'might' have survived if the health club had a defib machine. They ruled in the families favor, and this set a precedent for it to be mandatory.

In the state of Illinois, all fitness facilities must have an AED on-hand AND have a trained person available. This also includes schools and their athletic facilities. It's a great law (one of few).

When I attended CPR recertification last, the instructor was impressed I knew where the AEDs were located at the multiple offices I work out of. Most of the course attendees couldn't tell you where one was in their buildings..

At my high school, we have three of them. One right outside of the main gymnasium, one next to the outside door closest to all the outdoor athletic facilities, and one portable unit that I take to outdoor sports.

While I personally have no issue with places having AEDs, it being mandated may very well have grown out of lawsuits because certain places were successfully sued for not having them. Again I think it is a case of lawyers coming up with any theory possible to sue and settle or maybe even win with a jury who has no problem throwing other peoples money around.
In theory, why not mandate that each facility have a trained paramedic on staff with all the needed equipment to save someone no matter the medical emergency. Next thing you know someone might sue saying why only have a paramedic when you can have a doctor who specializes in emergency medicine?
My point is that using Bum's example, these blood ******* lawyers and the people who hire them will float any theory to justify a suit and try to win money. When you look to throw mud, sooner or later something will stick and we as a society will all pay the price because of it.

`

It is interesting how the dialogue on the HSBBW seems to have changed and hardened over the years when the topics get toward societal issues. Plenty of name calling, judgment and demeaning views expressed. One element which made Fungo such a valued member of this site was his conservative perspectives expressed with compassionate logic. Is it really necessary to include accusatory and inflammatory language toward a family which brought a lawsuit over the death of their father.
When one balances the societal importance of human life of someone's father, son, mother, daughter with a business interest in money and profit, perhaps there are ways to express views which could be more respectful of the family which lost their father, the jury of peers which might have awarded the money as contrasted with the cost for the defib machine and employee training in the situation such as this, assuming the business cannot lawfully otherwise protect itself through adequate disclosures and warnings coupled with customers signing a well developed informed consent release.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

quote:

Originally posted by Vector:

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:

quote:

One of my daughter's BF father died of a heart attack while at the health club (many many years ago). No known previous condition. It was determined later on that he 'might' have survived if the health club had a defib machine. They ruled in the families favor, and this set a precedent for it to be mandatory.

In the state of Illinois, all fitness facilities must have an AED on-hand AND have a trained person available. This also includes schools and their athletic facilities. It's a great law (one of few).

When I attended CPR recertification last, the instructor was impressed I knew where the AEDs were located at the multiple offices I work out of. Most of the course attendees couldn't tell you where one was in their buildings..

At my high school, we have three of them. One right outside of the main gymnasium, one next to the outside door closest to all the outdoor athletic facilities, and one portable unit that I take to outdoor sports.

While I personally have no issue with places having AEDs, it being mandated may very well have grown out of lawsuits because certain places were successfully sued for not having them. Again I think it is a case of lawyers coming up with any theory possible to sue and settle or maybe even win with a jury who has no problem throwing other peoples money around.
In theory, why not mandate that each facility have a trained paramedic on staff with all the needed equipment to save someone no matter the medical emergency. Next thing you know someone might sue saying why only have a paramedic when you can have a doctor who specializes in emergency medicine?
My point is that using Bum's example, these blood ******* lawyers and the people who hire them will float any theory to justify a suit and try to win money. When you look to throw mud, sooner or later something will stick and we as a society will all pay the price because of it.

`

It is interesting how the dialogue on the HSBBW seems to have changed and hardened over the years when the topics get toward societal issues. Plenty of name calling, judgment and demeaning views expressed. One element which made Fungo such a valued member of this site was his conservative perspectives expressed with compassionate logic. Is it really necessary to include accusatory and inflammatory language toward a family which brought a lawsuit over the death of their father.
When one balances the societal importance of human life of someone's father, son, mother, daughter with a business interest in money and profit, perhaps there are ways to express views which could be more respectful of the family which lost their father, the jury of peers which might have awarded the money as contrasted with the cost for the defib machine and employee training in the situation such as this, assuming the business cannot lawfully otherwise protect itself through adequate disclosures and warnings coupled with customers signing a well developed informed consent release.

I guess you are taken aback by me using the term blood s-ucking lawyers. Whether my political philosophy on the this subject is conservative, moderate or something else, I am still using logic to make my point. If by using that term which indicates frustration and disdain for a particular groups actions, it does not indicate a lack of "compassion", unless of course you think the particular family who lost their father is reading my particular post on a baseball forum.

As to your overall point, let me see if I got it straight. In Bums example a free individual in our country chooses to use a therapeutic service for decades but one day his health falters and the family (presumably after they get over their grief) sues the establishment for their fathers choice? It is not as if he was encouraged to do so despite a doctors orders to the contrary. Heck how do we even know if the hot tub was in fact the cause of the guys death? Couldn't he just as easily died in his sleep without visiting the gym that day? The point is that based on the way Bum tells the story, this family hired a lawyer to sue someone who had no direct responsibility for this mans death, yet it was sufficient to help put him out of business. Whats next, restaurants must start educational classes to teach patrons how to chew their food properly because someone who tried to woof down a hamburger too fast choked to death?
Oh, and don't forget that trained personal should be stationed in every eating facility to do a Heimlich maneuver for choking patrons. Even that might not be enough because a lawyer will say that a paramedic could have been on duty to administer a cricothyrotomy if the food would not dislodge. Trouble is the next lawyer would sue saying an ER doctor should have been on staff because if he could have performed a tracheotomy instead of the cricothyrotomy, the patron would have lived because the food was lodged further down the windpipe.

So in your world, at what point do you draw the line and call a spade a spade by saying some of these lawsuits and the lawyers who bring them are asinine?
Or did I pose that question a little to indelicately? If so, please feel free to give an example of what you mean by "compassionate logic".

I could care less what term you use in referring to lawyers, but knew that would be point one when you responded.
Your post is just another illustration of the every mounting contrast and difference between the compassionate, and persuasive, logic which a poster like Fungo used so well to make the HSBBW such a vibrant, almost lifelike, site.
I have no opinion on the situation posted by Bum. My point was about your grabbing the comments in which TPM described a situation of a father of her daughter's best friend who died and the family was successful in a legal recovery. Without any facts or information beyond that, you choose to, illogically, use that family to insinuate that family hired a lawyer to "justify any suit and try and win money." Not being satisfied, you then went on to "use" the family with the deceased father to be included with those who engage in "mud" throwing in such a way that society pays for it.
It seems so interesting how many folks such as you, Vector, speak with such disdain for people who acted such as the family TPM referenced, EXCEPT when it comes to their Mother, Father, Son, Daughter or themselves.
In representing businesses and employers, I see plenty of worthless litigation and claims. I also see less than well meaning or qualified lawyers.
On the other hand, I also regularly get calls from businesses and employers who are not the "salt of the earth." They fail to properly pay wages, tax withholding, workers' compensation insurance and the like. Businesses and business owners such as this probably cost as much if not more in
"society paying a price."
My point was the rhetoric you continue to use seems to play so well on the HSBBW as we enter 2013. But the rhetoric is so hollow since you know nothing about the facts involving the family who lost their Dad and recovered for that loss, but choose to use the example for a pulpit filled with vilification.
Balancing and judging interests and rights in our ever complex society is very challenging. I have no problem with the concept that there is far too much litigation and our Court and administrative systems are compromised by the challenges. Fine discussion by me. I don't think it belongs on the HSBBW but that is for Julie to decide.

I think it's unfortunate that the first thing that crosses somebody's mind is lawsuits when it comes to bettering society. I'm not saying that some of this stuff does not come as a result of a lawsuit, but sometimes that legal action is needed to make it happen.

AEDs and trained professionals are important. If you're in a state who does not require your schools to have one, you should demand it. And if you're one of the ~58% of a high schools across the country without a Certified Athletic Trainer, you should demand it!

We should want better for the youth athletes. That means improving their safety on and off the field.