CPSFMMCW Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 A couple is suing because the one person tripped over a tree root. newsitem.com/news/couple-sues-knoebels-after-trip-and-fall-1.1658576 hahahahahaha thats the funniest thing I've heard all day i loled when I heard that. But seriously whats wrong with people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. M Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 That's hilarious. A tree root? They're suing nine months after the fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrygator Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 They're suing nine months after the fact? You don't know much about lawsuits, do you? Lawyers do not file lawsuits immediately. And by the way, the plantiffs should be executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. M Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Not immediately sure, but nine months? What, they needed time to prepare their case? Document the crime scene? Gather all the root-related evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philrad71 Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 A couple of years ago, my friend's fiancee blew her knee out on a sidewalk in our hometown that had a small patch of ice on it. She didn't sue because she recognized that if she would have been paying more attention, she could have avoided the icy patch and not fallen. In this day and age, does that make her stupid for not filing a suit against the city or business owner of the area where she fell, or respectable because she actually admitted that she simply wasn't paying attention and could have avoided it? My vote goes to the latter, but in this day and age, I could see where people might call her a fool. I can see this family easily winning this case. They probably had no choice but to sue because their medical plan (if they have one) most likely comes with a super high deductible (and probably a secondary) and they don't have the money to meet their maximum out of pocket to cover all of the medical expenses. I could see where a blown out knee could easily result in over $150k in medical expenses. But then again, if they're both old enough to be retired and have Medicare, then the taxpayers would pay for it. In this day of wonderfully non-descript & non-respectable journalism, I'm not surprised that it doesn't mention the age of the grandparents in the article - the information is vague at best. But the sour spot lies in that I'm sure that the accident could have been avoided just by her being more aware of her surroundings...and PAYING ATTENTION to where she walked! I know that being in an amusement park can be challenging when you are trying to reel in your kids or grandkids, or you are just marveling at your surroundings. But if you trip and fall over something as a result of you being distracted, that shouldn't be a lawsuit. That should be a "Gee, that was awfully stupid of me for not paying more attention to where I was walking" moment. When you think about all of the hazards where you could get hurt walking in an amusement/theme park, just how many warning signs would a park need? Imagine Cedar Fair having to post warning signs before each trash can (every five feet) to ensure someone didn't trip over one while they were taking photos or trying to keep an eye on their wandering kids? Imagine everyone having to watch a safety video before entering a park on how to properly walk & act in a park without getting hurt. Don't laugh...it's probably coming. At minimum, I can see parks adding a huge safety caveat on the back of their park maps and warning signs upon entering the park in order to cover their butts from lawsuits like this. I also find it interesting in that some employers can now find legal loopholes to fire employees that get injured on the job if they get hurt in an accident of this nature (IE: found to not being aware of surroundings/negligence). Kind of seems like a double standard, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanM64 Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 You know, lawsuits like this one are EXACTLY why the USA is so stupid! I sure wish people would just claim responsibility for their own actions once in awhile. Unfortunately I'm sure this stupidity will be rewarded in the court system, as it always is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philrad71 Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 ^Even more of a joke is when you read the troll comments under the article. Just reading those alone and you can see why people look to cash in on their own stupidity. A quick check on Google revealed that the couple was from Endicott, NY which is a suburb of Binghamton - not really what I would call a "big city". Amazes me the amount of stupid people that don't know simple geography and don't realize that NY is comprised of a very large state with NYC only being one little tiny section of that state. People just assume that when you say you're from NY that you mean NYC, which is why when someone asks where I live, I either say Buffalo or Jamestown, NY. So instead of them asking what it's like to live in the city, they ask: 'Don't you guys get a lot of snow up there?" For those that need a good Sunday morning laugh (or puke, depending on how you look at it) check these comments out: "another sue happy couple from the big city go back to the big city and Sue everyone else there leave us little people alone we know how to walk and chew gum without tripping if you're that stupid stay in the city and walk on the sidewalks" "They probably never saw a tree root before." "i guess they never experienced "a tree grows in brooklyn". we'll be in a financial disaster if they hire the lawyers working the Barbours murder case." "Another reason dam New Yorkers should be prohibited from PA! Stay in the city and learn to drive" Good way to represent your home state, people...you done yourself proud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrygator Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Not immediately sure, but nine months? What, they needed time to prepare their case? Document the crime scene? Gather all the root-related evidence? If the plantiff is claiming that she was in pain for 7 months and could not do routine activities, it will now be much more difficult to prove that she was doing certain activities during those 7 months after the fact. If she filed the lawsuit earlier the defendant could have hired a Private Investigator to follow her and record her daily activities and falsify her claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. M Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 ^The idea that Knoebels would need to hire a P.I. to defend themselves against this makes me gibber with rage. A couple of years ago, my friend's fiancee blew her knee out on a sidewalk in our hometown that had a small patch of ice on it. She didn't sue because she recognized that if she would have been paying more attention, she could have avoided the icy patch and not fallen. People have a responsibility to keep their sidewalks clear in the winter. If you're too lazy to shovel and salt your sidewalk and one of my loved ones slips and seriously injures themselves, I'd have no qualms suing your ass off. Of course there is a difference between one little patch of ice and your entire sidewalk being covered in a 2 inch thick layer, but still. Conversely, Knoebels does not have a responsibility to keep their paths free of tree roots, because that's, um, insane? Do they expect every state park, graveyard, and any other place with trees, to go around digging them up or covering over the roots? If they win this case I'll be amazed, unless someone knows about a case just like this before that won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrygator Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 ^The idea that Knoebels would need to hire a P.I. to defend themselves against this makes me gibber with rage. Knoebels wouldn't but their lawyer surely would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfc Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 It's more than likely that this suit will never see a courtroom; I imagine there will be some sort of settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philrad71 Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 People have a responsibility to keep their sidewalks clear in the winter. If you're too lazy to shovel and salt your sidewalk and one of my loved ones slips and seriously injures themselves, I'd have no qualms suing your A$$ off. Of course there is a difference between one little patch of ice and your entire sidewalk being covered in a 2 inch thick layer, but still. I agree as it IS a NY law that homeowners and businesses have to keep their sidewalks shoveled and/or de-iced in the winter. In this case it was, but there was just that one little patch of ice that got her. One that was probably smaller than the tree root that tripped this lady up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netdvn Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 ^Even more of a joke is when you read the troll comments under the article. Just reading those alone and you can see why people look to cash in on their own stupidity. I'm pretty sure when anyone mentions New York, people automatically think city first. I guess that's how big of an influence it has on the average person. Then again, to be fair, the trolls are defending the park and calling out the couple - even if they don't know their geography or are making assumptions you have to admit this lawsuit is silly and could easily be avoided if they simply watched where they were going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shavethewhales Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 A couple of years ago, my friend's fiancee blew her knee out on a sidewalk in our hometown that had a small patch of ice on it. She didn't sue because she recognized that if she would have been paying more attention, she could have avoided the icy patch and not fallen. In this day and age, does that make her stupid for not filing a suit against the city or business owner of the area where she fell, or respectable because she actually admitted that she simply wasn't paying attention and could have avoided it? My vote goes to the latter, but in this day and age, I could see where people might call her a fool. I can see this family easily winning this case. They probably had no choice but to sue because their medical plan (if they have one) most likely comes with a super high deductible (and probably a secondary) and they don't have the money to meet their maximum out of pocket to cover all of the medical expenses. I could see where a blown out knee could easily result in over $150k in medical expenses. But then again, if they're both old enough to be retired and have Medicare, then the taxpayers would pay for it. In this day of wonderfully non-descript & non-respectable journalism, I'm not surprised that it doesn't mention the age of the grandparents in the article - the information is vague at best. But the sour spot lies in that I'm sure that the accident could have been avoided just by her being more aware of her surroundings...and PAYING ATTENTION to where she walked! I know that being in an amusement park can be challenging when you are trying to reel in your kids or grandkids, or you are just marveling at your surroundings. But if you trip and fall over something as a result of you being distracted, that shouldn't be a lawsuit. That should be a "Gee, that was awfully stupid of me for not paying more attention to where I was walking" moment. This is a reasonable analysis of the situation. The thing is, this can happen to anyone - no matter how careful or attentive you are, you'll most likely find yourself getting hurt in an accident someday. It's not so much that we have a "sue happy" culture, rather we have a culture that has for some reason allowed the healthcare/insurance industry to become such a monster that it leaves a lot of people with no choice. If you end up with $150k in debt over a stupid trip and fall, what are you supposed to do? It's hard to brush it off as a stupid accident when you now have to spend the next decade or more paying it off out of pocket (depending on the type or existence of insurance coverage). It sucks for everyone and no one should have to deal with it like this. In the end only the lawyers and insurance companies are allowed to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammax144 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 That does make sense that you get hit with all the medical bills then decide that oh no I can't afford this stupid mistake. On the other hand I just read the article again it said this happened June 27, 2012, WTF?! Almost two years later they decide to sue the park? Just imagine if these people spend a few nights in the campground what they could have fell over in the campground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. M Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Life is hard and expensive. That applies to everybody. It's no excuse to make it Knoebels' problem. And honestly, if you are of the physical condition that tripping over a tree root puts you thousands of dollars in medical debt, then it was really just a matter of time and could have happened anywhere. Also, it's not just medical bills they're trying to cover. They're double-dipping. The husband wants money because the accident supposedly affected their relationship (this). These people are slugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerstlaueringvar Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I feel so sorry for that couple. Their life must be so tough for how stupid they are. Seriously that's something even a four year old would be ashamed about. Money is dominating people's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jew Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Not immediately sure, but nine months? What, they needed time to prepare their case? Document the crime scene? Gather all the root-related evidence? If the plantiff is claiming that she was in pain for 7 months and could not do routine activities, it will now be much more difficult to prove that she was doing certain activities during those 7 months after the fact. If she filed the lawsuit earlier the defendant could have hired a Private Investigator to follow her and record her daily activities and falsify her claim. Exactly. It's standard legal practice to let the bills rack up and the time go by in order to get more money and increase the chances of the defendant not having everything ready because so much time has passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jray21 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Yep. It's the sad truth. There's a greater chance of a big payout if you show huge bills at the end, rather than telling them right away and having them cover the bills up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightypotato Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 It's more than likely that this suit will never see a courtroom; I imagine there will be some sort of settlement. Yup. I'm a casualty adjuster working in corporate risk management. We see this sort of thing all the time. Chances are, this won't even go to Discoveries and will be settled out of court for a nominal amount, likely medical costs plus general damages (pain and suffering) which Knoebels' insurer will cover. There is a duty of care on the park to ensure the safety of the guests, including landscaping and maintaining tree roots. While there is certainly going to be some contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, it typically doesn't exceed 15% (and that's a best case scenario). The easy part will be determining the extent and value of injury as full medical histories will be the first thing they get during their investigation. The interesting part here is loss of consortium (i.e., he's stopped getting laid). There's not really a "dollar value" you can apply to that I doubt you'll see much if any settlement on that part. Then again, I deal with stuff in Canada...things might be wacky down in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meteornotes Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 If I sued every time I tripped over something I'd be a billionaire. dt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy T. Koepp Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Wow! My compensation for consortium alone would be 95% of my claim. Even as a married man, I don't get laid as much as I would like. I can't imagine how it would be if I were injured. Not that that has not stopped me from trying in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philrad71 Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 She was in her 60's and they have probably been married for decades...I would almost be willing to bet that the hubby wasn't getting any before the accident ever even happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COASTER FREAK 11 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 If I sued every time I tripped over something I'd be a billionaire. dt LOL!!! SO TRUE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jray21 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 If I sued every time I tripped over something I'd be a billionaire. dt You know Dave, if Amy hadn't warned me about the tree I was about to walk straight into at Adventureland, I might have been a rich man! The famous tree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now