Fatty February 10, 2005 Share Fatty GC Founder February 10, 2005 I was wondering about this a bit more.... was it all because of the time of day? If I walk a cake over to my neighbor, who happens to be working on his car...and just by coming around the corner and saying "hey neighbor!", startle him.....he loses two fingers in the fan...am I liable? Was it because she's old? Was it abnormal pounding? What if I called her on the phone and then dropped the phone because my kid was getting near the stairs...and the silence scared her because in the movies people call and don't say anything to creap you out? My point is? Where does it end? I can see the liability, sure. She wouldn't have had anxiety if they didn't come over. But where is the line drawn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa February 10, 2005 Share Playaa Member February 10, 2005 the issue I have is that they OFFERED to pay her medical bills for her and apologized (albiet not in person...I don't think I'd go near the lady either, she'd probably claim a heart attack). She refused their offer to pay her medical bills...which says to me that she cared about money and didn't really have any other purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuke February 10, 2005 Share MrDuke Member February 10, 2005 All I know is I'm keeping my doors locked and security system armed to "stun" with these cookie wielding hoodlums running around. <puts s.w.a.t. # into speed dial list> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL February 10, 2005 Share dwEEziL Member February 10, 2005 and now time for a counter-suite of defamation of character for calling those girls thieves. I'd say $900 is an appropriate amount. seriously though...that woman has problems. I'd say the girls learned the lesson that some people are morons. A lesson we should all learn. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Playaa, you helped us all learn that lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConGregation February 11, 2005 Author Share ConGregation Member February 11, 2005 More on the story The hate mail isn't right. Seems like the wrong reponse when the initial offense was one of kindness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrX February 11, 2005 Share mrX GC Alumni February 11, 2005 But where is the line drawn? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The legal answer is at the "reasonable person in the victim's situation". You take your "victims" as they come, whether they be a healthy teenager or frail old folk (not an analogy to this situation btw). Ultimately, it's whatever the jury/factfinder would say is the answer to this question tho. In this case, it was that the girls were wrong. What I love is that it's being projected as if the girls did nothing wrong; that they are the victims. This line of thought is great for defense attorneys; if you make your client the victim, then they end up better off. Not sure how that is good for society; or any great lesson learned. But it does make me know I've got job security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConGregation February 11, 2005 Author Share ConGregation Member February 11, 2005 Well the story plays itself out nicely that way, the perpetrators simply knocked on a door and ran off. Nothing much wrong with that just from a logical standpoint (not legal...). The victim is a victim of... door knocking.... It is very easy to paint the girls as victims of a ill tempered and spiteful person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whudats February 12, 2005 Share whudats Member February 12, 2005 But where is the line drawn? I don't know where the line is drawn, but it is going to take some serious work to make these kinds of lawsuits end. What happened to calling a kid's parents and giving them an earful? That's what happened I got caught with my friend Rob after "ding-dong-ditching" a neighbor with two labradors...they sniffed us out...we didn't end up in court...we ended up with a good ol' fashioned spanking and a two week grounding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrX February 12, 2005 Share mrX GC Alumni February 12, 2005 The woman was on Good Morning America this morning. Apparently this was in a rural area (12 miles from a town I think was said). The girls had to drive to get to her house. They hid the car down the road, crossed over 2 fences, went thru a gas line ditch and proceeded to NOT knock on the front door, but instead a side door. Then they ran off. I think she said she did try to contact the girl's parents about it to no avail. Someone should find the video of this interview and post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConGregation February 12, 2005 Author Share ConGregation Member February 12, 2005 Gas line ditch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrX February 12, 2005 Share mrX GC Alumni February 12, 2005 Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what she said. Was on tv a few hours ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrX February 14, 2005 Share mrX GC Alumni February 14, 2005 Ah, was just a ditch: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=493733&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=493733&page=2 Young said her home is in an extremely rural area, and Ostergaard and Zellitti had to climb over two fences, walk through a pasture filled with livestock and crawl across an open ditch to get to her home. Once there, Young said the girls went to a secluded back door and knocked. She, her elderly mother and teenage daughter were in the basement at the time. "They banged on the door so hard, we were certain someone was trying to break in," said Young. The pictures they showed on the news were of a farm house type place in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chewychee February 14, 2005 Share chewychee Member February 14, 2005 i've been to durango, the place is the least scary place in the U.S. hitchhicking is legal and everone hitches or picks them up, (i was there backpacking, did a lot of hitching) this is what the people of durango are like trying to do something nice and getting it thrown in you face stinks!! and its not really the lawers fault. he's just trying to make a buck off a 17year old (what a man) what kind of judge would make a verdict like that!! worthless, that's what the system is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appalachian_fox February 14, 2005 Share appalachian_fox Member February 14, 2005 I'm just not sure that a 49 year old woman driven to a panic attack the next day counts as a "reasonable person in the victim's situation", and I'm trolling a bit late to agree with X that we don't know the whole story...But why did she turn down the medical bills offered up front? And why small claims court? As X said, you can't win much there...And it requires a certain amount of effort. IF she paid $900 in hospital bills (dang...must not have insurance) then she spent a day in court, plus whatever else she did to get ready, just to recover costs...she certainly came out down. I think Fatty's got what I was thinking...What's changed? It used to be, you put a flaming bag of dog poop on someone's door, they stomp it out and yell (or come chasing you with a water hose or random blunt object while the poop burns, whatever). If you got caught, your dad kicks your butt and makes you clean up the fried poop off the doorstep and apologize (in person, of course). Finally thought I'd stop in because of the title, but I'd heard about this last week or so. Crazy, isn't it? It's making me think a lot, because I just went to a driver training course for emergency vehicles (I'm training officer for my VFD) and I've been aware of the situation, but we talked a lot about the legal implications of driving emergency vehicles, especially with the lights on. If you're driving lights on and someone gets into an accident because "they were distracted by the lights", then, technically, if the lights weren't on or the emergency vehicle not there, the accident wouldn't have occured. Same principle, and it's becoming a huge lawsuit point against emergency responders...Sometimes with good cause, sometimes without, but just like anything else the justice system can be used or misused. I don't know if she had a reasonable or average response to the situation, and they were trying to surprise, but at least the whole thing ended without going to extremes: No huge pain-and-suffering settlements, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrX February 14, 2005 Share mrX GC Alumni February 14, 2005 Just another quick quote from the Young's on this: "Do you really believe if these people gave me the $890, I would go through the process of going to court to ask for $890?" said Young. "There was never any money presented. I tried four different times to communicate with the Ostergaards, and all four times they had no desire to settle the matter, right up to the time we presented this to court." That makes it a credibility issue, b/c the girls are saying otherwise. Chewy, I had originally mis-read it too. There weren't lawyers involved it appears until after the court case was over. BTW, sovereign immunity would likely apply to your "emergency light" situation app. You can generally only sue the government if they allow you too. Goes back to colonial times when "the King could do no wrong". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty February 14, 2005 Share Fatty GC Founder February 14, 2005 Mini and I used to delivere papers, and on Sundays we used to combine our routes and have a mommy drive us cause the papers were so big. We'd run down either side of the street...oh, about dawn or just before....and we'd slam those darn sunday papers down so hard on the porch that it would echo back over to the other side (enclosed porches sounded like a gunshot!) We'd get laughing so hard we could hardly run and carry papers to the next house....funny....all the way across the street yet you could see our smiles plain as day. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General J February 14, 2005 Share General J Member February 14, 2005 I still would like to see the judge get some responses back as to his claim that he could not find anything the girls had done wrong other than being out later than HE thought they should have been. Yet, he still awards victory to the woman. Has the government gotten that far into playing mommy and daddy? As for that lady and her hate mail she is receiving? Boo-freakin-hoo. Maybe she would like them to deliver some free milk to go with her free cookies. That way she could have a snack while she reads her letters. "It's horrible, nobody has heard our side," said Herb Young, adding the couple has had to hire a lawyer. "I don't believe the girls meant for this to happen. But they could have prevented it from happening if they had just shut their mouths when they came out of [small claims] court. Now they are caught in something they can't control." You know, I personally liked hearing about this, and I am glad the girls talked to the newspaper. These people had the right to tell their story too. The parents of one of the teens asked for a restraining order against Herb Young, accusing him of making harassing phone calls. He admitted calling the Ostergaards once after hearing the teens were talking to a newspaper and at one point said "the gloves were off," which apparently was taken as a threat. They had to file a restraining order? Wow, doesn't help your case any when you are charged with making harassing phone calls to 17 year old girls! "The gloves are off"? Well, then they shouldn't complain about getting hate mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appalachian_fox February 15, 2005 Share appalachian_fox Member February 15, 2005 (edited) I would hope so about Sovereign Immunity, X, but from what I've read in my materials from the class, people have sued and won...the department, the driver, even sometimes county government level. We all have insurance, volunteer or paid department. Granted, it's not common, but as it was described to me, the attitude is starting to change from "King can do no wrong" to "King shall do no wrong". It's the same with Good Samaritan laws not being a great shield anymore for volunteer rescuers. It's almost getting to the point when I teach First Aid and CPR to tell trainees never to help anyone unless they have a legal obligation to, but the cases are few and far between. However, in the victim's (and lawyer's defense) sometimes there was negligent behavior involved on the part of the emergency vehicle operator, and in reality, in several of these emergency vehicle operator cases the driver should never have been allowed behind the wheel anyway. As was pointed out, unless you were there and knew the whole story from both sides, you really can't know for sure what actually happened. --edit-- linkie from Firehouse Magazine http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/a...nId=15&id=17293 Edited February 15, 2005 by appalachian_fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest maris09 February 15, 2005 Share Guest maris09 Guests February 15, 2005 (edited) edit Edited February 15, 2005 by maris09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mini_Me February 15, 2005 Share Mini_Me GC Founder February 15, 2005 Mini and I used to delivere papers, and on Sundays we used to combine our routes and have a mommy drive us cause the papers were so big < words...> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> those were the days....that and sitting on back of moped and throwing lose papers into driveways.... 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