Family of 10-year-old files lawsuit against Baltimore Orioles

[incubus]

I would agree with him. Our system has flaws but it's still the best.

And I am sure people in the UK and India and China (and so forth) feel that theirs is the best as well. Jury cases are where I have a problem with our justice system. The jury pools are often chosen from people of lower education, with little knowledge of how our justice system truly is meant to work which fouls the whole jury trial system. A large part of skyrocketing medical expenses and insurance premiums is due to frivolous medical lawsuits.

[Redskins Rick]

I ( and I'm sure, many others) would have to disagree with you there. A case like this should be settled by a judge, who knows case law, not a jury of peers, who often ignore the case law and evidence that they are told is the most pertinent item of relevance because they feel sorry for the plaintiff. I will bet that if this is not settled before going to a jury trial, that their lawyer (if they have half a brain) will play on the jury's emotions using the little girl. It goes on all the time.

Most judges are very good, I am sure, but pick up Reader Digest and read their monthly section on bad cases and you will have to agree, our system has flaws, and yet it is still the best.

I believe what the federal court judge point he was making to his room of future lawyers, and this is my own paraphrase, but, basically, don't count your chips until the game is over.

There is just no such thing as a slam dunk case, look at OJ, everybody in the world thinks he did it, and he never went to jail for that crime.

[baltfan]

I ( and I'm sure, many others) would have to disagree with you there. A case like this should be settled by a judge, who knows case law, not a jury of peers, who often ignore the case law and evidence that they are told is the most pertinent item of relevance because they feel sorry for the plaintiff. I will bet that if this is not settled before going to a jury trial, that their lawyer (if they have half a brain) will play on the jury's emotions using the little girl. It goes on all the time.

The law of the case is always settled by a judge. That is what summary judgment is for. Judges consider the facts of the case and look at them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. If the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff would not allow for a reasonable jury to find for anyone other than the defendant, then the judge enters summary judgment for the defendant and does not allow the jury to hear the case.

In most cases, however, the issue is the facts that one believes. If the jury believes one set of facts, the law would compel them to find for the defendant. With another set of facts, the law would compel them to find for the defendant.

Finally, people need to realize that it is easy to make a case seem frivolous when it isn't. The hot coffee case involving Stella Liebeck is the classic case. In that case, contrary to the belief of most, she was stopped in her car merely attempting to take the lid off of her coffee when she was burned. The jury found her 20% responsible and McDonalds 80% responsible. The jury awarded punitive damages because McDonalds had settled hundreds of similar cases, knew its coffee was too hot, and chose to do nothing about it. For those of you saying, "Duh, coffee is hot." Would you think that spilling coffee between your legs could cause third degree burns resulting in extensive skin grafts.

This is a link to pictures of the burns to Stella. It is NSFWish and also more than a bit gruesome. It may cause you to reconsider how you think about certain cases. http://ellenandjim.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/hot-coffee-by-susan-saladoff/

[mark_beckens]

A large part of skyrocketing medical expenses and insurance premiums is due to frivolous medical lawsuits.

That's not the fault of the system. That's the fault of people wanting something for nothing.

Example, the women who burnt herself on McDonalds coffee. It's coffee, it's suppose to be hot.

[Tx Oriole]

That's not the fault of the system. That's the fault of people wanting something for nothing.

Example, the women who burnt herself on McDonalds coffee. It's coffee, it's suppose to be hot.

I agree with you on that. When does someone's personal responsibility take affect

or when it is a horrible accident and no one is to blame? I am very sorry for the

girl being hurt. It was an accident so how can the O's be he blame in a court of

law?

[baltfan]

And I am sure people in the UK and India and China (and so forth) feel that theirs is the best as well. Jury cases are where I have a problem with our justice system. The jury pools are often chosen from people of lower education, with little knowledge of how our justice system truly is meant to work which fouls the whole jury trial system. A large part of skyrocketing medical expenses and insurance premiums is due to frivolous medical lawsuits.

This is patently untrue. First of all most states have tort reform and it has done little to curb malpractice insurance rates or lower medical expenses. Instead it punishes the most meritorious cases by capping the recovery.

Second, frivolous malpractice lawsuits are few and far between. If you ask most judges an defense attorneys they will tell you the field is tilted unfairly toward doctors in most cases. In other words, jurors are more willing to forgive doctors than they would others. Moreover, the stakes in these cases are very high. Most med mal cases require the plaintiff's attorney to advance $100k in expenses in the hopes of winning. If he doesn't win, he is out not just all his time but also that $100k in expenses. The result is that many people with legitimate cases go un represented because of the costs and risks associated with these cases.

[mark_beckens]

I agree with you on that. When does someone's personal responsibility take affect

or when it is a horrible accident and no one is to blame? I am very sorry for the

girl being hurt. It was an accident so how can the O's be he blame in a court of

law?

That is for the system to play out.

[BradyBunch]

Ok, so what?

She's a minor. They are her parents. All the actors were in Baltimore. They filed in a court of general jurisdiction.

You really think there's a question as to whether they had standing to file the suit? Based on what?

Yes, the claim filed states you can't see over the area because of a wall. This is patently false and was at the time of the incident.

[Odenton O]

Yes, the claim filed states you can't see over the area because of a wall. This is patently false and was at the time of the incident.

So what? What does that have to do with standing? (Answer: Nothing.)

Do you even know what "standing" means?