Cop sues parents of brain damaged kid

[gabosaurus]

Normally, I am totally on the side of law enforcement. But this greedy bitch deserves nothing but scorn.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/community/news/casselberry/orl-mdrown1007oct10,0,5967572.story

[Mr. P]

Shoot the slime ball attorney that would file such a suit then break both knees of the cop.

[JackDaniels]

Another offshoot of the positive attitude people have toward the nanny state.

[avatar4321]

it will never reach court. the cop assumed the risk. there is precedent for throwing this out.

[darin]

Awesome, Avat. :D

[Abbey Marie]

Absolutely, positively, disgusting.

[Mr. P]

it will never reach court. the cop assumed the risk. there is precedent for throwing this out.

It will be thrown out alright which is why I am so disgusted that it was filed to start with. Attempting to shake down the insurance company I guess. Here's where 'loser pays' would work so well.

[Abbey Marie]

It will be thrown out alright which is why I am so disgusted that it was filed to start with. Attempting to shake down the insurance company I guess. Here's where 'loser pays' would work so well.

Amen to that, Mr. P.

[diuretic]

it will never reach court. the cop assumed the risk. there is precedent for throwing this out.

But given the cop was performing her duty, wouldn't that mean that she had no choice but to enter the house? Does the fact that she didn't join the activity voluntarily make a difference?

[Gaffer]

But given the cop was performing her duty, wouldn't that mean that she had no choice but to enter the house? Does the fact that she didn't join the activity voluntarily make a difference?

She did join the activity voluntarily. It's her job to do so.

Update on this. The cop has dropped the law suit. Someone must have talked some sense into her.

[mrg666]

the police should never be allowed to sue like that they no the dangers the job entails any compensations should be seeked via the pd and if deemed suitable a counter claim but this is riddiculous what did she want a danger wet floor sign.
in mcds that may well be ok
dont forget that attorneys , lawyers , barristers have to earn a living as well

[diuretic]

She did join the activity voluntarily. It's her job to do so.

Update on this. The cop has dropped the law suit. Someone must have talked some sense into her.

Not being difficult here but adhering to duty isn't the same as choosing to take a sporting field and getting biffed in the play. What if she'd refused to enter the house? Her supervisor would have rocked up and kicked her arse.

She probably dropped the case due to the negative publicity she's been getting. Plenty of cops have been weighing in on it and condemning her. I don't think they properly understood what was going on though.

[diuretic]

the police should never be allowed to sue like that they no the dangers the job entails any compensations should be seeked via the pd and if deemed suitable a counter claim but this is riddiculous what did she want a danger wet floor sign.
in mcds that may well be ok
dont forget that attorneys , lawyers , barristers have to earn a living as well

Why should police (or any other emergency services worker) be denied basic, ordinary rights?

[avatar4321]

But given the cop was performing her duty, wouldn't that mean that she had no choice but to enter the house? Does the fact that she didn't join the activity voluntarily make a difference?

Like i said. Assumption of risk. The cop knew that there would be dangerous situations as a police officer. She assumed the risk by being a police officer.

[Gaffer]

The cop slipped on the floor because the baby had just been pulled from the water and they were trying to revive him. So the floor was wet. It was an accident scene that the cop was responding too, this response is required by law. The cop, a sergeant, was the supervisor. The cop also had all her medical bills paid by the city and was put on two months paid leave. There was no reason what so ever to sue this family.

[diuretic]

Like i said. Assumption of risk. The cop knew that there would be dangerous situations as a police officer. She assumed the risk by being a police officer.

She has been trained (one would assume) to deal with risky situations as a police officer. But that doesn't mean she wouldn't have an action against her employer if the employer placed her in dangerous situations without appropriate training or equipment or guidance and so on.

In this situation she was injured allegedly by the negligence of the householders. Now whether or not there's merit in that claim will never be known. However it seems to me that there's a difference between being obligated to enter a situation in which one may be injured and voluntarily entering a situation where one might be injured.

[mrg666]

The cop slipped on the floor because the baby had just been pulled from the water and they were trying to revive him. So the floor was wet. It was an accident scene that the cop was responding too, this response is required by law. The cop, a sergeant, was the supervisor. The cop also had all her medical bills paid by the city and was put on two months paid leave. There was no reason what so ever to sue this family.

and thinking about it
what if it had been blood ?

[diuretic]

The cop slipped on the floor because the baby had just been pulled from the water and they were trying to revive him. So the floor was wet. It was an accident scene that the cop was responding too, this response is required by law. The cop, a sergeant, was the supervisor. The cop also had all her medical bills paid by the city and was put on two months paid leave. There was no reason what so ever to sue this family.

That's a purely emotional response. Whether or not there were grounds for an action will never be known. It won't be known if the family were negligent. So we won't know if there was reason or not to sue.

[Nukeman]

That's a purely emotional response. Whether or not there were grounds for an action will never be known. It won't be known if the family were negligent. So we won't know if there was reason or not to sue.
You know the last thing on my mind after pulling a young child out of the water who wasn't breathing is to "clean up" any spilled water.

The Officer in question reponded to a drowning call the paramedics were on scene she didn't have to "run" in to the house and place herself in a dangerous situation she choose to enter that house. she was not needed except for the fact that in the US when 911 is called they send ambulance, fire, and police rescue.

This woman was a dirtball for even attempting to get money from a distraught family. You can argue till your blue in the face as to wehter or not the case has merit or not the fact is it is NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

How do we know she didn't injure herself somewhere else and "pretend" to get hurt at the house in question??? We dont and this whole thing is just sickining.......

[diuretic]

You know the last thing on my mind after pulling a young child out of the water who wasn't breathing is to "clean up" any spilled water.

The Officer in question reponded to a drowning call the paramedics were on scene she didn't have to "run" in to the house and place herself in a dangerous situation she choose to enter that house. she was not needed except for the fact that in the US when 911 is called they send ambulance, fire, and police rescue.

This woman was a dirtball for even attempting to get money from a distraught family. You can argue till your blue in the face as to wehter or not the case has merit or not the fact is it is NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

How do we know she didn't injure herself somewhere else and "pretend" to get hurt at the house in question??? We dont and this whole thing is just sickining.......

Spare me the hypotheticals. WE know nothing. WE don't have a clue. WE are going off press reports. WE weren't privy to the instructions she gave her lawyers. But above all, spare me the indignation. The law isn't about indignation or hurt feelings (one way or the other).

As I said, the officer was under a duty, presumably in fulfilling an oath she took when she became a cop. The counter argument was about her voluntary behaviour in entering the premises. My point was that she wasn't entering the premises in a voluntary capacity. Why she should be castigated for exploring her rights is beyond me. But then this is how rights are reduced. One at a time by public clamour.

Is this what it comes down to? The law is to be decided by public opinion? Is it to be decided by clamour? Think about it. Think carefully about what you've just joined. "Oh no, how terrible of the cop to even think about a negligence suit!" Who's next?

You really don't get it do you?

[Nukeman]

Spare me the hypotheticals. WE know nothing. WE don't have a clue. WE are going off press reports. WE weren't privy to the instructions she gave her lawyers. But above all, spare me the indignation. The law isn't about indignation or hurt feelings (one way or the other).

As I said, the officer was under a duty, presumably in fulfilling an oath she took when she became a cop. The counter argument was about her voluntary behaviour in entering the premises. My point was that she wasn't entering the premises in a voluntary capacity. Why she should be castigated for exploring her rights is beyond me. But then this is how rights are reduced. One at a time by public clamour.

Is this what it comes down to? The law is to be decided by public opinion? Is it to be decided by clamour? Think about it. Think carefully about what you've just joined. "Oh no, how terrible of the cop to even think about a negligence suit!" Who's next?

You really don't get it do you?

Your wrong I DO get it thats the problem I can see why she would want to sue for negligence but not everything in the world is black and white, right and wrong. the problem is adding insult to injury.

If this officer was not compensated for her time off or her medical bills were not payed for than she would be justified for asking for said compensation, however; all she is looking for is pain and suffering and punitive damages for the "neglegence" of the family and paramedics for looking out for the life of a child over cleaning up some water.

Who would you find more at fault the?? The baby dies because the emergency personel took the time to make sure the area is clean and free of hazards, or someone gets injured inthe the line of duty that they know full well that they may be going into a dangerous situation.

There is as much negligence on the officers part for not making sure the area was free and clear of any danger before running into the house. Is that not her job??

Onca again just becasue you can do something DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!

Just because she has the "legal" right to sue doesn't mean she has the moral right to sue or does it?????

[diuretic]

Your wrong I DO get it thats the problem I can see why she would want to sue for negligence but not everything in the world is black and white, right and wrong. the problem is adding insult to injury.

If this officer was not compensated for her time off or her medical bills were not payed for than she would be justified for asking for said compensation, however; all she is looking for is pain and suffering and punitive damages for the "neglegence" of the family and paramedics for looking out for the life of a child over cleaning up some water.

Who would you find more at fault the?? The baby dies because the emergency personel took the time to make sure the area is clean and free of hazards, or someone gets injured inthe the line of duty that they know full well that they may be going into a dangerous situation.

There is as much negligence on the officers part for not making sure the area was free and clear of any danger before running into the house. Is that not her job??

Onca again just becasue you can do something DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!

Just because she has the "legal" right to sue doesn't mean she has the moral right to sue or does it?????

Morality is irrelevant, this is law we're talking about. Are you saying that she shouldn't have commenced the action because it wasn't nice?

[Nukeman]

Morality is irrelevant, this is law we're talking about. Are you saying that she shouldn't have commenced the action because it wasn't nice?All laws are based on public morals are they not...

No she shouldn't have sued under these conditions it is a hazard of the job.

Should I be allowed to sue and AIDS patients because he infects me accidentaly with his blood. By his very being he is a hazard to anyone who treats him. So should we be able to sue him for everytime someone is exposed to his blood or body fluids??

By your rational legally I can sue him for creating a hazard even though thats my job!!

Moraly it is objectionable at the very least..

[diuretic]

No. the law isn't based on public morals.

[Nukeman]

No. the law isn't based on public morals.

Really??????????? I find that hard to believe. All of our laws are based on relavent morals. Murder bad = against the law(even if the person needed killing), Stealing bad = against the law(even if its food because your hungry), rape bad = against the law.

Some countries allow numours exceptions to these types of behaviours so YES the laws of a land are based on the morals of the people occupying them and to say otherwise is plain horse shit!!!!

[Abbey Marie]

Spare me the hypotheticals. WE know nothing. WE don't have a clue. WE are going off press reports. WE weren't privy to the instructions she gave her lawyers. But above all, spare me the indignation. The law isn't about indignation or hurt feelings (one way or the other).

As I said, the officer was under a duty, presumably in fulfilling an oath she took when she became a cop. The counter argument was about her voluntary behaviour in entering the premises. My point was that she wasn't entering the premises in a voluntary capacity. Why she should be castigated for exploring her rights is beyond me. But then this is how rights are reduced. One at a time by public clamour.

Is this what it comes down to? The law is to be decided by public opinion? Is it to be decided by clamour? Think about it. Think carefully about what you've just joined. "Oh no, how terrible of the cop to even think about a negligence suit!" Who's next?

You really don't get it do you?


I think it is fantastic that there are some people left like Nukeman who will express indignation when it is merited. When did we become a world of legalistic unmoved observers? I know that you can see the overriding ugliness in bringing such a suit. I am hopeful that the cop finally saw it.

Most people can understand that it is just wrong to kick these people when they are so far down, for not cleaning up a puddle while their child was dying/dead. Beyond that, it can discourage more people from helping others when they are in need, for fear of being sued in the process. Not a good outcome...

[-Cp]

The department needs to fire her as she's bringing shame on them...

[gabosaurus]

The police officer did drop the suit. Too bad she will be forever remembered for being an uncaring asshole instead of the good cop she was prior to the incident.

[diuretic]

Really??????????? I find that hard to believe. All of our laws are based on relavent morals. Murder bad = against the law(even if the person needed killing), Stealing bad = against the law(even if its food because your hungry), rape bad = against the law.

Some countries allow numours exceptions to these types of behaviours so YES the laws of a land are based on the morals of the people occupying them and to say otherwise is plain horse shit!!!!

The law is based on a mix of things. The law on income tax is based on the need to give government money to function. The law on traffic safety is based on the need to increase safety by allowing other drivers to predict what other road users may do, eg drive on the correct side of the road.

The law on property is economic. In a society where the concept of private property is the norm it's necessary to protect private property so that it can function as a tool for exchange.

The law on companies and corporations is economic.

Need I go on? Your insults and exclamation marks are no substitute for logic. Next time think before you make a fool of yourself.

[diuretic]

I think it is fantastic that there are some people left like Nukeman who will express indignation when it is merited. When did we become a world of legalistic unmoved observers? I know that you can see the overriding ugliness in bringing such a suit. I am hopeful that the cop finally saw it.

Most people can understand that it is just wrong to kick these people when they are so far down, for not cleaning up a puddle while their child was dying/dead. Beyond that, it can discourage more people from helping others when they are in need, for fear of being sued in the process. Not a good outcome...

It's easy to express indignation over something you don't understand or won't understand. Civil suits are rarely personal. The attack on this woman has been merciless and mindless. It's an example of meme thinking. Unfortunately the rights of that woman are now hostage to emotion. She never got a chance to test her case because of public outrage. If you think public outrage is a good way to run a legal system then you are allowing for some very nasty influences to be let loose. What's next, lynch mobs again?

[diuretic]

The department needs to fire her as she's bringing shame on them...

And if she's got civil service protection she should immediately sue the department for unlawful dismissal.

[diuretic]

The police officer did drop the suit. Too bad she will be forever remembered for being an uncaring asshole instead of the good cop she was prior to the incident.

How do you know she's uncaring?

[Abbey Marie]

It's easy to express indignation over something you don't understand or won't understand. Civil suits are rarely personal. The attack on this woman has been merciless and mindless. It's an example of meme thinking. Unfortunately the rights of that woman are now hostage to emotion. She never got a chance to test her case because of public outrage. If you think public outrage is a good way to run a legal system then you are allowing for some very nasty influences to be let loose. What's next, lynch mobs again?

I think we all understand it quite well, actually. It's not rocket science, D.

[diuretic]

I think we all understand it quite well, actually. It's not rocket science, D.

Uh-oh, did I go too far? :cool::laugh2:

No it's not rocket science but to look at the piling-on (a cop email list I've been on for years is melting down over this) is a bit of a worry.

[Abbey Marie]

Uh-oh, did I go too far? :cool::laugh2:

No it's not rocket science but to look at the piling-on (a cop email list I've been on for years is melting down over this) is a bit of a worry.

I forgot- weren't you in the law enforcement field yourself? Perhaps you can imagine yourself in a similar situation, and want the right to sue without condemnation?

Anyway, I guess we are different. I worry about about the fact that someone would sue in such a situation, while the pile-on gives me hope for humanity. :)

[diuretic]

I forgot- weren't you in the law enforcement field yourself? Perhaps you can imagine yourself in a similar situation, and want the right to sue without condemnation?

Still in it.

It's a fair point but I wasn't looking at it from a personal point of view. I'm always wary when there's a pile-on when someone simply attempts to enforce a right.



Anyway, I guess we are different. I worry about about the fact that someone would sue in such a situation, while the pile-on gives me hope for humanity. :)

I suppose I'm a bit sensitive to this sort of thing because I've seen how engineered public opinion can take away our rights. In a neighbouring state a campaign by insurance companies several years ago persuaded the state government to cap the limit on damages awarded in tort claims. The insurance companies ran a hysterical campaign through the media to which the state government succumbed. One of the angles the insurance companies used was to trivialise the claims that people made for personal injuries suffered as a result of corporate negligence. The insurance companies did it because they lost a lot of money due to their own negligence in international investment and they wanted to limit their exposure in the domestic market. The state govt was spooked (weak bastards) and now the citizens of that state have less rights than they did.