Thank you, Eve. But don’t you realise - y’all could have got a NO WIN NO FEE settlement…
Yeah, my dad blew his knee out a few years back while cart-surfing at Wal-Mart. He got calls from three different lawyers (no earthly notion how they found out; my dad probably just let the story slip to the wrong person) informing him that because Wal-Mart does not warn you not to cart-surf, my dad could be sitting on some serious money.
He contemplated the scenario for approximately 0.1 seconds before telling the lawyers where to stick it. Warnings or not, he did something with a cart that common sense says it wasn’t designed to do, and as a result, he got hurt. Why penalize Wal-Mart for his actions? I enthusiastically applauded his decision, as I support the principle of taking responsibility for one’s own actions. Even though it would’ve been fun to bitch-slap Wal-Mart (and someone’s gonna do it, eventually, I hope), the circumstances just didn’t support it.
My husband is a mail carrier for the US Postal Service, and years ago he slipped on ice covered by snow in the unplowed street, and broke his ankle. Workman’s Comp and sick leave covered it. His lawyer sister got on his case about how he could sue the town, but he rejected the idea.
As for the case in the OP, after that friend’s own husband nearly fell through that spot himself, they really should have locked that door. If he can’t remember that one of his own house’s staircases is missing, how can they risk letting other people forget as well? Still, suing sounds far too extreme, but charging the friend’s homeowner’s insurance is probably the correct thing to do.
You mean the fact that a door is in the same location whether you’re inside or outside the house is confusing to you? Do you sometimes enter a house, turn around, and exclaim, “Where’d that door come from?”
… there was a whooshing sound …
The owners of the house had several reasonable and cheap alternatives to make a dangerous situation safe. Until the stairs were rebuilt or the entrance closed and made into a wall, they could have put a board over to prevent entry, placed an unmistakable sign over it warning of the danger, or at least locked it. Being an outdoor entrance it did of couse have a lock.
They chose to do none of those, left it unlocked (UNBELIVABLE!), and wrote off their liability to insure the safety of a teenage guest with a mere verbal warning. Teenagers forget, get distracted, etc. Even just walking over to the door and opening it so all could see the potential danger to reinforce the warning would have been sufficient but they neglected to do even that. If I tell a young guest in my house to be careful because the gun laying around is loaded, it sure as heck doesn’t absolve me of all responsibility should someone get hurt.
As for the excessive litigation reference, sure, that’s true overall in the US. But I think what’s being mentioned here is simple compensation for medical expenses incurred. I believe the mom mentioned “help where you can” or something similar being desirable. That doesn’t sound like a tort abuse scheme to get rich. Nobody’s going to intentionally get themselves hurt in a devious plan to recoup their medical expenses.
Intentional or not, it quite an accomplishment to muddle a Lib response.
I 'd just like to mention that homeowners medical payment coverage is given regardless of fault in the case.
Except the op has:
That would be beyond medical expenses. Now it was retracted as flippancy later, but that was 50 posts later, and the discussion had been triggered. I’d say out-of-pocket medical costs is a reasonable request, though, as the owners should have done more to shut the door (lock, etc).
START’s brother broke his ankle, arm AND dislocated his shoulder.
Just to clarify.
I hope he feels better soon, and doesn’t use his cast as a weapon on you.