Sadly, because of clerking this summer and last summer, I understand that this is how it works in real life. But of course I’m going to change the world (not really) and when I do, lawyers will be sanctioned for this kind of conduct.
The picnic table was another case posted by another poster. This lady was in the freaking stands.
I don’t have the torts book in front of me, but spectator at a sporting event getting hit by a wayward ball/puck was case #1 for assumption of risk and judgment as a matter of law. And it further stated that in modern times assumption of risk is under “no duty” instead of contributory negligence since states don’t like the latter anymore. In other words, a stadium owner, a player, a coach, etc. has “no duty” to protect a spectator from an errant ball.
At common law, parents are not responsible for their children’s torts. Usually negligent supervision is plead, but I can’t see how that would work in this case. I don’t know about NJ, but WV has a statutory provision that says parents are responsible up to $5k for their kids’ intentional torts.
Pardon me for sticking my nose where I have zero experience, but couldn’t the family just file a boilerplate answer to avoid a default judgement and let the plaintiff hang herself trying the intentional conduct?
Jtgain, from your linked article " Lloyd was sitting at a picnic table near a fenced-in bullpen when she was hit with the ball."
Bricker, not sure I’m following, but it’s my problem due to dos, solamente dos margaritas. If both the intentional and negligence claims were brought, I’d expect a general denial, if allowed in NJ, but the insurance company would expect a summary judgment. The actual client would not likely want one due to coverage reasons, but the case will take 5,000 to 10,000 just to get to trial on a straightforward issue, and that’s conservative
New Jersey has also repealed the common law rule, but only for property damage: N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A. Interestingly, NJ has also created a specific statutory assumption-of-risk doctrine for professional baseball games, but not for other sporting events (including amateur baseball games): N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-46.
From my (very) limited experience, they simply don’t do that. If I understand your question, you are wondering why the insurance company doesn’t file for summary judgment for the negligence claim and let the family fend for themselves on the intentional claim.
That would make sense, but it’s just not done. They have a duty to defend until intentional conduct is shown (by a verdict) and they take that duty seriously and don’t try to screw the client in that manner. I say “screw” but agree with you that it would be a legitimate move from a business perspective. They may want to insulate themselves from a bad faith tort claim.
There is no duty to defend here. The kid and parents are unlikely to have any sort of insurance coverage for this sort of occurrence. Dewey’s post suggests that the parents’ homeowners’ policy will cover it, but homeowners’ policies are generally limited to coverage of things which occur on the covered property.
The ballpark’s liability policy will not include a duty to defend anyone other than the ballpark itself and its employees. Probably the little league team or league will have coverage, including a duty to defend provision, but its terms may limit coverage and duty to defend to the league/team and their volunteers.
Whaaa? Homeowners/renters insurance typically covers negligent acts committed anywhere in the world, except in an automobile or on other property owned by the insured.
The husband is also suing the kid because he feels his wife can no longer provide her bedroom duties. Let that sink in for a minute.
Unless this woman has this kid on tape saying “Watch me hit that stupid woman in the face!,” they should be laughed out of court. Preferably to a “Blow me!” chorus from onlookers.
