Exactly why consumers should not buy insurance from companies like Allstate or 21st Century. You are just inviting a nightmare. How this ties into the moran who runs over his child on a lawnmover, I don’t see. Anyone with common sense would turn off the lawnmover when a 4 year old comes near it. I feel very sad for the little girl but it’s not John Deere’s resonsibility. Maybe people should be required to pass a common sense test or a driving test in order to be able to drive a lawnmover.
Tragic injury that will garner a lot of sympathy and there will be a compromise settlement. John Deere is a responsible manufacturer that produces a quality product. The father had no business driving a riding mower in reverse without proper lookout. The proximate cause is his gross negligence. The fact that there was a switch to over-ride the safety mechanism is secondary. The father obviously didn’t check the safety precautions available when he started the mower. No company should be expected to idiot-proof every product in the world.
I agree with “Dread”. I cut myself shaving, so I sue Gillette?
I trip over my laces playing hoops, so I sue Nike?
I shoot marbles with a slingshot at a tiger in a zoo and get mauled, so I hire a sleaze-ball atty & sue the entire City?
When will this madness end?
Just think how wealthy Homer Simpson could be!
Let us not forget possible contributory negligence on behalf of any turf fertilizer / weed & feed which may have exacerbated the growth rate of the lawn.
Its nice to see intelligent comments about this madness in Product Liability suits. A horrible tragedy but when will these people take responsibility for their own stupidity/negligence?!!!
I sure hope, but do not expect, Deere & the retailer defend this one & not compromise on a settlement. Time for carriers to suck up the expenses & not pay these claims.
I am not familiar with Oregon law, but I sure hope that they do not have joint and several liability.
I own a riding lawn mower and I have 3 children under 10 years old. They are not even allowed to be anywhere close to the area that I am mowing, regardless of whether I am going forward or backward. May seem like an overprotective father, but I just don’t believe in taking any chances with any instrument that can cause major injuries, including fatalities. if you ask me, the father is at least 90% at fault. What is his defense, “i would have ‘mowed’ her over while in reverse, but I certainly didn’t expect the blades to be cutting her leg off”?
I don’t think you’re over an protective parent, you have common sense. I’m a parent and have a Deere Riding mower. I can only shake my head and wonder when people like this and the lawyers, courts and juries will come to their senses also.
Now Deere will have to put yet ANOTHER warning sign on their machinery that says, “will cut off major body parts if run over people”. OMG…personal responsiblity is out the window one more time
I would like to see John Deere file suit against the father to recover damages it had to pay and expenses incurred in this litigation. The theory of liability is gross negligence in failing to operate the equipment properly resulting in costs having to be incurred by the mfg.
No doubt a large portion of the manufacturer’s defense will be dad’s portion of negligence (assuming Oregon has comparative negligence law). Trouble is, a jury won’t find ANY on the child and even 10% of a “home run” verdict is huge. They’ll settle after putting dad through a rough depo, I’m sure. Seven figures? maybe.
you GUYS MOST ALL WORK FOR sTATE fARM NO HEARTS. dO YOU NOT THINK THE FATHER HAS PUT HIMSELF THEW HELL. I DO NOT UNDRESTAND PEOPLE SO HATEFUL WHEN YOU LIKE IN THE MIRROR ALL YOU THINK ABOUT IS YOURSELF.
Send Feedback E-mail this Article Print this Article Article Reprints
A 39-year-old Washington woman paralyzed from injuries caused in a car crash sued her insurer for denying coverage for surgery doctors agree could have prevented her paralysis.
Tara Sadler, a Yakima, Wash., resident and mother of two boys, filed the suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., claiming the insurer denied her neurosurgeon’s decision to repair a severe neck injury caused in an auto accident on Feb. 29, 2004.
The complaint alleges State Farm denied Sadler’s personal injury protection (PIP) claim to maximize its profits. By the time the insurance company approved Sadler’s claim, Sadler was paralyzed.
“This is the worst case of PIP insurance abuse I have ever seen,” said Karen Koehler, an attorney with the law firm Stritmatter Kessler representing the Sadlers. “We have letters from Sadler’s doctors that confirm State Farm’s delay of the surgery is the reason for her paralysis.”
According to law firm, the day of the accident, Tara Sadler and her husband Donald Sadler, were driving their 1999 Volkswagen Beetle on North First Street in Yakima. Another vehicle improperly crossed several lanes of traffic while fleeing from the police. Donald Sadler, the driver, slammed the car’s breaks to avoid a collision. Tara Sadler, sitting in the passenger seat and wearing her seat belt, was thrown forward as the car came to a sudden stop.
After the accident, Sadler had neck and shoulder pain on the right side and arm numbness with tingling and loss of use. She saw her family physician, who ordered physical therapy for eight weeks, the law firm said. According to the complaint, in the days and weeks following the accident, Sadler’s condition worsened.
Sadler decided to see a chiropractor in Yakima who stopped the physical therapy, reviewed X-rays, and made arrangements for an MRI on her neck. The MRI indicated a significant disc protrusion in her neck with spinal cord compression and her chiropractor directed her to see a surgeon.
According to the complaint, on June 11, 2004, Sadler saw an orthopedic surgeon in Seattle who agreed that the injury warranted immediate attention and referred her to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Srinivasan, who concurred that surgery would alleviate most of her neck, shoulder, and arm ailments.
Dr. Srinivasan contacted State Farm to inform them of the need for the surgery.
Sadler, who did not have health insurance, believed the remaining $18,000 of PIP coverage she purchased from State Farm would be sufficient to pay for the surgery, the complaint details.
“When I saw Dr. Srinivasan, she said the sooner I get to surgery the better the outcome would be,” said Tara Sadler.
As Sadler returned home, Dr. Srinivasan called State Farm to advise them of the need for surgery and verify the availability of funds. State Farm replied that Sadler’s PIP benefits would be suspended and were not available for the needed surgery, court documents say.
“State Farm had absolutely no basis to deny Tara’s surgeon’s conclusion,” attorney Koehler said. “State Farm decided to gamble with Sadler’s health to try to save a buck.”
One week after hearing that she needed immediate surgery, State Farm sent a letter to Sadler that benefits were being withheld pending an involuntary medical evaluation scheduled for July 19 — almost five weeks later. Meanwhile her medical condition continued to deteriorate, the suit states.
“By this point, the paralysis had now moved down her leg. People were noticing she was dragging her right leg when she walked,” Koehler said. “She was frightened and did not know where to turn.”
Tara hired Yakima attorney Scott Brumback, whose office began calling State Farm sometimes on a daily basis, the law firm said. As a result, State Farm agreed to move the involuntary medical exam up by four days to July 15, 2004. The examiner, Dr. Gorman, M.D., confirmed Dr. Srinivasan’s prognosis and pronounced Sadler’s condition a medical emergency, court documents show.
According to court documents, after Dr. Gorman examined Sadler he called State Farm to report Sadler needed immediate surgery but was told the State Farm claims manager was out of the office.
It took until July 20, 2004 — 37 days since Sadler’s surgeon urged immediate action — for the State Farm insurance adjuster to file the appropriate paperwork and approve Sadler’s surgery.
On July 29, 2004, Dr. Srinivasan performed the surgery, but it was unsuccessful in fixing the damage caused by the accident that was worsened by the delays in treatment, court documents show. Sadler is now bound to using a wheelchair.
“It is nothing new for insurance companies to unjustly put profits over people by denying PIP claims,” Koehler said. “But never have I seen this level of callous incompetence. We believe had State Farm done the right thing and stood by its promise to Tara, she would be walking today.”
The suit was filed in King County Superior Court in Seattle and seeks monetary damages
I am sure that the father deeply regrets, and must bear substantial pain from his negligent act. BUT, does he intend to alleviate the pain by shifting the blame to John Deere? I am sure there is a reason why Deere gives the option of whether to deactivate the blades when the mower is backing. p[erhaps safety reasons or perhaps some functionality reason. Whatever the reason, the initial cause of the accident is the father backing up over the kid, Sad, but true!!!
The lawsuit alleges that Deere & Co. was negligent in designing the mower with a switch that allows the driver to keep the blades spinning while driving in reverse. The lawsuit also names the seller, Ramsey-Waite Co. of Eugene, alleging the company did not adequately instruct Kirk Norton in the safe operation of the mower.
to: Anonymous
What’s your point. I believe that everyone read the excerpt that you cited. – Keep in mind that it is Plaintiff allegations, not FACTS. Is Deere the only Mfr. that have mowers with blades that spin while it is in reverse? is there a reason why that may be a feature that is useful or appreciated by users? Furthermore, a salesman’s 3-minute safety talk, should not relied upon wholeheartedly, and without the user/buyer reading the safety manual that comes with the mower. I guess common sense is not so common. Let’s get back to the first critical question, which is: Would you have ran over your child while operating the mower in reverse, if you knew the blades were not spinning??? or did you think that the blades were not spinning, so you thought that it was OK to run over your child?
Since the switch had to be positively activated to engage the blades while going in reverse the father had to know they were spinning. And you have a good point KOB, would he have run over his daughter regardless of blade activity? There is no fault in anyone here but the father. He should have read the operator’s manual, asked for more training, hired someone to do the work for him, something other than running over his daughter. He should also have kept his daughter clear of the area while working with equipment that can kill small children. He also needs to learn to look behind him while driving in reverse. I’m sure he feels like crud, but he’s completely at fault and shouldn’t get a dime.
Allstate adjuster walks thru & around our home. Documents issues… this is a result of flood, this is a result of wind-damage” Goes back to Allstate… waiting for check… it never arrives… but they have conveniently ‘REASSIGNED” the honest adjuster. the next guy, “the closer” is ruthless. doesn’t care what the first adjuster says, he doesn’t care… tells us he doesn’t care and then offers us about $3000. This is about a $50K difference!!! Then I hear from other friends, neighbors, co-workers… All of the insurance companies are doing the same thing! Tell me they’re not in it TOGETHER!!
Remmber: Unfortunately, the child’s leg is gone and no amount of money is going to replace it. As a claim professional, I’m constantly sickened by the way people attempt to escape personal responsibility and shift blame to someone else. In this case, the father is 100% at fault. Laws were drafted for a purpose. If you were not negligent you weren’t liable. Unfortunately in our pathetic society, it’s become less a matter of who is liable as it is who can pay. This accident should never have happened. In spite of any insurance money, un-deserved as it may be, this father cut his daughters leg off due to his own carelessness/stupidity so now he can say “Gee honey, sorry about the leg; but now you have some money. Very sad.
Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a law that would penalize Attorneys financially if they lose their case, for bringing on these frivolous suits that cost the taxpayers money. Make them reimburse the system for the complete waste and disregard for everyone’s time. Bet that would reduce the docket. I’m sick of this “let’s just throw it against the wall and see what sticks” attitude. This is contributing to the discourse of this country. Of course we know this could never happen, as the lawyers are the ones that make the laws.
English law has such a provision. If the plaintiff loses the case, he/she has to reimburse the defendants costs. This is a great system since it forces plaintiff’s to have some “skin in the game” and not file every absurd action they can. Our legal has been bastardized to the point of it being a mockery. Anybody can file a suit against anyone for anything and the courts will allow it. That forces otherwise innocent and negligent free defenants to incur costs, aggravation, and time. There should be a mandatory, binding, court arbitration to determine which cases have sufficient merit to proceed.
This reply is to Dread’s Jan 14th comment. I agree with you Dread, except for one thing:
‘Gee Honey, sorry about the leg, but now you have some money’ might have been better written:
‘Gee Honey, sorry about the leg, but now WE and our lawyer have some money’.
Terrible accident; my heart goes out to the little girl. As for the father, I pity him in his grief, and in his misguided mission for dollars that will never heal the deepest pain.
On the other hand; the attorney driving this case–that’s where an awful accident becomes a despicable shakedown. This lawsuit isn’t (in part) about making the manufacturer change the design so OTHER people don’t get hurt. Don’t give me that altruistic drivel! PI lawyers have such a hard time telling as it really is: First and foremost it’s their own payday.
No winners in this one, not the girl, her parents or our culture……none, except of course the plaintiff attorney if they prevail.
I think you are a bit ridiculous….why bring emotion into this? I feel badly for the little girl, but hell, at the same time, we are reading articles that artificial legs are so advanced in technology parapalegics can’t even participate in the Olympics! I have arthritis, so uh, quite honestly, given the opportunity, the cheetah legs sound like a better deal than the bum legs I have!
Also, you are correct, we are insurance people and we are hear to help people in these situations…but this guy is going above and beyond that. For his own, for lack of a better word, stupidity, he wants someone else to take the blame and at the same time make himself and the family a couple extra million….i’d like to think that you would have a problem with that…but then again, why be logical when you can be emotional…
KOB and lastbat are right; what was the kid even doing outside while dad was mowing? I was never allowed out when Pop was mowing and even when I was little I knew it was to keep me safe. Kids and mowers don’t mix, and this dad was an idiot, no matter how much he regrets it now.
As an owner of a model with this feature I can state:
– The feature’s intention is to speed up the process of mowing the lawn
– The switch can only be set after you have stopped your mower, dis-enganged the blades, selected the switch, re-engaged the blades and then wait 3-5 seconds before the mower will allow you ot reverse your direction
– The owner manual states you should look behind you while mowing in reverse to avoid these circumstances
– The manual also spends about 1/2 a page on why you should NEVER allow children to play on or around the mower, nor should they be in the area when you are mowing
– The mower deck comes with a warning to not place anything under the mower while the engine is running
While it is a tragedy Deere’s responsibility in this is minimal. I have two young boys who always try and approach me when I am mowing, it is very easy for me to turn the blades and mower off when they are around, this guy chose not to and his daughter paid the price.
As an FYI – Oregon is a Modified Comp (51%) state so I expect at some point they’ll need to sue Dad to get Deere’s %, but his coverage most likely won’t kick in as she would be an insured under his homeowner’s policy. So unless there is joint and several liability the most they could expect to get would be $500 – 800K (10-15%).
It’s the dad’s fault 100%. You can’t design away all of the stupid ways people can hurt themselves and others. I never allow anyone in my yard when I am on the garden tractor mowing. If someone comes out or comes on the property I shut down. Common sense is so uncommon these days. Why should Deere pay for this man’s stupidity?
Learn how to spell and utilize something more than 3rd grade grammar, & perhaps we’ll TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.
Exactly why consumers should not buy insurance from companies like Allstate or 21st Century. You are just inviting a nightmare. How this ties into the moran who runs over his child on a lawnmover, I don’t see. Anyone with common sense would turn off the lawnmover when a 4 year old comes near it. I feel very sad for the little girl but it’s not John Deere’s resonsibility. Maybe people should be required to pass a common sense test or a driving test in order to be able to drive a lawnmover.
Tragic injury that will garner a lot of sympathy and there will be a compromise settlement. John Deere is a responsible manufacturer that produces a quality product. The father had no business driving a riding mower in reverse without proper lookout. The proximate cause is his gross negligence. The fact that there was a switch to over-ride the safety mechanism is secondary. The father obviously didn’t check the safety precautions available when he started the mower. No company should be expected to idiot-proof every product in the world.
I agree with “Dread”. I cut myself shaving, so I sue Gillette?
I trip over my laces playing hoops, so I sue Nike?
I shoot marbles with a slingshot at a tiger in a zoo and get mauled, so I hire a sleaze-ball atty & sue the entire City?
When will this madness end?
Just think how wealthy Homer Simpson could be!
Let us not forget possible contributory negligence on behalf of any turf fertilizer / weed & feed which may have exacerbated the growth rate of the lawn.
Its nice to see intelligent comments about this madness in Product Liability suits. A horrible tragedy but when will these people take responsibility for their own stupidity/negligence?!!!
I sure hope, but do not expect, Deere & the retailer defend this one & not compromise on a settlement. Time for carriers to suck up the expenses & not pay these claims.
I am not familiar with Oregon law, but I sure hope that they do not have joint and several liability.
I own a riding lawn mower and I have 3 children under 10 years old. They are not even allowed to be anywhere close to the area that I am mowing, regardless of whether I am going forward or backward. May seem like an overprotective father, but I just don’t believe in taking any chances with any instrument that can cause major injuries, including fatalities. if you ask me, the father is at least 90% at fault. What is his defense, “i would have ‘mowed’ her over while in reverse, but I certainly didn’t expect the blades to be cutting her leg off”?
I don’t think you’re over an protective parent, you have common sense. I’m a parent and have a Deere Riding mower. I can only shake my head and wonder when people like this and the lawyers, courts and juries will come to their senses also.
Now Deere will have to put yet ANOTHER warning sign on their machinery that says, “will cut off major body parts if run over people”. OMG…personal responsiblity is out the window one more time
I hope the girl sues her Father for gross negilgence!
I would like to see John Deere file suit against the father to recover damages it had to pay and expenses incurred in this litigation. The theory of liability is gross negligence in failing to operate the equipment properly resulting in costs having to be incurred by the mfg.
Wouldn’t that be great if we were all jurors for a possible trial?
Ouch, I just bit my tongue while eating my lunch. I think I’m gonna sue Taco Bell.
No doubt a large portion of the manufacturer’s defense will be dad’s portion of negligence (assuming Oregon has comparative negligence law). Trouble is, a jury won’t find ANY on the child and even 10% of a “home run” verdict is huge. They’ll settle after putting dad through a rough depo, I’m sure. Seven figures? maybe.
I think the real money on your tongue problem would be suing the dentist for malpractice in allowing your teeth to be too sharp. Real money there.
pEOPLE THIS IS WHY YOU ALL GET YOU PAY CHECKS WE PAY FOR Insurance THIS LITTLE PERSON WILL NOT GROW BACK HER LEG!!idiot-proof YOURSELF.
you GUYS MOST ALL WORK FOR sTATE fARM NO HEARTS. dO YOU NOT THINK THE FATHER HAS PUT HIMSELF THEW HELL. I DO NOT UNDRESTAND PEOPLE SO HATEFUL WHEN YOU LIKE IN THE MIRROR ALL YOU THINK ABOUT IS YOURSELF.
I think you assume a bit too much…You know what happens when you “assume”.
About three months after Norton was injured, a 2-year-old boy was struck and killed by a lawn mower at a home south of Veneta
2007
Send Feedback E-mail this Article Print this Article Article Reprints
A 39-year-old Washington woman paralyzed from injuries caused in a car crash sued her insurer for denying coverage for surgery doctors agree could have prevented her paralysis.
Tara Sadler, a Yakima, Wash., resident and mother of two boys, filed the suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., claiming the insurer denied her neurosurgeon’s decision to repair a severe neck injury caused in an auto accident on Feb. 29, 2004.
The complaint alleges State Farm denied Sadler’s personal injury protection (PIP) claim to maximize its profits. By the time the insurance company approved Sadler’s claim, Sadler was paralyzed.
“This is the worst case of PIP insurance abuse I have ever seen,” said Karen Koehler, an attorney with the law firm Stritmatter Kessler representing the Sadlers. “We have letters from Sadler’s doctors that confirm State Farm’s delay of the surgery is the reason for her paralysis.”
According to law firm, the day of the accident, Tara Sadler and her husband Donald Sadler, were driving their 1999 Volkswagen Beetle on North First Street in Yakima. Another vehicle improperly crossed several lanes of traffic while fleeing from the police. Donald Sadler, the driver, slammed the car’s breaks to avoid a collision. Tara Sadler, sitting in the passenger seat and wearing her seat belt, was thrown forward as the car came to a sudden stop.
After the accident, Sadler had neck and shoulder pain on the right side and arm numbness with tingling and loss of use. She saw her family physician, who ordered physical therapy for eight weeks, the law firm said. According to the complaint, in the days and weeks following the accident, Sadler’s condition worsened.
Sadler decided to see a chiropractor in Yakima who stopped the physical therapy, reviewed X-rays, and made arrangements for an MRI on her neck. The MRI indicated a significant disc protrusion in her neck with spinal cord compression and her chiropractor directed her to see a surgeon.
According to the complaint, on June 11, 2004, Sadler saw an orthopedic surgeon in Seattle who agreed that the injury warranted immediate attention and referred her to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Srinivasan, who concurred that surgery would alleviate most of her neck, shoulder, and arm ailments.
Dr. Srinivasan contacted State Farm to inform them of the need for the surgery.
Sadler, who did not have health insurance, believed the remaining $18,000 of PIP coverage she purchased from State Farm would be sufficient to pay for the surgery, the complaint details.
“When I saw Dr. Srinivasan, she said the sooner I get to surgery the better the outcome would be,” said Tara Sadler.
As Sadler returned home, Dr. Srinivasan called State Farm to advise them of the need for surgery and verify the availability of funds. State Farm replied that Sadler’s PIP benefits would be suspended and were not available for the needed surgery, court documents say.
“State Farm had absolutely no basis to deny Tara’s surgeon’s conclusion,” attorney Koehler said. “State Farm decided to gamble with Sadler’s health to try to save a buck.”
One week after hearing that she needed immediate surgery, State Farm sent a letter to Sadler that benefits were being withheld pending an involuntary medical evaluation scheduled for July 19 — almost five weeks later. Meanwhile her medical condition continued to deteriorate, the suit states.
“By this point, the paralysis had now moved down her leg. People were noticing she was dragging her right leg when she walked,” Koehler said. “She was frightened and did not know where to turn.”
Tara hired Yakima attorney Scott Brumback, whose office began calling State Farm sometimes on a daily basis, the law firm said. As a result, State Farm agreed to move the involuntary medical exam up by four days to July 15, 2004. The examiner, Dr. Gorman, M.D., confirmed Dr. Srinivasan’s prognosis and pronounced Sadler’s condition a medical emergency, court documents show.
According to court documents, after Dr. Gorman examined Sadler he called State Farm to report Sadler needed immediate surgery but was told the State Farm claims manager was out of the office.
It took until July 20, 2004 — 37 days since Sadler’s surgeon urged immediate action — for the State Farm insurance adjuster to file the appropriate paperwork and approve Sadler’s surgery.
On July 29, 2004, Dr. Srinivasan performed the surgery, but it was unsuccessful in fixing the damage caused by the accident that was worsened by the delays in treatment, court documents show. Sadler is now bound to using a wheelchair.
“It is nothing new for insurance companies to unjustly put profits over people by denying PIP claims,” Koehler said. “But never have I seen this level of callous incompetence. We believe had State Farm done the right thing and stood by its promise to Tara, she would be walking today.”
The suit was filed in King County Superior Court in Seattle and seeks monetary damages
I am sure that the father deeply regrets, and must bear substantial pain from his negligent act. BUT, does he intend to alleviate the pain by shifting the blame to John Deere? I am sure there is a reason why Deere gives the option of whether to deactivate the blades when the mower is backing. p[erhaps safety reasons or perhaps some functionality reason. Whatever the reason, the initial cause of the accident is the father backing up over the kid, Sad, but true!!!
The lawsuit alleges that Deere & Co. was negligent in designing the mower with a switch that allows the driver to keep the blades spinning while driving in reverse. The lawsuit also names the seller, Ramsey-Waite Co. of Eugene, alleging the company did not adequately instruct Kirk Norton in the safe operation of the mower.
to: Anonymous
What’s your point. I believe that everyone read the excerpt that you cited. – Keep in mind that it is Plaintiff allegations, not FACTS. Is Deere the only Mfr. that have mowers with blades that spin while it is in reverse? is there a reason why that may be a feature that is useful or appreciated by users? Furthermore, a salesman’s 3-minute safety talk, should not relied upon wholeheartedly, and without the user/buyer reading the safety manual that comes with the mower. I guess common sense is not so common. Let’s get back to the first critical question, which is: Would you have ran over your child while operating the mower in reverse, if you knew the blades were not spinning??? or did you think that the blades were not spinning, so you thought that it was OK to run over your child?
Since the switch had to be positively activated to engage the blades while going in reverse the father had to know they were spinning. And you have a good point KOB, would he have run over his daughter regardless of blade activity? There is no fault in anyone here but the father. He should have read the operator’s manual, asked for more training, hired someone to do the work for him, something other than running over his daughter. He should also have kept his daughter clear of the area while working with equipment that can kill small children. He also needs to learn to look behind him while driving in reverse. I’m sure he feels like crud, but he’s completely at fault and shouldn’t get a dime.
Allstate adjuster walks thru & around our home. Documents issues… this is a result of flood, this is a result of wind-damage” Goes back to Allstate… waiting for check… it never arrives… but they have conveniently ‘REASSIGNED” the honest adjuster. the next guy, “the closer” is ruthless. doesn’t care what the first adjuster says, he doesn’t care… tells us he doesn’t care and then offers us about $3000. This is about a $50K difference!!! Then I hear from other friends, neighbors, co-workers… All of the insurance companies are doing the same thing! Tell me they’re not in it TOGETHER!!
YOU ALL MAKE A PONIT AND SHOW JUST HOW KINDed YOU ARE WHEN SOMEONE GOSE THEW SO MUCH. Remmber what goes around comes around.
Do you really know all the story or do you just think you do.
Remmber: Unfortunately, the child’s leg is gone and no amount of money is going to replace it. As a claim professional, I’m constantly sickened by the way people attempt to escape personal responsibility and shift blame to someone else. In this case, the father is 100% at fault. Laws were drafted for a purpose. If you were not negligent you weren’t liable. Unfortunately in our pathetic society, it’s become less a matter of who is liable as it is who can pay. This accident should never have happened. In spite of any insurance money, un-deserved as it may be, this father cut his daughters leg off due to his own carelessness/stupidity so now he can say “Gee honey, sorry about the leg; but now you have some money. Very sad.
Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a law that would penalize Attorneys financially if they lose their case, for bringing on these frivolous suits that cost the taxpayers money. Make them reimburse the system for the complete waste and disregard for everyone’s time. Bet that would reduce the docket. I’m sick of this “let’s just throw it against the wall and see what sticks” attitude. This is contributing to the discourse of this country. Of course we know this could never happen, as the lawyers are the ones that make the laws.
English law has such a provision. If the plaintiff loses the case, he/she has to reimburse the defendants costs. This is a great system since it forces plaintiff’s to have some “skin in the game” and not file every absurd action they can. Our legal has been bastardized to the point of it being a mockery. Anybody can file a suit against anyone for anything and the courts will allow it. That forces otherwise innocent and negligent free defenants to incur costs, aggravation, and time. There should be a mandatory, binding, court arbitration to determine which cases have sufficient merit to proceed.
This reply is to Dread’s Jan 14th comment. I agree with you Dread, except for one thing:
‘Gee Honey, sorry about the leg, but now you have some money’ might have been better written:
‘Gee Honey, sorry about the leg, but now WE and our lawyer have some money’.
Terrible accident; my heart goes out to the little girl. As for the father, I pity him in his grief, and in his misguided mission for dollars that will never heal the deepest pain.
On the other hand; the attorney driving this case–that’s where an awful accident becomes a despicable shakedown. This lawsuit isn’t (in part) about making the manufacturer change the design so OTHER people don’t get hurt. Don’t give me that altruistic drivel! PI lawyers have such a hard time telling as it really is: First and foremost it’s their own payday.
No winners in this one, not the girl, her parents or our culture……none, except of course the plaintiff attorney if they prevail.
I think you are a bit ridiculous….why bring emotion into this? I feel badly for the little girl, but hell, at the same time, we are reading articles that artificial legs are so advanced in technology parapalegics can’t even participate in the Olympics! I have arthritis, so uh, quite honestly, given the opportunity, the cheetah legs sound like a better deal than the bum legs I have!
Also, you are correct, we are insurance people and we are hear to help people in these situations…but this guy is going above and beyond that. For his own, for lack of a better word, stupidity, he wants someone else to take the blame and at the same time make himself and the family a couple extra million….i’d like to think that you would have a problem with that…but then again, why be logical when you can be emotional…
KOB and lastbat are right; what was the kid even doing outside while dad was mowing? I was never allowed out when Pop was mowing and even when I was little I knew it was to keep me safe. Kids and mowers don’t mix, and this dad was an idiot, no matter how much he regrets it now.
As an owner of a model with this feature I can state:
– The feature’s intention is to speed up the process of mowing the lawn
– The switch can only be set after you have stopped your mower, dis-enganged the blades, selected the switch, re-engaged the blades and then wait 3-5 seconds before the mower will allow you ot reverse your direction
– The owner manual states you should look behind you while mowing in reverse to avoid these circumstances
– The manual also spends about 1/2 a page on why you should NEVER allow children to play on or around the mower, nor should they be in the area when you are mowing
– The mower deck comes with a warning to not place anything under the mower while the engine is running
While it is a tragedy Deere’s responsibility in this is minimal. I have two young boys who always try and approach me when I am mowing, it is very easy for me to turn the blades and mower off when they are around, this guy chose not to and his daughter paid the price.
As an FYI – Oregon is a Modified Comp (51%) state so I expect at some point they’ll need to sue Dad to get Deere’s %, but his coverage most likely won’t kick in as she would be an insured under his homeowner’s policy. So unless there is joint and several liability the most they could expect to get would be $500 – 800K (10-15%).
It’s the dad’s fault 100%. You can’t design away all of the stupid ways people can hurt themselves and others. I never allow anyone in my yard when I am on the garden tractor mowing. If someone comes out or comes on the property I shut down. Common sense is so uncommon these days. Why should Deere pay for this man’s stupidity?