Only in America

[woodlandfarms]

Why be responsible for your actions when suing can alleviate that need.

EUGENE, Ore. A jury in Lane County decided Thursday that Deere & Co. and a local distributor weren't liable for a 2006 accident that amputated the leg of a toddler.

The jury of six women and six men reached the verdict after 10 days of testimony and eight hours of deliberation, rejecting arguments from lawyers on behalf of now 6-year-old Isabelle Norton.

The family was seeking more than $11 million in damages, but jurors rejected the arguments by a 9-to-3 vote.

Norton was injured in 2006 as a 4-year-old when her father, Kirk, was mowing the lawn at their Springfield home and accidentally backed over her leg, causing it to be amputated.

The family's lawsuit alleged that John Deere, the world's largest agricultural-equipment maker, 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 named the seller, Ramsey-Waite Co. of Eugene, alleging the company did not adequately instruct Kirk Norton in the safe operation of the mower.

Eugene lawyer Don Corson said when the suit was filed that other manufacturers have made safer designs, and the suit aimed to persuade Deere to do the same.

 

[polo1665]

I feel badly for the poor little girl, but am happy that the jury ruled correctly. You are right, it is too easy to sue these days.

Mark

 

[EddieWalker]

Aother good argument for Tort Reform. Make the person filing the lawsuit and their lawers responsible for the fees if they lose and limit the amount of payment. Do this, and these types of lawsuites will end almost imediately. Suing the company that makes the mower because he backed up over his childs leg while mowing the lawn is rediculous. He should be accepting the blame himself for being such a dumb *** and operating a lawn mower that close to a child!!!!!

Eddie

 

[Scooby074]

Im sorry for the poor kid, but lets put blame where it lies... the idiot father. This isnt a product liability thing. Thankfully the jury put the blame where it belongs.

 

[dave1949]

I think the father should have been charged with reckless endangerment or child neglect maybe.

It would be difficult to have tort reform where those who do make defective or dangerous products don't just hide behind the law. It sure needs improvement though.

In Germany, they have a fixed schedule of what various body parts are worth, they are not all that generous. Saves a lot of taxpayer funded court nonsense.

Dave.

 

[MossRoad]

I think the father should have been charged with reckless endangerment or child neglect maybe.

You can't say that without knowing the circumstances of how the child got behind the mower. Kids move around. Especially 4 year olds. He may have not even known she was outside the house. He'll have to live with that for the rest of his life.

As for the lawsuit... I agree with the jury. 9-3 decision, though. That still means 25% of them thought it was the tractor company's fault. That's the scary part.

 

[Duffster]

You can't say that without knowing the circumstances of how the child got behind the mower. Kids move around. Especially 4 year olds. He may have not even known she was outside the house. He'll have to live with that for the rest of his life.

As for the lawsuit... I agree with the jury. 9-3 decision, though. That still means 25% of them thought it was the tractor company's fault. That's the scary part.

I would have to agree with Moss on this one.

IMO people that jump to the conclusion that the people should be charged in these accidents are the same kind of people in the "3" in that jury.

 

[/pine]

Aother good argument for Tort Reform

I agree this is a good example of why there needs to be some sort of "tort reform"...BUT limiting awards to parties that are justifiably injured at the fault of others is not...but that is where so called "tort reform" is headed...

IMO, what they need to limit is the 40%,50% + of the awards that the lawyers take as part of the (currently) allowed contingency fees...

i.e., let the lawyers have 10% over cost (not 40-50 percent) and the overall awards don't need to be so excessive...The type of reform we need is stopping the lawyers from getting rich from chasing ambulances etc...

 

[dave1949]

You can't say that without knowing the circumstances of how the child got behind the mower. Kids move around. Especially 4 year olds. He may have not even known she was outside the house. He'll have to live with that for the rest of his life.

As for the lawsuit... I agree with the jury. 9-3 decision, though. That still means 25% of them thought it was the tractor company's fault. That's the scary part.

Yes, those three are scary people. We will have them to thank when it is impossible to buy a lawn mower that mows in reverse. Curse them

You and I know 4yr olds could be about anywhere. That's the point, a responsible parent running a lawn mower should realize they need to know 100% of the time where a young child is. There's a time to mow grass and then there are times when it just isn't safe.

I am not advocating jail time or more than a token fine. He has paid a steep price already. It's not really about punishing him, it's about making a societal statement that he was responsible for his actions, not JD.

Dave.

 

[dave1949]

let the lawyers have 10% over cost (not 40-50 percent) and the overall awards don't need to be so excessive...The type of reform we need is stopping the lawyers from getting rich from chasing ambulances etc...

Sounds good to me /pine