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

 

[Dutch445]

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.

This machine had our RIO system. The operator had to override the
safety system in the machine and acknowledge he was in reverse with
the blades turning. 100% taking on the liability of the situation, yet
still 3 people felt a manufacturer was negligent. 3 people plus the law firm
with the drool dripping off their chins.

 

[tdan300]

I really feel for the child, she has to grow up missing a leg and with an idiot father.

I was on a volunteer fire department back in the 70's, working as an EMT. We were called to the seen of a horrific incident. A father was letting his toddler son ride on his lap on a little tractor with a tiller behind. The toddler skirmed just right and fell, getting his leg caught up in the tines of the tiller. It took us over an hour, with the use of a cutting torch to extricate the little guy. The muscle on his upper leg was tore up bad, his calf muscle was pulled loose and hanging by the ligaments by his ankle. Somehow, the bones were not broken, though one had a hairline fracture. The soil in this area has a lot of volcanic pumice in it, which was imbedded in the wounds. He was transported to children's hospital in portland and spent the next 8 months there. They were able to save his leg, but he walks with a terrible limp. The community came together to help with expenses throughout the entire ordeal. There was never any talk of a "Lawsuit" in this community. The father took full accountability for the incident.

In another case, about 6 years ago, a young mother was walking into a sandwich shop, stubbed her toe on the curb and broke it. She sued the sandwich shop, and won.

A workable tort law is needed. I agree with the concept that the person initiating the suit should be liable for ALL costs if they loose. May not be the best way, but I don't want to see any additional bureaucracy built in.

The sad part is, all the frivolous lawsuits are an indicator of the shift in basic morallity of the United States.

 

[MossRoad]

I don't think he's an idiot for running his daughter over. I do think he's an idiot for not taking responsibility for it, though, and trying to sue the tractor maker.

 

[soulasphil]

Unfortunately it is not "only in America". In Europe we have been slow but are catching up fast. All this legal system, suing at the least occasion and seeking dammages, all this is coming fast to Europe. We are even trying to copy your class action system. The initiators meant well but it has turned out to foster a nightmarish society. I hope the trend can be curbed.

 

[blueriver]

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

Now there's a thought ... charge the man and have more lawyers and jurors ...

Where are the days of the real meaning of the word accident ... To often its to easy to charge someone with something.

Surely it was not intentional I'm betting ACCIDENT. And in todays world lets just get us a lawyer ...

Why do you think the lawsuit was filed to begin with ???

 

[dave1949]

Now there's a thought ... charge the man and have more lawyers and jurors ...

Where are the days of the real meaning of the word accident ... To often its to easy to charge someone with something.

Surely it was not intentional I'm betting ACCIDENT. And in todays world lets just get us a lawyer ...

Why do you think the lawsuit was filed to begin with ???

The part of this case which really bothers me is I don't see how a parent could be running a mower of any kind safely while a 4 yr old was anywhere in the yard. Mowers do occasionally throw things, you don't have to run over the child to injure them. Therefore, while I am sure it was an accident, it was one that a prudent person could have avoided. To me, and I think also in the legal sense, that is the definition of negligence.

If we want people to stop filing frivolous law suits, we have to be willing to let them know they were in the wrong.

If we want to communicate this to the people involved, I don't know of any other mechanism to do so other than a police citation in a civilized nation. It represents the collective voice of our society.

Dave.

 

[Diamondpilot]

It was a accident. The father will have to live with it but I agree with Moss Road, kids move around and do so quickly. I have children and a niece and nephew and they are all over the place. I am sure no one meant for this to happen but at the end of the day it was not JD's fault.

Chris

 

[blueriver]

The part of this case which really bothers me is I don't see how a parent could be running a mower of any kind safely while a 4 yr old was anywhere in the yard. Mowers do occasionally throw things, you don't have to run over the child to injure them. Therefore, while I am sure it was an accident, it was one that a prudent person could have avoided. To me, and I think also in the legal sense, that is the definition of negligence.

If we want people to stop filing frivolous law suits, we have to be willing to let them know they were in the wrong.

If we want to communicate this to the people involved, I don't know of any other mechanism to do so other than a police citation in a civilized nation. It represents the collective voice of our society.

Dave.

Dave ... not many things get me on a high horse ... this has. There is no legal sense here. Frivolous law suits are just that ... any lawyer can make a suit against anybody ... where does it stop?

The other mechanism is to simply identify an accident as an accident ... why does someone else have to get involved and make charges ... its a good old fashion ACCIDENT !!

 

[/pine]

IMO...
One of the main reasons so many "frivolous law suits" are filed is because lawyers know that juries are gullible enough to reward large sums of money that they (the lawyers) will get 40%,50%,60% of...

cut the high percentage contingency fees that lawyers are allowed to charge and lawyers will not be filing so many frivolous suits...IMO the lawyers are the ones that should pay all costs if they lose...not their clients...

Also, part of any "tort reform" should include an added cost (to be paid by the plaintiff's counsel) for a unbiased 3rd party auditing firm to verify all costs of preparing and bringing a case to trial...

 

[blueriver]

IMO...
One of the main reasons so many "frivolous law suits" are filed is because lawyers know that juries are gullible enough to reward large sums of money that they (the lawyers) will get 40%,50%,60% of...

I think this is on track ... where does all that money come from?