Daughter injured while at a friends Birthday Party.

[clarkerc]

What is the name of your state? Utah

My 13 year old daughter received a third degree burn while riding an ATV at her friends birthday party last month. I was not made aware that the children would be riding this ATV at the party and the parents allowed the children to ride the ATV unsupervised in an open field near their house.

The medical bills are currently $3500 for the surgery and I'm not sure how much the post operative care will cost yet. We don't have medical insurance to cover her injuries.

Are the friend’s parents liable for the medical expenses? They currently seem to be amicable towards accepting responsibility, but their homeowners insurance has declined coverage and I haven't presented them with any bills yet.

Is it possible the insurance company's position will change if they have a judgement against them for the medical expenses?

I'm not sure how I should proceed at this point.What is the name of your state?

[JETX]

Originally Posted by clarkerc

Are the friend’s parents liable for the medical expenses?

Nothing in your post would indicate that.

Is it possible the insurance company's position will change if they have a judgement against them for the medical expenses?

Of course it is possible... but do you really think that you could prevail in court against a competent attorney?? The insurance company will provide an attorney to them to defend them from loss/

[clarkerc]

The father gave the ATV to the children to use. He even helped them start it. He then left them to operate it unsupervised, illegally in an open field.

Operating an ATV is considered sufficiently dangerous to require children under the age of 16 to be certified to legally operate them on public lands in this state.

More generally stated my question was, if a minor child is left in the care of an adult, and that adult knowingly allows and encourages the minor child to engage, unsupervised, in an inherently dangerous activity without the consent of the child’s parent, is it probable that the adult will be found negligent and responsible for the child’s injuries?

Of course it is possible... but do you really think that you could prevail in court against a competent attorney?? The insurance company will provide an attorney to them to defend them from loss/

I didn't mean to imply I would proceed without an attorney unless the case could be tried in small claims court.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by clarkerc

Operating an ATV is considered sufficiently dangerous to require children under the age of 16 to be certified to legally operate them on public lands in this state.

So what?? They weren't on 'public lands' were they??

More generally stated my question was, if a minor child is left in the care of an adult, and that adult knowingly allows and encourages the minor child to engage, unsupervised, in an inherently dangerous activity without the consent of the child’s parent, is it probable that the adult will be found negligent and responsible for the child’s injuries?

Based on that scenario, yes, the parents would likely be liable for their negligence. However, that is NOT the scenario you described. There is NOTHING "inherently dangerous" about riding four-wheelers. Yes, accidents do happen on them... but that does not make the parents negligent... or liable.

Your post says nothing about how the parents were negligent in your daughter getting BURNED (no broken bones, etc. as would be normal for an accident).

What EXACTLY was she doing when she was injured??
How EXACTLY were the parents involved in her injury??
What EXACTLY was the NEGLIGENT activity that was a proximate cause of the injury??

I didn't mean to imply I would proceed without an attorney unless the case could be tried in small claims court.

Depending on the amount, it could be heard in small claims.... but that wasn't my point. The point was that the insurance company will provide an attorney for their policyholder.

[abaga]

I have a family member who took their son, daughter and their daughters friend to their other house in the country. The son and the daughters friend went on a four wheeler. They hit a bump and the friend fell off. She ended up having a small hairline fracture to her skull (the ambulance driver did drop the gurney she was being carried on, however, that didn't seem to impact the judgement. The fracture didn't show prior to the drop, but did show after the drop a day or two later). They were sued and the insurance company paid a mid six figure range!!!!!!

Originally Posted by clarkerc

What is the name of your state? Utah

My 13 year old daughter received a third degree burn while riding an ATV at her friends birthday party last month. I was not made aware that the children would be riding this ATV at the party and the parents allowed the children to ride the ATV unsupervised in an open field near their house.

The medical bills are currently $3500 for the surgery and I'm not sure how much the post operative care will cost yet. We don't have medical insurance to cover her injuries.

Are the friend’s parents liable for the medical expenses? They currently seem to be amicable towards accepting responsibility, but their homeowners insurance has declined coverage and I haven't presented them with any bills yet.

Is it possible the insurance company's position will change if they have a judgement against them for the medical expenses?

I'm not sure how I should proceed at this point.What is the name of your state?

[JETX]

Originally Posted by abaga

They were sued and the insurance company paid a mid six figure range!!!!!!

So... how EXACTLY does your 'friend' have anything to do with this??

A little old lady in Arizona collected from McDonald's for their serving too hot coffee.... doesn't mean that EVERY case of coffee results in a monetary judgment.

[abaga]

Originally Posted by JETX

So... how EXACTLY does your 'friend' have anything to do with this??

A little old lady in Arizona collected from McDonald's for their serving too hot coffee.... doesn't mean that EVERY case of coffee results in a monetary judgment.

I was relaying an incident with a four wheeler. It is not MY friend, it was the friend of my cousins daughter......15 year old kids.

I am not saying the judgement was right or fair....in my opinion, it was not at all, however it did happen.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by abaga

I was relaying an incident with a four wheeler. It is not MY friend, it was the friend of my cousins daughter......15 year old kids.

I am not saying the judgement was right or fair....in my opinion, it was not at all, however it did happen.

Yep.... and given enough time (and desire), I could post several hundred cases where 4 wheeler accidents resulted in judgments, large and small.... but they would have just as much relevance in this thread as yours.
Simply, your post (and my subsequent ones) are a waste of bandwidth. Please don't make stupid posts on this forum... that are not directly related to the subject of the thread.

[xylene]

Riding a 4 wheeler is inherently dangerous.

If they weren't they they would be no fun. At all.

I am wondering how your daughter got a full thickness burn that requires surguery.

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by xylene

Riding a 4 wheeler is inherently dangerous.

If they weren't they they would be no fun. At all.

While I may join in your opinion from a lay perspective, "inherently dangerous" has a specific meaning in the legal field which carries with it a separate analysis. As JET mentioned, driving an ATV does not legally fit this category.

Now, had the friend's parent taken the kids out to the local quarry to do some blasting, in that situation, there would be an excellent case because that activity is "inherently dangerous"...

[clarkerc]

We are not certain of the exact cause of the burn. She may have wrapped her arm around the exhaust as she fell off, she doesn't remember, it happened so fast.

JETX does have a point, the definition of dangerous is relative. Some people might think playing with loaded guns is not inherently dangerous. This is true, if you know what your doing, but I personally don't know any minor children I would trust with guns unsupervised.

The danger of operating an ATV is relative to the experience of the operator and the difficulty of the terrain on which it is operated.

As I see it, the proximate cause of the injury was the ATV operated by an inexperienced minor child. The accident was due to the inexperince of the operator. Since the ATV was provided by the parents to minor children in their care, they were neglegent in not determing the experience of the operators and not ensuring they used the ATV in a reasonably safe manor. If they had taken reasonable steps to minimize the risks you might then argue they were not neglegent.

[clarkerc]

While I may join in your opinion from a lay perspective, "inherently dangerous" has a specific meaning in the legal field which carries with it a separate analysis. As JET mentioned, driving an ATV does not legally fit this category.

Could you expand on the specific legal meaning of "inherently dangerous".

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by clarkerc

Could you expand on the specific legal meaning of "inherently dangerous".

It differs by state. However, a fairly accurate overview can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrahazardous_activity

[JETX]

ultrahazardous activity
n. an action or process which is so inherently dangerous that the person or entity conducting the activity is "strictly liable" for any injury caused by the activity. Examples: working with high explosives or conducting a professional auto race on public streets

assumption of risk
n. 1) taking a chance in a potentially dangerous situation. This is a typical affirmative defense in a negligence case, in which the defendant claims that the situation (taking a ski-lift, climbing a steep cliff, riding in an old crowded car, working on the girders of a skyscraper) was so inherently or obviously hazardous that the injured plaintiff should have known there was danger and took the chance that he/she could be injured.
2) the act of contracting to take over the risk, such as buying the right to a shipment and accepting the danger that it could be damaged or prove unprofitable.

dangerous
adj. unsafe, hazardous, fraught with risk. It can be negligence for which a lawsuit can be brought if damage results from creating or leaving unguarded a dangerous condition which can cause harm to others, a dangerous instrumentality (any device which can cause harm, including explosives and poisonous substances) or dangerous weapon which is inherently hazardous to anyone handling it or within the weapon's range.

negligence
n. failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence is accidental as distinguished from "intentional torts" (assault or trespass, for example) or from crimes, but a crime can also constitute negligence, such as reckless driving. Negligence can result in all types of accidents causing physical and/or property damage, but can also include business errors and miscalculations, such as a sloppy land survey. In making a claim for damages based on an allegation of another's negligence, the injured party (plaintiff) must prove: a) that the party alleged to be negligent had a duty to the injured party-specifically to the one injured or to the general public, b) that the defendant's action (or failure to act) was negligent-not what a reasonably prudent person would have done, c) that the damages were caused ("proximately caused") by the negligence. An added factor in the formula for determining negligence is whether the damages were "reasonably foreseeable" at the time of the alleged carelessness. If the injury is caused by something owned or controlled by the supposedly negligent party, but how the accident actually occurred is not known (like a ton of bricks falls from a construction job), negligence can be found based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself"). Furthermore, in six states (Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland) and the District of Columbia, an injured party will be denied any judgment (payment) if found to have been guilty of even slight "contributory negligence" in the accident. This archaic and unfair rule has been replaced by "comparative negligence" in the other 44 states, in which the negligence of the claimant is balanced with the percentage of blame placed on the other party or parties ("joint tortfeasors") causing the accident. In automobile accident cases in 16 states the head of the household is held liable for damages caused by any member of the family using the car under what is called the "family purpose" doctrine. Nine states (California, New York, Michigan, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island) make the owner of the vehicle responsible for all damages caused by a driver given permission to use the car, whether or not the negligent driver has assets or insurance to pay a judgment. Eight states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) allow the owner to rebut a presumption that the driver was authorized to use the car. Negligence is one of the greatest sources of litigation (along with contract and business disputes) in the United States.