For BadApple40

[seniorjudge]

...unintelligent diatribe...

Where is their reservation?

 

[Lynx 36]

Quote: "That is perhaps the most unintelligent diatribe I have ever heard. We have a number of protections in place to protect landowners from liability for slip and falls, but sometimes they deserve to be held liable."

I think it a worthy and intelligent conversation. I'm sorry if you think it is unintelligent. It's strictly your opinion. I now think you to be unintelligent f/ making this statement. But it's strictly my opinion right?

Quote: "In the present case, it appears the course had knowledge and took precautions to prevent slip and falls, yet failed to do so on the instance the OP's husband falls. Thats classic negligence, and no amount of tort reform will change those circumstances."

Is there records of anyone else falling on these steps or was he the only one? Not to be mean but having only one eye restricts your peripheral vision somewhat. This will be used against him as well. Most of the stuff I said in my previous post so I won't rehash it here.

Yes, I am a claims adjustor. As you can see by my profile I don't try and hide that fact. There's gotta be someone one here to battle you atty's! Good day sir.

 

[seacluded]

to Mr. Lynx

Thank you Lynx, for the good wishes. Glad we can agree to disagree. Yes, ultimately I hope that my husband gets better as that is what we really would like. No amount of money can replace the great retirement we envisioned. Regards, Seacluded

PS Mr. BadApple is correct. Had the insurance company not stonewalled us and just paid for the legitimate bills from medical doctors and legitimate hospitals such as MUSC and Duke we would not be in this position today.

Thanks to everyone for their input. It's most appreciated. Seacluded

 

[badapple40]

Perhaps one eye does restrict vision.

I think this case, however, boils down to two questions:

1. Did a previous slip and fall occur on the same bridge as that of the OP's husband? If so, thats notice of a dangerous condition that can be charged to the course. A side issue is whether, if he had use of both eyes, the accident would have occurred. Of course, in this instance, since they let him play with knowledge of his one eye and if they had knowledge of the previous accident, a solid case is made that they cannot absolve themselves of liability due to his condition that they were aware of.

2. Did the course fail to follow their procedures in maintaining the bridge and if so, was that the proximate cause of the OP's husband's damages? A side issue is whether, if he had use of both eyes, the accident would have occurred. Of course, in this instance, since they let him play with knowledge of his one eye and if they had knowledge of the previous accident, a solid case is made that they cannot absolve themselves of liability due to his condition that they were aware of.

I believe there is a solid case made out here.

I have NEVER heard of punitives from a whiplash accident UNLESS the accident occurred because the driver of the other vehicle deliberately and maliciously intended to strike the victim. If you don't think damages in the form of punishment in that instance is appropriate well...

As a matter of premises liability, there are so many defenses, it is not even funny... such as tracked in ice/snow/rain, natural accumulations of ice and snow, open and obvious hazards, no recovery from substances in a parking lot, and thats before you even get into the duty of care, breach of the duty, and the like. Where someone can overcome the defenses and recover, it is typically an instance where the recovery is deserved.

In Ohio (and Kentucky) you have to show that the store had knowledge or should have knowledge of the hazard or created the hazard (employee spills liquid in aisle) to get a breach of the duty, and you don't get to that point until all of the above is met. If you can show that, it seems to me the store/premises/etc should be remedying the hazard or posting adequate notice. In the present case, if the bridge presented an unreasonably dangerous slip hazard, that would not be noticeable to the average person, and if the course knew about that hazard, asking them to post a sign to that effect or remedy the bridge condition (perhaps by laying down astroturf) is not unreasonable.

 

[seacluded]

answer to your question

...unintelligent diatribe...

Where is their reservation?

Gray Root, Idaho

 

[Lynx 36]

Quote: "I have NEVER heard of punitives from a whiplash accident UNLESS the accident occurred because the driver of the other vehicle deliberately and maliciously intended to strike the victim. If you don't think damages in the form of punishment in that instance is appropriate well..."

I have to admit I went overboard here to prove a point. I've never paid anywhere close to that f/ whiplash, but I have dealt w/ atty's who use it as a starting point in negotiations. If the person deliberately and maliciously struck the the victim then the insurance co. would deny the claim anyway.

I think the big question that needs to be answered here is if anyone else slipped on this bridge? If her husband was the only one then their case is harder to prove. But, if other people fell, I would certainly agree that the golf course would then be liable as it happened to other people, and no corrective action was taken. Astroturf may work, but even that can get slippery when wet. Heck, 3M probably would have something f/ that slippery bridge.

 

[seacluded]

To Mr. Bad Apple

As a matter of premises liability, there are so many defenses, it is not even funny... such as tracked in ice/snow/rain, natural accumulations of ice and snow, open and obvious hazards, no recovery from substances in a parking lot, and thats before you even get into the duty of care, breach of the duty, and the like. Where someone can overcome the defenses and recover, it is typically an instance where the recovery is deserved[/QUOTE]



Very obvious that my husband has one eye, he wears no prosthesis and has a patch.

Incident happened before on a different bridge, same area of the course, shaded by trees, good environment for moss to grow I guess.

There are policies and procedures in place on how to maintain the course but those policies and procedures are not, not have they been, followed. If so, no maintenance records exist.

I have two eyes and, while filming the area where the injury occurred, I put on my husband's golf shoe, attempted to re-enact the event for the camera, and almost fell myself and I was aware of the conditions prior to the filming. The insurance company said the tape appeared to be 'contrived' and rightly so. I never professed to be a movie producer. I was just trying to reconstruct the scene. I also took his golf shoe, slid it across the step and, on its own, it flew across and landed on the ground on the other side of the steps. That's how slippery the surface was. I went to another tee box and attempted the same thing. The shoe wouldn't slide as it did on the slippery tee box, like an ice skater; it just kind of bounced.

I have no idea if I can, or will, file the complaint. I do know that this was a very interesting day for me and I think I may have retired too early! I miss work!

Again, thank you all for your help and your contributions to this discussion. S

 

[badapple40]

Quote: "I have NEVER heard of punitives from a whiplash accident UNLESS the accident occurred because the driver of the other vehicle deliberately and maliciously intended to strike the victim. If you don't think damages in the form of punishment in that instance is appropriate well..."

I have to admit I went overboard here to prove a point. I've never paid anywhere close to that f/ whiplash, but I have dealt w/ atty's who use it as a starting point in negotiations. If the person deliberately and maliciously struck the the victim then the insurance co. would deny the claim anyway.

I think the big question that needs to be answered here is if anyone else slipped on this bridge? If her husband was the only one then their case is harder to prove. But, if other people fell, I would certainly agree that the golf course would then be liable as it happened to other people, and no corrective action was taken. Astroturf may work, but even that can get slippery when wet. Heck, 3M probably would have something f/ that slippery bridge.

There are good attorneys and bad attorneys. Some attorneys are unethical jerks who are out for a fast buck, advertize on TV and are slimy to even think about. They are also the kind of attorneys who threaten or include punitive damages in a case where such a claim is not warranted or justified.

I have yet to see any substantively good reasons for tort reform, think the system weeds out most of the garbage anyways, that the media oversensionalizes cases (like the McDonalds case -- if you knew all the facts, I doubt you'd really question the verdict), and that there's a lot of crying in an effort to ultimately promote a special interest (insurance companies). As an adjuster, you are probably not seeing the millions of dollars in premiums and interest and investment income that accrues to the insurance executive. I further suggest, however, that insurance rates and premiums are on the rise as much, if not more, on account of a downturn in the economy and consequential lower return on insurance company investments than on the occurrence of a few large verdicts.

 

[Lynx 36]

There are good attorneys and bad attorneys. Some attorneys are unethical jerks who are out for a fast buck, advertize on TV and are slimy to even think about. They are also the kind of attorneys who threaten or include punitive damages in a case where such a claim is not warranted or justified.

I have yet to see any substantively good reasons for tort reform, think the system weeds out most of the garbage anyways, that the media oversensionalizes cases (like the McDonalds case -- if you knew all the facts, I doubt you'd really question the verdict), and that there's a lot of crying in an effort to ultimately promote a special interest (insurance companies). As an adjuster, you are probably not seeing the millions of dollars in premiums and interest and investment income that accrues to the insurance executive. I further suggest, however, that insurance rates and premiums are on the rise as much, if not more, on account of a downturn in the economy and consequential lower return on insurance company investments than on the occurrence of a few large verdicts.

When businesses have to fight frivolous lawsuits the economy takes a downturn. The investments insurance companies make go bad thus rates are up b/c of that. This is a small part. They are raised mostly b/c of the ridiculous punitive damages that are paid out.

Here is one example. Look at the state of WV. State Farm and other major insurance co's have pulled out of the state all together b/c of the ridiculous awards there. So in the end the residents of that state end up paying very high amounts to have insurance b/c there isn't much competition and the liability risk is high. They also brought it on themselves, as they sit on the juries. This is a cycle, and when insurance co's suffer we all do. If the insurance co. raises the rates on XYZ Trucking Co. b/c of too much liability paid out, those rates in turn result in higher shipping charges, which results in a higher cost of consumer goods.

Did you see the news today. The President is getting ready to sign a new bill.

The bill "will help protect people who are wrongfully harmed while reducing the frivolous lawsuits that clog our courts, hurt the economy, cost jobs, and burden American businesses," Bush said.

Under the legislation, class-action suits seeking $5 million or more would be heard in state court only if the primary defendant and more than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state. But if fewer than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state as the primary defendant, and more than $5 million is at stake, the case would go to federal court.

This keeps lawyers from shopping around f/ the best state to sue in. Here, Here, Mr. President. This is a great day f/ the country. Now, we need more tort reform passed.