By: kadrmas21 on 5/26/10
Wow, did these folks wait long enough before filing this bogus lawsuit? Waiting 6 years before filing it? This kid was what 5 or 6 years old at the time? Where were his parents? I do agree, his parents, if they want to blame anybody, they need to blame themselves for not keeping a closer eye on him. As for a ball, when you are watching softball or baseball or whatever, you have to know there is a risk albeit remote that you could get hit by the ball. Hopefully Judge Bueltel does the right thing and dismisses this ridiculous lawsuit. While I am sorry the kid got hit and suffered injuries, this seems like a money grab. Why not file the suit right away instead of waiting 6 years?

By: owatonna_guy on 5/26/10
What a load of crap. The parents should be hung out, it is no-one else's fault, they need to supervise their child point blank. I truly hope that they lose their asses on this and have to pay everything. Talk about a waste of courts time. Signs you want signs here's your damn sign; WATCH YOUR KID THEIR ARE DANGERS HERE!!!! Oxygen thieves!!

By: kadrmas21 on 5/26/10
It is There not their. Otherwise I agree with your post. This Renee Rubish, a typical pathetic ambulance chaser.

By: happydad on 5/26/10
i'm sorry for the kid, that he got hit in the head with a softball, but come on, this is a joke. i agree with kadramas and owatonna guy.

By: tonna1234 on 5/26/10
Really?! These parents are a joke. It is a risk no matter where you are, softball field, or anywhere else- Things happen!!!! And i suppose you can always find someone or something to blame! They should have used a bit more caution with their child... it is no one else fault but THEIR OWN. These parents are just too prideful to admit it was THEIR mistake. But i mean, no one would blame them anyway, accidents happen!!!!! G's! They now 6 years later see this situation as a money making opportunity. I hope they don't win. Lawsuits like this are a waste of time and money.

By: crazyasever on 5/26/10
I agree that the parents are in the wrong. but based on our legal system......I bet they win at least a partial judgment

By: windycity on 5/26/10
If you ever attending one of these games during Straight River Days, yes, there are risks walking in and out of the park with the game going but you're at risk watching behind the tall fencing if a foul ball is hit. My point, pay attention for yourself and your child. Unfortunate accidents happen and also, most parents are down there were playing, drinking and letting their children run and do what they wanted to do without little to no supervision. We've all seen that at other events, not just Straight River Days.

By: cialunatic on 5/26/10
I was surprised to see it took 6 years to file a case. I thought you had to do it within 3 years. It's very unfortunate that the child suffered the in jury that he did. I don't believe that they should be compensated because it was an accident that wasn't caused by negligence. The fact is that nobody at any given time can predict the flight of the ball and this type of accident happening. It's one of those 1 in a million happenings. I know that people posting want to throw the parents under the bus but I wasn't there and I don't know them so I can't judge them on how well they watch their child. I do know that I've never known anyone that's been injured in this manner so I too would probably be complacent when walking by on the outside of the diamond. I however would chalk it up as an accident where nobody is liable and say it is one of the risks we take when we venture out into the world.

By: secretsquirrel on 5/26/10
cialunatic beat me to the punch on many points - Naturally that will not stop me from being horribly redundant. LOL

I think it's 7 years to file. Anyone conducting a public event endure exposure to lawsuits should someone be injured.
Not knowing the specifics of the incident (police/witness statements?) it's hard for me to form an opinion.
My nature is: You live, you breathe, you assume the risk of death or injury is everywhere.
If the parents can reasonably expect all safety precautions to be in place, it is equally reasonable to assume that they are aware of what those precaustions should be in the first place. That said, they were in a position to assess the risk before they even got out of their car to attend the event.
I assume they each grew up around softball games, rivers, baseball, golf... maybe even trap shoots? My point being that if they did not think about the risks of their son getting hit in the head with a softball, it seems unreasonable to presume that neither did the event organizers.
Yet, I have a sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of people who will comment on this thread would pursue the same remedy if they were faced with a lifetime expense of caring for a kid (who will continue to develop physically) for the foreseeable future.
In all candor... I would consider it myself. Would I actually do it? I honestly (and thankfully) cannot answer that because I have never been faced with it.
The only lawsuit I was ever involved in for personal injury was filed on my behalf by people who genuinely believed (and still do) that a business was responsible for my injury because I was a minor at the time. The fact is that they WERE legally responsible and contributed to the incident by simply allowing me to be someplace I was not supposed to be. However, I was old enough (14) to know that I did everything I could to put myself in that position and simply could not bring myself to hold the business responsible for my choices. The lawsuit tanked because I refused to testify to anything other than what I believed. The 'point' was made and everyone was a little wiser.

By: secretsquirrel on 5/26/10
Is that "Rubish" with one 'b'... or two? Just curious. ;)

By: NoteTaker on 5/26/10

One big "DITTO!" to all the previous comments...sheeeeeeeesh.

By: nuthatch on 5/26/10
I'm assuming here.....What if they did chalk it up to an accident but then over the years they had hefty medical bills to pay not just now but in the future. Maybe they will ban games where you hit something into the air that you do not know where it may land....remember the game jarts?????

By: bigchuck on 5/26/10
Just hypothetical-if i walk in a parking lot, is it necessary for there to be a sign that says "Watch for Cars". If I am walking down on a sidewalk that is approaching an intersection, there should be a sign "Cars on Road". I don't think either of those would hold up. However...if you notice on Twins tickets, there is fine print about not being held accountable for injuries due to flying objects from the game. Is that what they are going for?

By: secretsquirrel on 5/26/10
I understand where you're coming from nuthatch and agree, to an extent. But, if the event organizers have taken every "reasonable" precaution for participant/spectator safety... the risk and subsequent responsibility is assumed by the attendee.
The flip side of this is that events must be insured and have been required to be so for many years. The reason for that is because of the financial exposure they and host entities (City of Medford?) experience simply by conducting an event.
If you are mowing your lawn and hit a rock and that rock flies across the street and whacks some helmet-wearing bicyclist causing him or her to tip over and bash their head on the curb, you will still probably be held responsible. Many arguments could be made:
1. Did you 'walk' the lawn prior to mowing to ensure there were no projectiles or hazards?
2. Should you have had your discharge chute (the MOWER discharge chute smart Alec!) pointed toward your home instead of into the street?
3. Is the helmet manufacturer partially responsible for designing and selling a helmet that could not withstand a nuclear blast?
4. Should the cyclist have realized that you were mowing and waited for a safer opportunity to pass, such as when you were traveling the opposite direction?
You could go on and on and on (like my rants) and still come up with a million possible ways to have avoided the accident. Most accidents are a result of poor planning or judgment. Yet, most laws read to require a "reasonable" precaution or "reasonable" amount of foresight... on both parts.
Jarts? Yeah, I remember them. Idiots who did not watch where they were throwing them ruined the game. I also remember an outfit called Matteson Machine company that was sued to bankruptcy because some boob decided it was okay to operate the machine with the guards off. A Matteson molding machine is a four head, 16 knife wood molding machine that can reduce a piece of 12/4 x 12/4 hard white maple to a 3/4 x 3/4 paint stirring stick without so much as a burp.
It has five 220 VAC three phase motors that will stop for nothing. Each head has four sharp, hardened steel blades.
Now, do you have to be a professional woodworker to realize that not having the guards on might cause you to lose a finger.... or an entire arm?
Of course not. But the guy won his case because they didn't SAY that removing the safety guards was a stupid idea.
Matteson later won on appeal but they lost everything in the process. One of the finest machines ever built and will never be produced again because of one idiot.
This does not rise to that level of avarice nor does it seem to be a fraudulent case. I think that the parents genuinely believe that the organization is at least partially responsible and they are probably out of options for long term care for their son. That care is damned expensive!
I think that is the genesis of this lawsuit: They are out of resources to provide for their kid and out of desperation are doing whatever they can to assure his future security. Does that make it right? I don't think so but those are my thoughts on their possible motives.
Again, faced with the same choices, even this conservative squirrel would have an extremely tough time deciding between what I philosophically believed to be fair and my kids on-going medical needs. I am just glad that I do not have to make such a decision.
I think that if people are honest with themselves here and take a truthful look at themselves in similar circumstances, it would be a tough choice for them as well.
Tough break for a little kid and the family as well.
bigchuck hits it on the head. LOL

By: secretsquirrel on 5/26/10
Speaking of ballgames.... Watch the video on this article. It's priceless! NSF posted the story on the FDN site and I will be laughing for the rest of the day because of it. LOL
Thanks again NSF!

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100525&content_id=10427106&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min

By: NoteTaker on 5/26/10

Wow, secretsquirrel. A bit loquacious today are we? And I would know all about that...lol. :-)

By: dissappointed on 5/26/10
Think about this...if you have a child who is active in a variety of sports and bounces his head off a shoulder pad or ground and gets a concussion and then wrestles and bounces his head off the mat and gets another one and then plays baseball and gets hit by a wild pitch and gets yet another concussion. the child is then told by a doctor he should never play sports again and this causes the child pain and anguish and then the child because he can't participate in organized activity choses to spend his/her time doing activities that are not appropriate, does the parent have the right to go and sue whoever caused the child to fall the first time, or the 2nd time or who threw the pitch the 3rd time? I would say that is what is wrong todays world.

This decision was not a difficult one for me when my child was involved in an accident that involved another person who was at 'fault'. by what secretsquirrel has said we had every right to sue and maybe we should have sued. which to me is so STUPID considering......IT WAS AN ACCIDENT!!!!!!

When are people going to realize that accidents do happen. and i would assume that the cities insurance or the civic club's insurance did pick up the medical bills. and in doing research and discussing this article with medical professionals....ADHD is not caused by in hit to the head. very frustrating!

By: middleagedmom on 5/26/10
I can't believe that once again I am agreeing with Kadrmas....this is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard of...people when you become parents you should become responsible too, of course you can't and won't be with your children 24/7 but accidents can and do happen. If you are anywhere near a ball diamond and see that there is a game being played, why not be cautious of your surroundings-it's called "looking out for yourself", a concept that many people don't have in today's world

By: irish on 5/26/10
My goodness people. My heard just sank when I read this story. A little kindergarten boy was walking out of the park and gets that awful of an injury, and the pain that poor little innocent boy must have went through. He deserves more than $50,000 for his pain and injury.
ANd for some of you to say "watch your kid" Come on, he was in a park. Parks are supposed to safe fun places for families, not have a softball come at you. Possibly the softball fields needs to be relocated further away from where children are playing makes more sense.

By: slundber on 5/26/10
It was an accident. People - and events - have insurance to provide protection against economic loss caused by accidents. I don't know all the particulars of this situation. Perhaps the family's health insurance is inadequate to pay for the economic loss caused by this accident. Perhaps the family's health insurance refuses to pay for this economic loss because it was caused by an accident that is covered by the event's insurance policy. Head's up, people! That's what insurance companies do: deny coverage because they think someone else's insurance is more responsible. Do you know if the family just decided on their own to file this suit, or if it is due to losing a 7-year fight with their own insurance company over coverage. I don't believe many of you would just suck it up and accept significant economic loss to your family because "it was just an accident". HELLO! That's why there is insurance! To use bigchuck's hypothetical example:

"...if i walk in a parking lot, is it necessary for there to be a sign that says 'Watch for Cars'."

No. But if you get hit by a car while you are walking in the parking lot, do you say "Oh well, it was an accident" and gladly pay all of your medical bills yourself until they foreclose on your house? Heck no! You expect your health insurance to pay those bills. And does you health insurance just say "Oh well, it was an accident"? Heck no! They sue the insurance company of the car's driver to pay for your ecconomic loss. What if your health insurance company refuses to pay in the first place? Do you then say "Oh well, it was an accident"? I don't think so. You would sue the insurance company of the car's driver to try to recover from your economic loss.

That's why there is insurance - to cover ACCIDENTS! If someone intentionally injures someone else, insurance won't cover it. INSURANCE IS FOR ACCIDENTS!

By: secretsquirrel on 5/26/10
Slunber - Where were you about sixteen hundred paragraphs ago? I could have kept my mouth shut and you could have a lot of people a lot of boredom. LOL

By: dissappointed on 5/26/10
1st of all, at the medford park the play equipment for kids is not near the diamond. only bleachers, a row of grass, and then the parking lot. 2nd of all....without knowing the family....it's hard for people to judge why people would comment 'watch your kids' but maybe there is a reason. 3rd of all, it is sad whenever anyone gets hurt and expecially a young child, but that doesn't mean a parent should become sue happy to get ahead in their own life. if the child was really severly injured, i would think the families attorney would be asking for way more than 50,000....that won't cover much in the future. and if insurance has paid for all the medical bills....then what is there to sue for. is this money going to the child? or to the parent? if to the child...then he deserves it. he was the one injured. life happens...good or bad. but you can't sue everyone!

By: therealtruth on 5/26/10
Was this an aluminum bat by any chance? I ask for a reason.

slundber - "Do you know if the family just decided on their own to file this suit, or if it is due to losing a 7-year fight with their own insurance company over coverage."
I place the odds are the latter. Perhaps their own insurance refused to pay (not unheard of!) and placed the blame and responsibility for the medical bills with the events insurer. Then you end up having to hire an attorney and you can count on them adding damages.

By: slundber on 5/26/10
To finish the thought - or rant, if you wish to call it that ;-)

INSURANCE IS FOR ACCIDENTS! And if you didn't pay for the insurance, you often have to sue in order to recover. And you're not suing because you're mad and you think it's someone else's fault. You're suing because IT WAS AN ACCIDENT and because you belive your economic loss is covered under an insurance policy that is in place because of the possibility OF ACCIDENTS!

INSURANCE IS FOR ACCIDENTS!

(end of rant)

By: NoteTaker on 5/26/10

"ANd for some of you to say "watch your kid" Come on, he was in a park. Parks are supposed to safe fun places for families, not have a softball come at you. Possibly the softball fields needs to be relocated further away from where children are playing makes more sense. "

Hmmmm...not sure this is even worthy of any more of a response.

By: irish on 5/26/10
NoteTaker:
What do you mean?

By: TheMole on 5/26/10
Several years ago I was using my compound miter saw wearing a pair of gloves. The wood was a little too large and the guard was catching on the wood. So, I was lifting up the guard with my thumb and next thing I knew, I was missing a finger, and cut several others (I think many men have done the same type of thing on saws). Someone asked me if I was going to sue the saw company (sears). I said no, it wasn't the saw's fault-it didn't care if it was my fingers or the wood. And, it was an accident, and, I learned several lessons.

My medical insurance covered the bills and I am missing a finger which causes discomfort, inability to do some tasks and weakness. Plain & simple, my fault.

I feel sorry for the family and wonder if THT is right. There might be other reasons for filing the suit. I was surprised they were only go after $50,000. Pretty small amount for the cost of care-past and future.

By: therealtruth on 5/26/10
TM - "The Olsons are asking for more than $50,000 in damages"


Miter saws come with plenty of warnings. The guard is there for a reason. A safety reason. You would have lost your case and not just your finger.


=============
No warnings?
"In the file, the Olsons argue that the City of Medford was negligent because of its “failure to properly design and maintain the softball field.” They claim the city also failed to warn passersby of the danger of fly balls and should have erected fences, barriers or warning signs to prevent harm to bystanders. This, they say, contributed to a dangerous environment in the park. The Olsons further state that both defendants “had actual knowledge or should have known of the unreasonably dangerous condition” created by the softball game."


I read about a number of accidents and lawsuits involving Aluminum bats. They are VERY dangerous. That's why I was wondering.

http://charlottesville.injuryboard.com/defective-and-dangerous-products/aluminum-bat-manufacturer-found-liable-for-players-death.aspx

By: grasshopper27 on 5/26/10
I've been close to the Olson's and their extended family for years. Being that the whole story hasn't been elaborated to the public, and both parties are remaining silent due to the case. I believe it is unfair for people to assume and or judge, who these people are if you don't know them personally.
In the end I hope there is a resolution/compromise for all parties involved.

By: TheMole on 5/26/10
trt-I knew the warnings etc, but that is why these things are called accidents--because they are not planned.

I had no notion to sue anybody-at any time. I enjoyed the good drugs in the ambulance and at the Owatonna hospital. Ha-

By: NewsHound on 5/26/10
I believe accident or not the city and the civic club are liable. Its a shame any parent at a park would have to experience this but it is not always possible to protect your child from everything. Personally I don't see how anyone can say they were neglectful. The article doesn't state all the facts and for all of you who are damning this family I hope someday a situation like this presents itself to someone you care about and it might change your minds. Where is the heart of our people? This is a young boy with brain damage. I feel for all parties but I believe the family should be compensated. Its a risk any town takes when it has a festival like Straight River's Days.

By: grasshopper27 on 5/26/10
Thank you NewsHound. Nicely stated.

By: texas42 on 5/26/10
dissappointed (sic), It doesn't say 50,000 or more -- it says more than 50,000. There's a difference. I believe 50,000 is a legal dividing line -- less than 50,000 is one category -- 50,000 or more is a different category.

By: ss_observing on 5/26/10
I witnessed this event 6 years ago and trust me, as a parent, it made me physically ill.

Although, to some degree, I agree that the parents need to accept some responsibility, I do not agree that there wasn't something that could have been done to prevent this particular type of accident. It was REPEATEDLY mentioned to the organizers of this event that the fences down 3rd base line needed to be extended to prevent someone from being hit with a line drive. Which is exactly what happened in this situation, a direct hit, from a line drive. At least with the higher fences, if hit, it would have been with less direct impact. If you visit the park now, you will see that the fences down 3rd base are much higher. Would this particular instance have been avoided with a higher fence, yes, as it wouldn't have cleared the extended fence, therefore, the child would not have been hit.

By: JoePublic on 5/26/10
It is sad that a child has been injured and has brain damage. I agree they should be compensated for medical bills that have not been covered by their health insurance.
But I believe everyone knows the game of softball, baseball, hockey, football, etc. They put up fences around the diamonds, but no one can ever know where the ball is going to go when it is hit, no one knows where the hockey puck might go. When you attend any event that has ball games are whatever going on, you have to be responsible for yourselves and keeping "heads up". Everyone wants to sue, sue, sue, which is part of the reason we are in such a mess in this country.
Again, if there are any medical bills not covered by their health insurance, then the insurance carrier for the City of Medford should step up and pay up. They have to be liable and negligent - so not sure how that will be viewed.

By: therealtruth on 5/26/10
Shame on "DISSappointed" for DISSing this family." sue others to get rid of their on guilt", "sue happy to get ahead in their own life", "Watch your kids","it's a media ploy","they should be more responsible". How sickening making claims like that given you don't know all the facts.

By: cialunatic on 5/26/10
It almost appears that ss_observing is a supporter to get this lawsuit rolling. I find it hard to believe that you remember clearly something being REPEATEDLY said when it was 6 years ago. It was an accident and I have a hard time believing there was any negligence and at any festival there has to be some risks assumed. People have brought up the parking lot situation and I have to ask if you get hit by a car do you sue the store owner? I would have a change of attitude if say the pavillion had structure problems that they knew about and it collapsed and hurt someone then there's a legit lawsuit, but who could have seen this happening? I've played softball and seen many games and I never even heard of something happening like this until now. I have to believe in a random accident like this the insurance company wouldn't deny a claim. If I was on a jury I would have to vote no on winning a lawsuit of this nature.

By: therealtruth on 5/26/10
no negligence CI?
Did they change anything AFTER this accident?
Sounds like they did.

from SS_O post - "It was REPEATEDLY mentioned to the organizers of this event that the fences down 3rd base line needed to be extended to prevent someone from being hit with a line drive. Which is exactly what happened in this situation, a direct hit, from a line drive."


A linedrive into a 5 year old's head - who wasn't playing the game and had no helmet.
WOW - Thank God it didn't kill him on the spot.

CI - if you were on a jury - you would have way more facts to base your decision on.
Remember to put that down under the question that asks
"Do you have any beliefs against awarding damages for personal injury, pain, or suffering? If YES, explain:"

I suspect they wouldn't pick someone like you if you answered honestly. Same with DISSappointed. You are both excused.

By: quinn on 5/26/10
Seems pretty obvious that the family's insurance must have paid up. The lawsuit would be much larger if not. The child (family) should be compensated for pain and suffering and added expenses incurred because of this.

If some dumb drunk idiot had fallen in the bleachers and been hurt he'd have the right to sue. Not saying it's right, just saying. Slundber is right thay have insurance for this type of thing or they are supposed to.

Bet they win. JMO

By: ss_observing on 5/26/10
Yeah, CI I'm pretty sure I can clearly recall it being repeatedly mentioned that the fences needed to be higher as I was one of the people doing the mentioning. We've played that tournament for more years than I can remember and every year there was an "incident" of some sort. They didn't name the "hill" where all the players sit in between games "hamburger hill" for nothing.

I also never indicated that I was an advocate of the parents suing, but I did say that the organizers were aware of how some of us felt about the safety issue as you were walking down the path between the "hill" and the field. They are not to be exonerated as they were fully aware of the danger, as well as the concern regarding the danger.

By: medfordmom on 5/27/10
um, I know them there is no long term care occuring. He is fine. Check the activity level of the child before handing over a check. Has not changed the parents supervision attempts either.

By: texas42 on 5/27/10
quinn, nowhere does the article mention how much the lawsuit is for -- merely that it's more than 50,000. It could be 50,001 or 50,000,000.

By: lkylarry on 5/27/10
Just a thought...if the 2 defendants should have known that a softball game creates a dangerous situation, shouldn't the parents also have known? I'm not saying that they are or are not entitled to any money they might win, but as seems to be the theme, accidents do happen. It would be nice, though, to know more details. Are they suing because their own insurance ran out? Did their insurance refuse to pay? Did they not have insurance? Or did the event's insurance refuse to pay?
I feel for the family, and it's a terrible thing to see a child get injured, but there's not always fault to be found. (unless you have a really good attorney!)

By: secretsquirrel on 5/27/10
There IS a legal reason for specifying why the attorney is seeking damages "in excess of $50,000." This is the best explanation I could find:

"Despite what you may have heard on the news or read in the newspapers, dollar amounts are almost never specified before a case goes to trial. Every now and then a lawyer will say to a newspaper that "We are suing for $50 million dollars." Not only is that a bad reflection on lawyers, it also has nothing to do with reality in Illinois. The reality is that when you file a lawsuit, the only time that you mention dollars is to help you determine which division of the court it belongs in.
In Illinois, cases filed for estimated damages of less than $50,000 will end up in municipal court. The reason a lawyer would state this claim is so they can get their case to trial and/or arbitration faster. While this limits your damages, if you know that your case isn't worth more than $50,000.00 it is the right thing to do. For example, if you are trying to collect a $20,000.00 debt, you would file it in the municipal court.

When the estimated damages exceed $30,000, then the case will be held in the law division of the Circuit Court. Almost every Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit is filed in the law division. While many cases seek damages in excess of $30,000.00, that is a question for a jury. You may be wondering, how is it determined where the cases are filed if the dollar amounts are kept unrevealed? The answer is that in cases that are filed in the law division of the Circuit Court, the attorney who represents you will sign a sworn affidavit stating that they believe the damages are in excess of $50,000. Whether your case is worth $50,000.00 or $10 million, the law division is where the suit will be filed and heard.

If you think about it, it wouldn't even make sense in most cases to state what you think the case is worth in the beginning. For example, if you are in a car accident and a lawsuit is filed while you are still receiving medical treatment, there would be no way to figure out your damages until your treatment is done.

So the next time you hear a loud mouthed lawyer on TV saying how much he is suing for, please take it with a grain of salt. These lawsuits take a long time and until the discovery process takes place, there is usually no way to say what a case is really worth."
Source: http://www.findgreatlawyers.com/assign_damage.htm

Hope this helps clear up the dollar amount.

By: quinn on 5/28/10
Thanks for the clarification on the $ amount, texas42 and ss. I just stuck my foot in my fingers, so to speak.

By: kadrmas21 on 5/28/10
This lawsuit is just bogus. I will say, the city and the civic club are not 'liable' that is a bunch of bull (insert word after bull that means the stuff that comes out of your rear end). I am from Medford, I have been to the park countless times

. I will say, for a line drive to hit this kid square in the head, is 1. A freak accident and 2. Is something that was directly caused or at least the cause was a contribution of the kids parents not supervising him better. Why wait 6 years before filing this suit? It is because they wanted/want a money grab, plain and simple.

They probably thought they would get a quick, tasty settlement from the city and when they did not get it went forward with this farce of a lawsuit that will waste time and money on the system. Their ambulance chaser lawyer will be happy too.

Blaming ADHD on a hit to the head? There is literally no medical science to back that up. In my opinion ADHD is a non existent medical condition period, but even if you believed it did exist, there is no evidence that a hit to the head would 'cause' it. The kid would have it even if he had not been hit in the head.

But in any event, the park is meant to protect people and does. For this kid to get hit square in the head, it just makes me think he was somewhere he should not have been and would not have been had his parents been properly supervising him. I do not blame the kid and feel bad he was hit. He was only 5 or 6 at the time, hard to blame someone that age for their parents screw ups.

By: cialunatic on 5/28/10
After looking around the net I found that the SOL is 6 years on cases against municipalities. I couldn't find a case similar to this one so I have nothing as far as precedent to compare it to. I know that I wouldn't sue under these conditions. I have done 2 lawsuits. One a drunk driver that didn't have a license hit me and the other a guy went through a stop sign and I was on my motorcycle. These are clear examples of negligence and I had no reasonable expectation that I was in danger to that extent. If you are driving down the road and a big bird comes through the windshield do you sue the city because they made a road? It is far more dangerous to be on the road in a car than to walk through Straight River Days in Medford.

By: sully on 5/28/10
I think this one needs all of the evidence layed out for a decision to be made. At first glance, this seems like a petty claim, but depending on where the child was struck and the design of the park may make a big difference. With the way the entrance lays out to say this was somehow controllable by the parents is fairly ignorant without all of the facts. The city is not going to pay an insurance claim like this without litigation.

Will be interesting to hear more about this as the case moves forward.