# You can't do anything nice



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2005)

This is depressing, and quite pathetic.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2691638,00.html


----------



## Mystery Man (Feb 8, 2005)

*Agreed.*

I read that article from another link. 

She shows she cares by suing them. Nice lady, wish she was my mom. Not!


----------



## jonesy (Feb 8, 2005)

"Young said she believes that the girls should not have been running from door to door late at night. "Something bad could have happened to them," she said."

Yeah, like getting sued by a neighbour.  :\


----------



## Turanil (Feb 8, 2005)

I believe the woman will now be despised by the whole neighborhood (and deserves it).


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2005)

Turanil said:
			
		

> I believe the woman will now be despised by the whole neighborhood (and deserves it).



Maybe she'll sue the homeowners association then.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Feb 8, 2005)

Someone should throw eggs at her house. Maybe she'll come out and thank them for being mean to her. Some people really should be treated like the a-holes they are.


----------



## randomling (Feb 8, 2005)

????? They baked cookies and got sued?

Good God.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2005)

Found this too:

Douglas S. Walker 
La Plata County Courthouse 
1060 E. Second Avenue Room #106
Durango, Colorado 81301
(970)247-2304


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 8, 2005)

Bleh.  Older folks are great ... when they have grown wise over the years.  Older folks who are foolish, though ...


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2005)

Oh, I found a sequel:

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?...MPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf


----------



## GlassJaw (Feb 8, 2005)

Suing the girls was over the top but I definitely think it showed poor judgement on the girls' part.  As good as their intentions were, I would probably call the cops too if I saw and heard people sneaking around my house at night.  And there is no way I would eat those cookies.  Is that a pretty sad statement?  Yeah, probably.  But better safe than sorry.

Now if they made the cookies and delivered them in person, that's a different story.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Feb 8, 2005)

From the second article: 



> Meanwhile, Richard Ostergaard, father of Taylor, got a restraining order against Young's husband, Herb, in county court, claiming he continues to make harassing telephone calls to the Ostergaard residence.
> 
> Wanita Young said, "This has turned into quite a fiasco. It's something that never should have happened and it's just devastating. My phone hasn't stopped ringing. My life has been threatened and I'll probably have to move out of town."




Damn, this ladys husband sounds like a piece of work too. If I were her, I'd move the hell out of there as well. Glad she's getting her time to be on the receiving end of what she caused the two girls.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 8, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Suing the girls was over the top but I definitely think it showed poor judgement on the girls' part.  As good as their intentions were, I would probably call the cops too if I saw and heard people sneaking around my house at night.  And there is no way I would eat those cookies.  Is that a pretty sad statement?  Yeah, probably.  But better safe than sorry.



Does everyone live in fear down there?


----------



## jonesy (Feb 8, 2005)

"The teens offered to pay Young's medical bills but she insisted on going to small claims court."

They would have paid anyway? Why the heck did she have them go through a trial?


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Feb 8, 2005)

jonesy said:
			
		

> "The teens offered to pay Young's medical bills but she insisted on going to small claims court."
> 
> They would have paid anyway? Why the heck did she have them go through a trial?



 Because she's a bitch?


----------



## Stone Angel (Feb 8, 2005)

Oh I just can't wait to until a salesman comes over and knocks on my door! I am going to run in panic, fall break something, run again hit something and break it something expensive, then sue the crap out of them. 

That's ridiculous what kind of judge rules that way, what did he cite were the reasons. I am having a legal friend trying to dig up some info. 

No counter suit, I am sure this is very traumatizing to the girls, they will probably never do anything nice ever again.

And I bet they ate the cookies too! Oh the world we live in.


The Seraph of Earth and Stone


----------



## Mordane76 (Feb 8, 2005)

jonesy said:
			
		

> "The teens offered to pay Young's medical bills but she insisted on going to small claims court."
> 
> They would have paid anyway? Why the heck did she have them go through a trial?




Because she's a stone cold bh.  She wanted to make someone else's life a hell, and apparently she did - her daughter, her husband, and I'm sure her elderly mother is enjoying all the harrassment they're receiving.  Christ - she should have taken their offer to cover the medical bills, ate the cookies, and - to quote Richard Pryor - had a coke and a smile and shut the --- up.


----------



## Mark (Feb 8, 2005)

> Wanita Young said, "This has turned into quite a fiasco. It's something that never should have happened and it's just devastating. My phone hasn't stopped ringing. My life has been threatened and I'll probably have to move out of town."




It's amazing how obtuse some folks can be.  I get the feeling she still doesn't get it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 8, 2005)

Alright. Is it possible to revoke my membership in the human race or have I waited too long?


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 8, 2005)

When you have a dibilitating problem like anxiety disorder you need to realize that that means something is wrong with _you_, not with everyone else. No reason to take out your chemical imbalance-based problems on everyone around you.


----------



## Henry (Feb 8, 2005)

Stone Angel said:
			
		

> No counter suit, I am sure this is very traumatizing to the girls, they will probably never do anything nice ever again.




Keep in mind that they DID probably get a half-dozen or more letters of THANKS from the families in the neighborhood who appreciated the gesture. It shouldn't dissuade anyone from doing good works just because one person out of the batch is not only unappreciative, but spiteful.

Hopefully the neighborhood won't resort to any spiteful tactics themselves. The best thing is to just LEAVE THAT FAMILY ALONE like the plague. The truly saintly might keep an eye out and still offer to help them if they ever got in a tight spot in the future (because people who stir up that much trouble always DO), but then I probably wouldn't be that charitable.

I enjoyed the part about the radio station raising money, though. It shows that the community at large recognizes the situation. 



			
				Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Does everyone live in fear down there?




Nah, just the jumpy people. That husband doesn't sound like he's winning friends and influencing people, either.


----------



## Turanil (Feb 8, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> The best thing is to just LEAVE THAT FAMILY ALONE like the plague. The *truly saintly* might keep an eye out and still offer to help them <...>



What I would love to see, is one of those preachers (like the one who posted in the general forum a few days ago, but, "thanks God", was deleted) go to that woman and extensively tell her about the virtue of Love as told by the church, etc. ad nauseum. I would have a great time seeing two such kinds of jerks interacting together...


----------



## KnowTheToe (Feb 8, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> Someone should throw eggs at her house. Maybe she'll come out and thank them for being mean to her. Some people really should be treated like the a-holes they are.




AMEN Brother.  If I lived within 50 miles of her, I would do it myself.


----------



## Angcuru (Feb 8, 2005)

> Wanita Young said, "This has turned into quite a fiasco. It's something that never should have happened and it's just devastating. My phone hasn't stopped ringing. My life has been threatened and I'll probably have to move out of town."



Serves her right.  If you have an anxiety attack because someone knocked on your front door, you don't sue someone, you SEEK PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT.  Bitch.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2005)

jonesy said:
			
		

> "The teens offered to pay Young's medical bills but she insisted on going to small claims court."
> 
> They would have paid anyway? Why the heck did she have them go through a trial?



It would have been the Pain and Suffering awardance (of which she got none).  She's a gold-digger looking for a chance to scam some money.


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 8, 2005)

The REAL villain in all this, though, is the JUDGE. It's because of judgements like this that people launch suits like that. I mean, seriously, what kind of person listens to this woman's story and then says, "Gee, you're right. Knocking on people's doors isn't something people should just run around doing all willy-nilly. We've got to punish these girls! Knocking on doors!? What's next? Ringing doorbells? Where will it end?"

That's criminally reckless behaviour on the judge's part. I mean, the woman really has every right to sue anyone she wants for anything she wants. It's the courts that decide what sorts of suits will be upheld and what sorts will be disregarded.

Shame on that judge, I say.


----------



## Starman (Feb 8, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> The REAL villain in all this, though, is the JUDGE. It's because of judgements like this that people launch suits like that. I mean, seriously, what kind of person listens to this woman's story and then says, "Gee, you're right. Knocking on people's doors isn't something people should just run around doing all willy-nilly. We've got to punish these girls! Knocking on doors!? What's next? Ringing doorbells? Where will it end?"
> 
> That's criminally reckless behaviour on the judge's part. I mean, the woman really has every right to sue anyone she wants for anything she wants. It's the courts that decide what sorts of suits will be upheld and what sorts will be disregarded.
> 
> Shame on that judge, I say.




Too true.

Starman


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 8, 2005)

Well, though, really ... the girls ended up paying for the medical bills, just as they'd offered, and didn't pay "punitive" damages.  Not knowing the whole story, that seems somewhat reasonable.  But just the gall of that woman to even sue them ... that's just pathetic.


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 8, 2005)

I think it's very kind of the girls to pay the woman's medical bills. I think it's MAD of the state to suggest that when you knock on someone's door you are assuming responsibility for their health.

A door is SUPPOSED to be knocked on. A porch is SUPPOSED to have visitors walking on it. To suggest that by using these things for their intended purpose makes you liable for any damages the homeowner might suffer as a result is insanity.

If people would just put ME in charge, things would get sorted out right quick.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Feb 8, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I think it's very kind of the girls to pay the woman's medical bills. I think it's MAD of the state to suggest that when you knock on someone's door you are assuming responsibility for their health.
> 
> A door is SUPPOSED to be knocked on. A porch is SUPPOSED to have visitors walking on it. To suggest that by using these things for their intended purpose makes you liable for any damages the homeowner might suffer as a result is insanity.




This just needed repeating


----------



## Fenris (Feb 8, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> If people would just put ME in charge, things would get sorted out right quick.




And this too needed repeating. Barsoomcore for World Dicator!


----------



## Angcuru (Feb 8, 2005)

Fenris said:
			
		

> And this too needed repeating. Barsoomcore for World Dicator!



Second.


----------



## jonesy (Feb 8, 2005)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> Fenris said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So what does a Dicator do exactly? Dicate?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2005)

jonesy said:
			
		

> So what does a Dicator do exactly? Dicate?



Apparently, yes.  He talks, and other people take notes.


----------



## Angcuru (Feb 8, 2005)

Damn skippy.


----------



## Darkness (Feb 8, 2005)

I think the judge should get another job, one he's _good_ at.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

Darkness said:
			
		

> I think the judge should get another job, one he's _good_ at.




Not really,  it was late and the girls were acting suspicious from the point of view from people inside the house.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Feb 8, 2005)

God Bless America...


----------



## johnsemlak (Feb 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Not really,  it was late and the girls were acting suspicious from the point of view from people inside the house.




So those girls owe that woman a thousand bucks?  (thank god the radio station raised the money for them)


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Not really,  it was late and the girls were acting suspicious from the point of view from people inside the house.



Y'know, I could kinda maybe see the point in givin' her the hospital bills.

Except for that fact that they had already offered to pay those, and she was clearly going for the big money grab by bringing it to court.  Any self-respecting judge would see through that and tell her she shoulda taken the offer when she had the chance.


----------



## Darkness (Feb 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Not really,  it was late and the girls were acting suspicious from the point of view from people inside the house.



Nonsense. Look at the facts. They even offered to pay her hospital bills - she just was after more money. People shouldn't be allowed to waste the time of a court.


----------



## Zappo (Feb 8, 2005)

From the first article (emphasis mine):







> She thought perhaps they were burglars *or some neighbors she had tangled with in the past*, she said.



So it looks like there were... previous issues too. The bitch has been "tangling with" her neighbours for a while.

But I agree 110% with barsoomcore. The real fault is in the judge. Paying medical expenses? The only real doubt I would've had would've been between awarding nothing, or awarding nothing _and_ throw legal expenses on her as well. I find this sort of abusing of the legal system to be revolting. Not only it is unfair, but the courts have a _lot_ of better work to do.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Feb 8, 2005)

Why do these lunatics always have to be in *Colorado*?  Why not Wyoming?  Wyoming never makes the news.  They should get some of the bad press.  Or Nebraska.  There's nothing to do in Nebraska.  Why can't they go be crazy there?

Barsoomcore, I will happily support your bid to be World Dictator if I can be you Minister of Slapping Sense into Dumbes!!!!!


----------



## Angcuru (Feb 8, 2005)

What pisses me off is that this gets to court super fast while my dad's pending lawsuit against some people who cheated him out of a LOT of money is lagging behind, 2 years later, still not at court yet.  Because of that crap, he had to close his business.


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Not really,  it was late and the girls were acting suspicious from the point of view from people inside the house.



So what? It's not THEIR point of view that matters. It just flat-out isn't. What matters is whether or not the girls were doing something that went beyond the bounds of normal behaviour.

AND KNOCKING ON SOMEONE'S FRONT DOOR AIN'T BEYOND THOSE BOUNDS

If there was a sign on the woman's porch saying, "Don't knock on my door, don't come up on my porch, leave me alone and get lost," then fine, these girls behaved recklessly. But otherwise, no. No way.

People don't get to just say, "Well, from my point of view they were wrong so the law should decide in my favour." The law isn't there to make people feel justified in their opinions. It isn't there to accomodate all points of view. It's there to provide a set of unequivocal references on what is or isn't acceptable behaviour. And this judge has just sent down a decision that says knocking on people's front doors isn't acceptable behaviour.

It doesn't matter how frightened this particular woman is. It doesn't matter what her medical conditions may be. What matters is that knocking on a front door -- AT ANY TIME -- is doing exactly what you're supposed to do.

If you've got a condition that makes normal behaviour dangerous, it's your responsibility to warn others, to let them know that they need to be careful. If you don't do that, you don't get to complain when people ignore your condition.


Shakespeare had the right of it. The first thing we do is, we kill all the lawyers.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Feb 8, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Shakespeare had the right of it. The first thing we do is, we kill all the lawyers.




I agree


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

Darkness said:
			
		

> Nonsense. Look at the facts. They even offered to pay her hospital bills - she just was after more money. People shouldn't be allowed to waste the time of a court.




the woman just wanted her day in court, that's perfectly accepttible in the US.  Sure, her motives were money, but the judge obviosly also saw the the girls were a bit wreckless in their doings.  really, both sides acted bad


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> So what? It's not THEIR point of view that matters. It just flat-out isn't. What matters is whether or not the girls were doing something that went beyond the bounds of normal behaviour.
> 
> AND KNOCKING ON SOMEONE'S FRONT DOOR AIN'T BEYOND THOSE BOUNDS




It is at night.  Someone comes knocking on my door in the late hours I'm not going to be assuming its some kids here to give me cookies.  I know places that this behavoir would have gotten the girls shot, so ya  they were out of line for doing it so late.


----------



## GlassJaw (Feb 8, 2005)

I'm with Crothian on this one.  

I'm kind of surprised that people don't think the girls exercised questionable judgement.  What if it was some kids putting bags of flaming poo on your doorstep or apples with razorblades in them?  It's people sneaking around at night ringing your doorbell.  That doesn't happen a lot in my neighborhood.

I'm going to treat any knock on my door after say 7:00 at night with suspicion.  Would I sue once I found out it was some local kids giving me cookies?  Absolutely not.  But I certainly would question their decision to do so.


----------



## johnsemlak (Feb 8, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I'm with Crothian on this one.
> 
> I'm kind of surprised that people don't think the girls exercised questionable judgement.  What if it was some kids putting bags of flaming poo on your doorstep or apples with razorblades in them?  It's people sneaking around at night ringing your doorbell.  That doesn't happen a lot in my neighborhood.
> 
> I'm going to treat any knock on my door after say 7:00 at night with suspicion.  Would I sue once I found out it was some local kids giving me cookies?  Absolutely not.  But I certainly would question their decision to do so.




I'm not sure anyone questions that 10:30 is a bit late to be knocking on someone's door.

But suing someone over it (in these circumstances) seems extreme.  And the judge's decison to award 1000 bucks for that is ludicrous.


----------



## Blue Sky (Feb 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It is at night.  Someone comes knocking on my door in the late hours I'm not going to be assuming its some kids here to give me cookies.  I know places that this behavoir would have gotten the girls shot, so ya  they were out of line for doing it so late.




While I have to appreciate the girls for trying something to spice up everyones' lives, where I'm from, you just don't randomly knock on a door at 10:30 at night, run away, and expect not to have some people freak.  Of course, two underage girls just don't go out at night by themselves around here, and we're a pretty small college town.


----------



## randomling (Feb 8, 2005)

How late was it? 10:30? The girls were only knocking on the doors of lighted houses, not dark ones. They weren't looking to wake people up or threaten them. We don't know from the article how dangerous the area is, but I'd make a guess that it's not the type of neighbourhood where you can get shot just for knocking on the door of a lighted house at night. I'm sorry that the woman had a panic attack, as she likely has a bad anxiety disorder, but honestly. You don't sue someone for triggering a medical condition they didn't know you had!

If somebody knocks on my door late at night, I won't assume that it's local kids giving me cookies. I won't assume anything. If I'm feeling cautious and I'm home alone, I'll open the door with the chain on. That's about as scared as I get.


----------



## der_kluge (Feb 8, 2005)

John Stossel's book talks about frivolous lawsuits in this country.  Very interesting read.  I highly recommend it.  Basically, he says that the U.S. is one of the few countries where you can sue, and you suffer no loss if you don't win.  In other words, in most countries of the world, if you lose the case, you have to pay the other guy's legal fees.  Not here.  So, as a result people sue with impunity. 

There was a story in his book about some woman who went to law school, never passed the bar, but sued people in her neighborhood for frivolous reasons all the time.  Like, once for the kids playing basketball outside.  She sued for disturbing the peace.  She knew the legal system well enough to try her case herself, and she didn't have to cover lawyers fees that way.  However, anyone that didn't want to pay her, had to hire an expensive lawyer, so it was just lose/lose for the people she sued.

The system is broken. (at least in the U.S.)
But try getting lawmakers (i.e., lawyers) to fix it.  Doubtful.

/didn't read the article


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I'm kind of surprised that people don't think the girls exercised questionable judgement.  What if it was some kids putting bags of flaming poo on your doorstep or apples with razorblades in them?  It's people sneaking around at night ringing your doorbell.  That doesn't happen a lot in my neighborhood.
> 
> I'm going to treat any knock on my door after say 7:00 at night with suspicion.  Would I sue once I found out it was some local kids giving me cookies?  Absolutely not.  But I certainly would question their decision to do so.



I always get these kids knocking on my door after dark; every year in late October.  Not only are they _not_ trying to give me cookies, they're expecting me to give candy to them!  Outrageous!

Every year my wife and I have put together plates of cookies and taken it to our friends and neighbors in the evenings, usually after dark, knocked on the door and ran.  We do this for Halloween, for Christmas and for Easter.  We've been doing it since we've been married, so 11 years now.  I did it with my family before that.

Sorry, I'm most assuredly *not* with you on that one.


----------



## Henry (Feb 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It is at night.  Someone comes knocking on my door in the late hours I'm not going to be assuming its some kids here to give me cookies.  I know places that this behavoir would have gotten the girls shot, so ya  they were out of line for doing it so late.




I'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm afraid I just can't see it, assuming we know the whole story. If the girls get hurt engaging in reckless behavior, that's their responsiblity, but as the story is told, they knocked on a neighbor's door, left a plate of cookies, and then left - no prowling around windows, no teepeeing the house, no hanging around. Knocking on a neighbor's door in standard fashion without acting in a suspicious manner is not reckless. If somehow public perception is now that this is considered reckless, something needs to change, and it's not the girls' behavior.

To quote Forrest, "and that's all I've got to say about that."


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> I'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm afraid I just can't see it, assuming we know the whole story. If the girls get hurt engaging in reckless behavior, that's their responsiblity, but as the story is told, they knocked on a neighbor's door, left a plate of cookies, and then left - no prowling around windows, no teepeeing the house, no hanging around. Knocking on a neighbor's door in standard fashion without acting in a suspicious manner is not reckless. If somehow public perception is now that this is considered reckless, something needs to change, and it's not the girls' behavior.




Running away when someone calls out "who's there?" is suspicious though.


----------



## johnsemlak (Feb 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Running away when someone calls out "who's there?" is suspicious though.



 Fair enough, but where does that lead?  This is a case that ended up with a $1000 award.

Somewhere between that and the old woman deciding this was 'suspicious', someone should have put an end to this.


----------



## Felix (Feb 8, 2005)

Yeah, they should have stuck around when folks called their names, but still, the Judge should have thrown this out of court and plugged Mrs. Young when it was revealed that the girls' families offered to pay the medical expenses, and then stuck her with all of the court fees.

Seriously, with today's tort laws, there's no reason _not_ to bring lawsuits like this... you can't lose. Specially with Pro Bono lawyers out there trying to milk tortfeasers for all they're worth.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Feb 8, 2005)

I'm sorry, but this was in a rural area.  If it was the inner city then, yeah, you might have just cause to freak.  But where THEY were?  Nope.  Frivolous lawsuit, period.  End of story.  I have spoken, and my word is the LAW.


----------



## Turanil (Feb 8, 2005)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> What pisses me off is that this gets to court super fast while my dad's pending lawsuit against some people who cheated him out of a LOT of money is lagging behind, 2 years later, still not at court yet.  Because of that crap, he had to close his business.



That really needs to be repeated. You point out a serious problem of the current legal system's trend. 


Anyway, when I was a child, one of my activities (in those days I had yet to know about rpgs...) was to ring at doors and run as fast as I could. This was good times, you didn't risk being sued for that. Nowadays the world has become crazy... and often thieves disguise as lawyers or victims in need of a lawyer.


----------



## msd (Feb 8, 2005)

fuggedaboutit...


----------



## GlassJaw (Feb 8, 2005)

> I always get these kids knocking on my door after dark; every year in late October. Not only are they not trying to give me cookies, they're expecting me to give candy to them! Outrageous!




Citing Halloween (or any other holiday) as an example is a very weak argument.  Still, 10:30 is late even on Halloween.



> Every year my wife and I have put together plates of cookies and taken it to our friends and neighbors in the evenings, usually after dark, knocked on the door and ran. We do this for Halloween, for Christmas and for Easter. We've been doing it since we've been married, so 11 years now. I did it with my family before that.




My guess is this custom is not common.  You can't fault the lady in this case for getting scared.  Everyone responds to things in different ways.  Maybe she was robbed before or even worse.  You don't know and you can't assume.

Since she wasn't directly hurt by the girls, suing them is ridiculous, I think we are all in agreement on that.  But any opinion you might have on whether people should be knocking on other people's doors (especially at night) is your own and really has no bearing on this case.  As someone pointed out before, your own opinion can't influence the law.

Whether someone knocks on your door at night because they are in trouble, want to rob you, are delivering cookies, or if it's Pulisher's Clearing House is irrelevant.  Suing someone (and winning) for knocking on your door is insane.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Feb 8, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Citing Halloween (or any other holiday) as an example is a very weak argument.  Still, 10:30 is late even on Halloween.




He was using a humorous form of speech known as a "joke".  Apparently you have never run across one before...    

I kid!  I think you should step back, take a deep breath, and stop taking this so seriously.  Either that, or scroll up to one of my posts that has my signature, go to the Damnation Army, and rant about it there.


----------



## ledded (Feb 8, 2005)

Fenris said:
			
		

> And this too needed repeating. Barsoomcore for World Dicator!




Huzzah!  Your secret plan is coming to fruition, my liege lord, as you foretold unto me in the prophecies of obtuse frivoloty!  All hail!


Originally Posted by *Crothian*
_Running away when someone calls out "who's there?" is suspicious though._


Well, I dunno, but if my neighbor was a raving nutbag like this lady and her husband apparently were, even if I were doing a nice thing, I'd probably run too.  Or at least take cover. 



> My guess is this custom is not common. You can't fault the lady in this case for getting scared. Everyone responds to things in different ways. Maybe she was robbed before or even worse. You don't know and you can't assume




Hmmm.... personally, I think that her obvious desire for punitive damages even after the families offerred to pay her medical bills pretty much sums up all the intentions there.  You want the court to award you a big chunk o' change from *your small town freakin' neighbors* because you got *frightened* by a knock at the door at night?  Man, I need to get this lady to go see a M Night Shaymalan movie with me.  Or buy a copy of William Shatner's new album.  Either way, that's enough horror so that we'd be set for life. 

Seriously though, I have to echo other sentiments here.  This is one of the most incredibly obtuse things I've seen in quite some time.  That it was allowed to get this far is absolutely amazing to me.


----------



## GentleGiant (Feb 9, 2005)

Damn the boards are slow... thus a double post


----------



## GentleGiant (Feb 9, 2005)

"one summer's evening" - "July 31" - "around 10:30 p.m."
Okay, right there that says to me that it most likely was just after dark, on a warm summer evening. People around here tend to stay out pretty late on warm summer evenings. So "late at night" is a loaded term and might not apply to everybody.
Furthermore, "one of the nine scattered rural homes..." - c'mon, we're talking out in the "after livestock-tending chores were done."-country here. Who would suspect any foul play in this area, on a warm summer evening?
Paranoid much? If so, that's still not the fault of the girls.
If this had been in the winter or in a more populated area, I could sympathize with Crotian and GlassJaw, but this was in the rural Colorado, on a summer eve... seriously, if you think that's dangerous, then obviously you're scared of anything. I wonder if she would have sued if someone's car had broken down and they were trying to borrow a phone. Or if it had been a policeofficer.
Furthermore, her panic attack apparently wasn't so bad that she couldn't wait until the next day to go to the emergency room...


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 9, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Citing Halloween (or any other holiday) as an example is a very weak argument.  Still, 10:30 is late even on Halloween.



Au contraire.  10:30 isn't very late at all.  I can't even watch the flippin news until 11:00 in the Eastern Time Zone.


			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Since she wasn't directly hurt by the girls, suing them is ridiculous, I think we are all in agreement on that.  But any opinion you might have on whether people should be knocking on other people's doors (especially at night) is your own and really has no bearing on this case.  As someone pointed out before, your own opinion can't influence the law.



Then why did you and Crothian bring it up if it's not relevent?


			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Whether someone knocks on your door at night because they are in trouble, want to rob you, are delivering cookies, or if it's Pulisher's Clearing House is irrelevant.  Suing someone (and winning) for knocking on your door is insane.



Ah, good.  We're not losing sight of the real point here after all.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 9, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Au contraire.  10:30 isn't very late at all.  I can't even watch the flippin news until 11:00 in the Eastern Time Zone.




around here we have 10 o clock news.  But I know lots of people who go to sleep around 10 each night, and I know people who leave lights on all night.  So, just because the kitchen light was on doesn't mean people were up.  THe girls made an assumption and they were wrong.  Good intentions don't mean a lot when they cause panick in people.  Now, the lawsuite is a another matter, it is rediculs, but that still doesn't make what the girls did and better.


----------



## AuroraGyps (Feb 9, 2005)

> Inside one of the nine scattered rural homes south of Durango that got cookies that night, a 49-year-old woman became so terrified by the knocks on her door around 10:30 p.m. that she called the sheriff's department. Deputies determined that no crime had been committed.




I wonder how much the police investigated that night?  I don't know what procedure would be, but I can't help but think knocking on a few doors with lights on would have given them a bit more info.  Granted, I don't think not answering the woman when she called out was smart and I don't think leaving a kinda vague messege with the cookies was smart either.  I hope this woman is getting professional help for whatever problems she's having, but suing was a bit much.  In fact, not suing might have gone a long way with the neighbors she's already having problems with.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 9, 2005)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> Why do these lunatics always have to be in *Colorado*?  Why not Wyoming?  Wyoming never makes the news.




It's because the lunatics in Wyoming don't have neighbors that live closer than 20-25 miles or so.


----------



## Nightcloak (Feb 9, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> John Stossel's book talks about frivolous lawsuits in this country.  Very interesting read.  I highly recommend it.  Basically, he says that the U.S. is one of the few countries where you can sue, and you suffer no loss if you don't win.  In other words, in most countries of the world, if you lose the case, you have to pay the other guy's legal fees.  Not here.  So, as a result people sue with impunity.
> 
> There was a story in his book about some woman who went to law school, never passed the bar, but sued people in her neighborhood for frivolous reasons all the time.  Like, once for the kids playing basketball outside.  She sued for disturbing the peace.  She knew the legal system well enough to try her case herself, and she didn't have to cover lawyers fees that way.  However, anyone that didn't want to pay her, had to hire an expensive lawyer, so it was just lose/lose for the people she sued.
> 
> ...




Great Read. I got to see him speak about the book in Vegas last year (and got the book signed!). I liked the part were he compared lawyers to guided missiles: "Necessary to protect people's rights in a free society, but should only be used as a last resort do to the fact they also hurt innocent people and cause collateral damage."


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (Feb 9, 2005)

It's a sad day when playing "ding-dong ditch" has more serious repercussions than a misdemeanor assault. 

Remember when kids used to be able to ride their bikes without a FREEKIN' HELMET on? 


Stop the Madness! -  Barsoomcore for Dicator!


----------



## James Heard (Feb 9, 2005)

As I've replied ad nauseum on other boards this is a reasonable case thanks to common law views of unintended and unforseeable consequences (toy manufacturers, etc) that was pretty much taken advantage of by the woman in question. You can't take away her right to take the case to court without setting a precedent and you can't arbitrarily dismiss her claim of damages just because she asked for punitive rewards as well - because it would also set up a precedent that other people would take advantage of. Since the parents already offered to pay for medical costs I'd say they won this case even though they lost, and the social costs the lady is going to suffer from alienating the entire country that remembers her name and this case is going to serve as the "justice" in this case. Basically she tried to schmooze the system, the system really DID reject her as much as it was able, everything works fine, and the hubbaballoo about the case is really wonky. I've lived in urban neighborhoods where anyone knocking on your doors EVER would mean I'd be looking for a gun or wondering which one of my neighbors had a meth lab, and I've lived in rural areas where the presence of any callers would be strange beyond keening simply because you had acres of tree line and no neighbors for a _reason_.

Personally I'd just start harrassing her like the public figure she's now placed herself in the position of being is allowed to be. I'd engage in satire and speculation about her in the local papers, put her picture with the court costs up in all the private businesses within 50 miles as "news", and see what else I'm legally allowed to do to drive her out of town. There's got to be a vast allowance there, they do it with sex offenders all the time. Just treat her like a rapist and make her move to somewhere where her suspicious nature is more justifiable by the community.

Or hell, maybe rural Colorado is a scary place and I just don't have a clue. It might be. I've watched Southpark, Colorado might be JUST like that. Anal probes and cow mutilations, I'd have fits for late visitors too.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 9, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> I've watched Southpark, Colorado might be JUST like that. Anal probes and cow mutilations, I'd have fits for late visitors too.




And suddenly it all makes sense! She's a real life version of Kyle's mom!


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 9, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> You can't take away her right to take the case to court without setting a precedent and you can't arbitrarily dismiss her claim of damages just because she asked for punitive rewards as well - because it would also set up a precedent that other people would take advantage of.



Well, I for one am not trying to take away her right to take the case to court. She has every right to sue anyone she wants.

And you can NOT award her any damages without "arbitrarily" dismissing her claim. You could, for example _reasonably_ dismiss her claim. Or you could consider her claim and decide against her.

Awarding the woman damages was a bad decision. It's bad law.


			
				James Heard said:
			
		

> Personally I'd just start harrassing her like the public figure she's now placed herself in the position of being is allowed to be.



How has she done so? Does everyone who sues someone make themselves into a public figure? What did she do that allows others to ignore her right to privacy?


			
				James Heard said:
			
		

> Just treat her like a rapist and make her move to somewhere where her suspicious nature is more justifiable by the community.



Or, perhaps more constructively, investigate who the judge is that made this decision and, if you determine that they're incompetent, start a campaign to have them removed. I don't see how a bunch of passive-agressive behaviour actually helps solve the fundamental problem, which is that this woman was awarded damages she was not reasonably entitled to.


----------



## James Heard (Feb 9, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And you can NOT award her any damages without "arbitrarily" dismissing her claim. You could, for example _reasonably_ dismiss her claim. Or you could consider her claim and decide against her.



Not without invalidating an awful lot of case law for negligent manufacturers and a bunch of other things and opening a huge can of worms for appeals cases. This is basically an issue of unintended consequences that lead to harm. She obviously proved harm, in the amount of the hospital visit (and whether or not you think that she was really harmed), and she was able to prove that there was cause (10:30 at night, someone prowling your property leaving packages and not identifying themselves clearly) for that harm. That's an awful lot more cause and an awful lot less harm than you'll see in a lot of negligence torts.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Awarding the woman damages was a bad decision. It's bad law.



No, it's not. It's good law to protect people from well meaning toy manufacturers, drug companies, and equipment suppliers who also can fairly prove that they didn't intend to maim and mutilate and kill people - but do. This is the same law applied as far as I can tell. If you drop an exception into the common law for sweet young teenage girls then eventually you'll have it as the defense used for the sweet teenage girl serial cookie poisoners - "We're cute and young, we didn't know that using radioactive flour would be a problem."

That's extreme, but it's true. I'm also betting that the girls didn't bring a serious legal defense because it _was_ pretty stupid on the face of things, while the woman brought an ambulance chaser with an ax to grind because she was seeking a cash cow. 


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> How has she done so? Does everyone who sues someone make themselves into a public figure? What did she do that allows others to ignore her right to privacy?



She's made the national newspapers. That opens people up to all sorts of lessening of the restrictions on invasion of privacy and raising the threshold for harrassment. It would be harrassment for photographers to wait outside your house as a nobody, but once you're in the news you're suddenly a free speech issue. I'm not saying I universally agree with the concept, but I'm willing to suggest that using that concept to one's advantage in a case like this isn't completely unethical.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Or, perhaps more constructively, investigate who the judge is that made this decision and, if you determine that they're incompetent, start a campaign to have them removed. I don't see how a bunch of passive-agressive behaviour actually helps solve the fundamental problem, which is that this woman was awarded damages she was not reasonably entitled to.



But the only reason you think they're incompetent is because they applied the law and the material facts as they were presented them. So what, you remove the judge because he upheld the law and judged according to the law and the facts of the case? Now who's being rude? "You should do your job, by violating the ethical standards of your profession because when you perform your duties as you're trained to and the law requires you to people don't like it." That's the reason the higher courts aren't elected offices, to protect them from people who want to make the judiciary into a popularity contest.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 9, 2005)

The unfortunate part about our legal system is that it has obliterated social Darwinism.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 9, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Does everyone live in fear down there?




Sadly, the news is designed to make you afraid of things like this.  The more fear you have, the better their ratings are to see the latest horrible thing that happened seven states away but could happen to you or your children next.

On another note, people with paranoia this debilitating should be in a hospital or institution.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 9, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> No, it's not. It's good law to protect people from well meaning toy manufacturers, drug companies, and equipment suppliers who also can fairly prove that they didn't intend to maim and mutilate and kill people - but do.




I don't personally think this should qualify as negligence.  They knocked on a door, and then left.  That's it.  That constitutes negligence?


----------



## reanjr (Feb 9, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But I know lots of people who go to sleep around 10 each night, and I know people who leave lights on all night.  So, just because the kitchen light was on doesn't mean people were up.  THe girls made an assumption and they were wrong.




I work midnights.  The law doesn't stop the neighbors from bringing in a jackhammer for breaking up their driveway - three days in a row.

I didn't sleep for half a week, and I still had to get on with my life.

Laws should not only apply at certain times.  We have electricity and 24 hour stores.  It's absolutely absurd to have laws that only apply to a portion of the populace.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 9, 2005)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but this was in a rural area.  If it was the inner city then, yeah, you might have just cause to freak.  But where THEY were?  Nope.  Frivolous lawsuit, period.  End of story.  I have spoken, and my word is the LAW.




Uh... in a city, you are ten feet from your nearest neighbor and 5 minutes between phone call and poilce protection.  In the country, you are half a mile from any human contact and half an hour drive for the police.  I know where I would be more scared of something happening to me.

Crime happens in the city because people are in the city.  You never see muggings in the middle of a field of cows because there are no people there.  But a knock at the door indicates that there IS someone there, and therefore you are in way more danger than you would be in the city.

Not to say the lady is not a waste of life or anything...


----------



## reanjr (Feb 9, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> You can't take away her right to take the case to court without setting a precedent and you can't arbitrarily dismiss her claim of damages just because she asked for punitive rewards as well - because it would also set up a precedent that other people would take advantage of.




I don't know where the case was held, but it was probably in a lower court that doesn't set precedent.  A court only need follow precedent set by a higher court.  They don't even need to follow precedent set by their own court.  By dismissing the claim, you are simply forcing the plaintiff to appeal to a higher court at investment of time and money.  I think this is a good idea.

[edit] I just read that it was held in Small Claims court.  I pray the people of the district vote this judge out.  This court sets no precedent at all.  The case should have been thrown out, and the judge should have snickered while doing so.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 9, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> My guess is this custom is not common.  You can't fault the lady in this case for getting scared.  Everyone responds to things in different ways.  Maybe she was robbed before or even worse.  You don't know and you can't assume.




My aunt does this around Christmas time.  My neighbor also does this.  I guess it depends on your definition of common, but three references from this message board alone isn't exactly rare.

And I certainly fault the lady for being irrationally scared and not dealing with her emotional problems in a constructive manner.


----------



## Stone Angel (Feb 9, 2005)

OK I went out and celebrated fat tuesday tonight. I am really drunk right now, will problably have to call into work tommorrow. It has taken a long time to write this much. 

Anyway I stopped and helped a guy that had car trouble in my neighborhood, this lady probably would have suued for at least a million dollars for just pulling up be side her and rolling my windows down.

I agree twith henry a 100 percent.


The Seraph of Earth and STone


----------



## reanjr (Feb 9, 2005)

Blue Sky said:
			
		

> While I have to appreciate the girls for trying something to spice up everyones' lives, where I'm from, you just don't randomly knock on a door at 10:30 at night, run away, and expect not to have some people freak.  Of course, two underage girls just don't go out at night by themselves around here, and we're a pretty small college town.




I just can't understand the level of fear people have in life.  It's a wonder this country goes on.  I grew up in Detroit (the most dangerous place to live in America at the time, and since crime is down since my child hood, it was more dangerous during my childhood than any place in America is today), and I still don't see it.

People need to learn to cope with their issues.  The legal system shouldn't support their delusions.  We live in a safe country.  People just need to accept that and stop looking for bogeymen.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 9, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> John Stossel's book talks about frivolous lawsuits in this country.  Very interesting read.  I highly recommend it.  Basically, he says that the U.S. is one of the few countries where you can sue, and you suffer no loss if you don't win.  In other words, in most countries of the world, if you lose the case, you have to pay the other guy's legal fees.  Not here.  So, as a result people sue with impunity.




It depends on which state you are in. New York State for example has laws against frivolous lawsuits, I found out about their law when Uri Geller sued the Amazing Randi for proving he was a fake.

The court declared that Mr. Geller had to pay Randi's court costs. He took a good many years to do so I am afraid.

The Auld Grump


----------



## reanjr (Feb 9, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> apples with razorblades in them?




This is practically urban legend (though not quite).  There have been ten cases of this since 1959.  Everyone must think they are really special to be the one person every two years to bite into an intentionally placed metal object (which, by the way, cause some pain, a few stitches and are almost invariably placed by a relative).

Yet no one (few) panics about getting in their car.  Lightning strikes (73 deaths a year according to US weather service).  Meteor strikes (extrapolated from a major meteor strike every 35 million years and 6 billion people, death toll would be an estimated 100 people per year).

You take necessary precautions and get on with your life.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 9, 2005)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> AMEN Brother.  If I lived within 50 miles of her, I would do it myself.




Come one now, that's worth at least 100 miles.  Round trip 4 hours.  Have lunch while you're out and stop at the grocery store for supplies, maybe another hour.  A single Saturday afternoon, $1.50, and a quarter tank of gas and you'vfe made the world a better place.


----------



## reanjr (Feb 9, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Alright. Is it possible to revoke my membership in the human race or have I waited too long?




Alas, upon cognizance of being Human, you only have a short window (30 days; 90 days if defective).


----------



## IceFractal (Feb 9, 2005)

Did something change just recently?  Since when are doors considered so private that you need permission to knock on them?  

Say you call someone on the phone and they, on the way to answering it, slip, break a whole shelf full of expensive stuff, and then hurt their back and require surgery.  That's unfortunate, and it is technically a consequence of you calling them, but should they then be allowed to sue you?  No, it is not your fault, legally or otherwise, even though your phone call caused it; any more than it's your fault if you swat a fly that would have, if unswatted, have distracted someone long enough to prevent them stepping into traffic and getting hit (an extreme example, but still).

You shouldn't be able to sue someone for something they didn't do.


----------



## ph34r (Feb 9, 2005)

It's almost 4 am here right now and if my door bell rang I'd go cut the outside lights on and answer the door. The old lady is off her tree and would have been better off having the heart attack. Who the crap goes to someones house to break into it or harm whoevers inside and knocks before they enter? Unless they were vampires and couldn't come in without an invitation. Here's the scenario if I were the judge in this case...

Old Woman: "Your honor, these girls scared the crap out of me. I didn't know who it was at my door or what they wanted. I want to sue them because they scared me!"

Me: "Hahaha, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!"   

I saw this posted on another message board a couple days ago and the people there weren't as polite with their replies. Someone should print this thread and the other one off and mail it to her. But then she'd probably try to sue everyone who replied to the topics because her feelings got hurt. Give me a break...


----------



## TimSmith (Feb 9, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> As I've replied ad nauseum on other boards this is a reasonable case thanks to common law views of unintended and unforseeable consequences (toy manufacturers, etc) that was pretty much taken advantage of by the woman in question. You can't take away her right to take the case to court without setting a precedent and you can't arbitrarily dismiss her claim of damages just because she asked for punitive rewards as well - because it would also set up a precedent that other people would take advantage of. Since the parents already offered to pay for medical costs I'd say they won this case even though they lost, and the social costs the lady is going to suffer from alienating the entire country that remembers her name and this case is going to serve as the "justice" in this case. Basically she tried to schmooze the system, the system really DID reject her as much as it was able, everything works fine, and the hubbaballoo about the case is really wonky. I've lived in urban neighborhoods where anyone knocking on your doors EVER would mean I'd be looking for a gun or wondering which one of my neighbors had a meth lab, and I've lived in rural areas where the presence of any callers would be strange beyond keening simply because you had acres of tree line and no neighbors for a _reason_.
> 
> Personally I'd just start harrassing her like the public figure she's now placed herself in the position of being is allowed to be. I'd engage in satire and speculation about her in the local papers, put her picture with the court costs up in all the private businesses within 50 miles as "news", and see what else I'm legally allowed to do to drive her out of town. There's got to be a vast allowance there, they do it with sex offenders all the time. Just treat her like a rapist and make her move to somewhere where her suspicious nature is more justifiable by the community.
> 
> Or hell, maybe rural Colorado is a scary place and I just don't have a clue. It might be. I've watched Southpark, Colorado might be JUST like that. Anal probes and cow mutilations, I'd have fits for late visitors too.




I think you have the right of it from a legal perspective. The woman who sued DID suffer (albeit unintentionally) costs as a result of the girls' actions. However, they are clearly sorry and offered to pay her costs and acted without malice. Clearly she is trying to milk the "compensation culture" for every penny, but did not get away with it. The end result was what the girls' families had already agreed to, so they could be argued to have won!

I think in my country (not to claim any superiority) the same result may have occurred, BUT I think the woman bringing the charges might well have found herself paying her court costs AND MAYBE THE GIRLS' COSTS AS WELL (if the court believed it had to award the hospital bills but wanted to make a point about abusing the system, given that the girls' had already offered to pay those bills). In this way she could have ended up worse off than just paying her own bills!

What a lot of posters have maybe not noticed, though, is the fact that well-wishers have raised so much money to cover the girls' costs that there is plenty to spare to give to charity and the girls' college fees. I was struck not only by the forgiveness shown by the girls and their familes, (quite astounding that they are requesting forebearance from others towards their persecutor) but by the fact that they have achieved a happy ending despite this woman's tomfoolery. It sounds trite, but it really has given me a warm feeling inside that right can prevail, one way or the other.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Feb 9, 2005)

reanjr said:
			
		

> I just can't understand the level of fear people have in life.  It's a wonder this country goes on.  I grew up in Detroit (the most dangerous place to live in America at the time, and since crime is down since my child hood, it was more dangerous during my childhood than any place in America is today), and I still don't see it.
> 
> People need to learn to cope with their issues.  The legal system shouldn't support their delusions.  We live in a safe country.  People just need to accept that and stop looking for bogeymen.




AMEN.


----------



## MonsterMash (Feb 9, 2005)

Of course there are those that profit by trying to keep everyone in a state of fear. Can't really say more or could turn political which is not allowed.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 9, 2005)

BigFreekinGoblinoid said:
			
		

> Remember when kids used to be able to ride their bikes without a FREEKIN' HELMET on?
> 
> Stop the Madness! -  Barsoomcore for Dicator!



Hell, BFG, remember when you used to take family trips and bounced all around in the back of the station wagon?  Where's all the fun in life?

Sign me up on the barsoomcore for Dictator bandwagon.  I'll write down whatever he says.


----------



## ledded (Feb 9, 2005)

James Heard, I wanted to touch on a couple points in your post, but first let me say whether I agree with you or not on particular points, you did lay it out in a reasonable and intelligent manner.



			
				James Heard said:
			
		

> Not without invalidating an awful lot of case law for negligent manufacturers and a bunch of other things and opening a huge can of worms for appeals cases. This is basically an issue of unintended consequences that lead to harm.




While being right at the surface, I would disagree that this particular incident applies.  The basis for "unintended consequences" providing a real avenue for legal action most of the time directly involves negligence.  That is, of course, hard to delineate, and is partially why there have been such things as "good samaritan laws", etc.



			
				James Heard said:
			
		

> She obviously proved harm, in the amount of the hospital visit (and whether or not you think that she was really harmed), and she was able to prove that there was cause (10:30 at night, someone prowling your property leaving packages and not identifying themselves clearly) for that harm.




Well, IMO, just because you have a bill for something does not prove harm, so to me it's not obvious that she was harmed.  The problem in this case is that to get the "big picture" we would have to have access to the records of her treatment at the hospital, and possibly other medical records that might be relevant, but she has a right for those to remain private.  I dont know if it came up in court or not, because I've heard nothing about the results of her next-morning treatment (or her medical history), but that is what would lend itself towards proof, not the fact that she went to the hospital.  People go to hospitals and doctors all the time for no good reason or to try and "create" evidence for some kind of claim against someone.

So lets clarify this from my perspective... just because she went to the hospital and racked up a bill DOES NOT mean that she suffered costs/damages as a result of the girls actions.  It means that she went to the hospital and racked up a bill, and nothing more, without some kind of further medical proof.  The fact that she has a bill is not proof of anything other than she incurred an expense for herself.



			
				James Heard said:
			
		

> That's an awful lot more cause and an awful lot less harm than you'll see in a lot of negligence torts.




This is true, but that in no way means that it is right, or it is as it should be.



			
				James Heard said:
			
		

> No, it's not. It's good law to protect people from well meaning toy manufacturers, drug companies, and equipment suppliers who also can fairly prove that they didn't intend to maim and mutilate and kill people - but do. This is the same law applied as far as I can tell. If you drop an exception into the common law for sweet young teenage girls then eventually you'll have it as the defense used for the sweet teenage girl serial cookie poisoners - "We're cute and young, we didn't know that using radioactive flour would be a problem."




It's never obvious that the companies that you mention are well meaning, but there is one thing that is always obvious... they mean to *make money* by producing a product, which is completely seperate from making a good or safe product.  The reason for investigations and lawsuits is to prove whether the company is liable because they let their number one reason for existence ("making money") overcome or supplant other reasons for existence ("providing a safe and useful product") by negligence or purposeful deed.  The law is there to ensure that whatever company took "reasonable" steps to produce said product safely to the best of their knowledge or ability, even if it did inadvertantly hurt someone.  Of course, lawsuits don't always work out that way, but that is the intention.  

In this case, I just hope there is some medical proof that there was a reason that the woman actually required treatment that we just arent hearing, because otherwise I would have to agree with Barsoomcore.  The fact that she went to the hospital in no way proves that she deserved to be compensated, and it's obvious from the social outcry that the vast majority of people seem to agree.  Heck, if something upsets me that much, I can usually handle it with a couple Maker's and Ginger Ale, and that's a heck of a lot cheaper than a trip to the hospital.  Unfortunately, without that extra information it's not something that I, or any of us, can truly make a sound judgement on. 

The second thing that I havent heard anything about is whether the judge decided that the woman was able to prove an expectation of actual harm because of the nature of the locale based on any kind of historical or even anecdotal evidence.  Apparently this was somehow "proved" by her lawyer, but we don't know how.  To argue whether she had expectation of harm sufficient enough to cause her that kind of distress based on where *we* live is doing so without weighing all the facts.  By my standards, she's a loon, but it may just be that crazy where she lives.  However, the fact that all of the other people the girls delivered cookies to not only ate them comfortably, but supplied written evidence of their joy at receiving them in the form of thank you notes leads me to believe that the woman is a crackpot, and should have led the judge to also.



			
				James Heard said:
			
		

> That's extreme, but it's true. I'm also betting that the girls didn't bring a serious legal defense because it _was_ pretty stupid on the face of things, while the woman brought an ambulance chaser with an ax to grind because she was seeking a cash cow.




I think you just hit the nail on the head there brother.



			
				James Heard said:
			
		

> She's made the national newspapers. That opens people up to all sorts of lessening of the restrictions on invasion of privacy and raising the threshold for harrassment. It would be harrassment for photographers to wait outside your house as a nobody, but once you're in the news you're suddenly a free speech issue. I'm not saying I universally agree with the concept, but I'm willing to suggest that using that concept to one's advantage in a case like this isn't completely unethical.




See, to me this attitude is the root of the problem with lawyers.  Using a person's sudden newsworthiness to violate their personal privacy in order cause them pain and/or harm is unethical.  Always.  Period.  Regardless of the imagined loophole.

That is not to say that you should not ever resort to those means, but people cannot and should not claim clear conscience and righteousness just because the ends justified the means.  If a twice-convicted child molestor moved into my neighborhood would I violate his privacy within the confines of accepted practice/law to harass him by warning others of his past deeds in order to provide me, as a parent, a better feeling of safety for my kids?  You are damn right I would.  Every time, and twice on Sundays.  But that does not make it right, or make me feel good about doing it.  IMO, as long as people have the character to look at their actions in that way, they will better be able to judge when they should or should not go against their normal principles.  Of course in America we'd probably have a lot less Marine generals speaking publicly about how much fun it is to kill people, and most likely have just a bit better relationship with the rest of the world, but that is merely conjecture on my part .

I personally feel that lawyers often use this kind of excuse to justify doing things they damn well know at some level it was wrong to do.

"See, she may have won in court, but she will suffer more because of it than if she had never went to court, so justice is done".  What you dont hear is the two lawyers walking off after that statement, laughing at all of us, and saying to each other "...and WE got paid for it!".  *They* are the only winners here.  The lawyers get paid, and both parties get screwed, but on the surface the good guys won?  I don't buy it.  



			
				James Heard said:
			
		

> But the only reason you think they're incompetent is because they applied the law and the material facts as they were presented them. So what, you remove the judge because he upheld the law and judged according to the law and the facts of the case? Now who's being rude? "You should do your job, by violating the ethical standards of your profession because when you perform your duties as you're trained to and the law requires you to people don't like it." That's the reason the higher courts aren't elected offices, to protect them from people who want to make the judiciary into a popularity contest.




Again, the root of the problem in our system is that the judge has to rely on the lawyers to present all of the "material facts", and often actual facts get twisted, misconstrued, ignored, or blatantly created/destroyed with "legitimately" legal reasons to benefit one party or the other *with the judge's full knowledge*.  Is there a better way?  I'm not sure, because the system that works like this is intended (and most often does) protect people not only from each other but an unfair government.   

In this situation, if the judge previewed the womans medical record from the next morning and her medical history plus was provided reasonable evidence of expectation of harm strong enough to cause this kind of upset, and still made his decision, then to me he is in the clear.

If he did not, then he is in fact incompetant IMO, because he went against the ethical standards and training he has been given by ignoring the key facts in the matter, which unfortunately are unknown to those of us arguing this matter right now.

Hey, how about this, let's change the rules.  If you bring civil suit against someone and lose, and it is determined that it was a "frivolous" lawsuit, how about *nobody* gets paid except the defendant.  No lawyers *or* judges get paid for that lost time, and the defendant gets paid only for the time lost from his work as a percentage of his last tax return results.  Of course, you then have to define frivolous...


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (Feb 9, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Hell, BFG, remember when you used to take family trips and bounced all around in the back of the station wagon?  Where's all the fun in life?
> 
> Sign me up on the barsoomcore for Dictator bandwagon.  I'll write down whatever he says.




***Sniff...,*** Those were the days. Ah, but remember, it's Barsoomcore the "Dicator", JD - all teh better - I'm sure the original poster had alliteration in mind! !  

When Barsoomcore is supreme dicator,  we will once again be able to buy lawn darts, pay AFTER pumping our gas, use a public restroom when not transacting a purchase, and be able to tell a person they are looking good without fear of a sexual harassment lawsuit!


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 9, 2005)

BigFreekinGoblinoid said:
			
		

> When Barsoomcore is supreme dicator,  we will once again be able to buy lawn darts, pay AFTER pumping our gas, use a public restroom when not transacting a purchase, and be able to tell a person they are looking good without fear of a sexual harassment lawsuit!



Yer darn tooting! Especially ME. People can tell me I'm looking good without any fear whatsoever. There will be a complete lack of fear with respect to telling me I'm looking good. I promise.

Led: what you said.

James: There's no sign from what I've read of harm, nor is there any sign of negligence on the girl's part. Knocking on someone's door CANNOT make you liable for subsequent injury to somebody as a result. Period, full stop. Selling somebody a product that turned out to have a dangerous flaw you didn't know about is not the same kind of issue at all, since you are responsible for ensuring that your product is safe. Nobody is responsible for ensuring that their neighbor isn't paranoid.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Feb 9, 2005)

Hmm.  Umm, Ledded, is there a Cliff's Notes version of your last post?


----------



## Boss (Feb 9, 2005)

Here is the info on what the plaintiff was asking for...

From the Denver Post, Feb. 6th, 2005 (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E23827%7E2695569,00.html)



> The judge awarded only $1 for damages, even though he could have given the plaintiff lost wages and the cost of new motion- sensor lights for her porch and more. She had itemized about $3,000 in all.




This was in addition to the Medical Cost.  Seems the plaintiff felt she was owed more than reimbursement for her $900 trip to the doctors.  Heck, I went to the emergency room with kidney stones for two hours and received a bill for over $4,000.  Some people need to get over it.


----------



## Henry (Feb 9, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And suddenly it all makes sense! She's a real life version of Kyle's mom!




WhatWhatWhat!?!?!?!


----------



## Rel (Feb 9, 2005)

Forgive my brief bout of optimism here but I find this whole story to be heartening about The Way the World Works.  Notice:

Although the judge did award this woman her medical damages, he gave her none of the ancillary awards that she sought.  In other words, she is paid back for the money she had to pay to the hospital but she doesn't come out ahead.

The woman who sued is now shunned by her community for her greed and malice.

The kindness of the girls who made the cookies has been recognized and repaid by the community at large by their collective willingness to pay the fine thus incurred.

The girls and their parents, who have to this point seemed to be very nice, continue to be nice by urging restraint by those who now despise the woman who sued them.


In essence, my belief is that we cannot stop the jerks of the world from being jerks but it seems that most of the time they reap what they sow.  Stuff like this comes along once in a while that helps reinforce the idea and I'm glad of that.


----------



## GentleGiant (Feb 9, 2005)

"After a crumby ending, donated dough rolls in for 2 cookie deliverers"
Oh the humanity!!!
Where do they come up with subheaders like that?


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 9, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> Forgive my brief bout of optimism here but I find this whole story to be heartening about The Way the World Works.



Brief bout of optimism forgiven. Unit "Rel" marked for Permanent Adjustment. Report to the nearest Adjustment Center for Permanent Adjustment immediately.

The Way the World Works is the best way. The Computer is the Way. And the World. And the Computer Works.

Unit "Rel", report at once.


----------



## Rel (Feb 9, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Brief bout of optimism forgiven. Unit "Rel" marked for Permanent Adjustment.




I'm "Adjusting my Unit" right now, IYKWIMAITYD.


----------



## Qlippoth (Feb 10, 2005)

reanjr said:
			
		

> The unfortunate part about our legal system is that it has obliterated social Darwinism.



What does that entail, exactly? "Only the popular survive?"


----------



## ledded (Feb 10, 2005)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> Hmm. Umm, Ledded, is there a Cliff's Notes version of your last post?




Err... sorry.  Folks that are used to me on these boards know that I sometimes... ramble, a bit.

Short version:

We can't prove or disprove harm incurred to the woman based on the facts we have:  we dont have her medical records or even data that shows she had a "reasonable expectation of harm" from people knocking on her door at 10:30pm.  All of the anecdotal evidence points to the contrary, but that isnt conclusive.  The judge is incompetant if and only if he did not take into effect the two above points, which we do not know if he did or not.

Lawsuits for negligence by a company more intent on making toys is far, far different from what we saw here, as you can start a negligence case for a toy company (etc) with the knowledge that they make money first, and safe product second.

Lawyers often suck in the eyes of non-lawyers, in that many will point at the results of this debacle and say "look, justice was done because the bad lady is getting her privacy violated to the point of her entire life being up-ended" and think that is ok, while pocketing the large amounts of money they made by inflaming and pushing the whole affair along, while convincing themselves that is "ethical".  And then wonder why there are so many lawyer jokes.


----------



## ledded (Feb 10, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> Forgive my brief bout of optimism here but I find this whole story to be heartening about The Way the World Works. Notice:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In essence, my belief is that we cannot stop the jerks of the world from being jerks but it seems that most of the time they reap what they sow. Stuff like this comes along once in a while that helps reinforce the idea and I'm glad of that.




Yeah, while that is true and does give ya a small bit of a warm fuzzy to adjust your unit with, what about all the other times where the media doesnt hop on the bandwagon and the little guy gets the shaft?

Personally, I would feel a lot better if people would just exercise a little imaginative social conscience prior to doing such stupid and meaningless things.  It would save us all a lot of time, it's really not hard, and they teach you this stuff in 1st grade.

When faced with this situation repeat this mantra :  "How would *I* feel if someone did this to me?"

Or more popularly noted for the biblical crowd "Do unto others...".

Yeah, I know.  I'm the eternally *stupid* optimist.  Or the eternally disappointed optimist. (wait, did I just find a new definition for "realist"?)

I'd much prefer to have your kind of optimism Rel, but unfortunately I seem to be incapable of sustaining it for the length of time it take to click to the next news story .

If _Barsoomcore_ were dictator, those that answered the above questions with obvious moral incompetance or intellectual paucity would have their units adjusted.  With a red-hot pipe wrench.  And that, as they say, would be that .


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Feb 10, 2005)

ledded said:
			
		

> Err... sorry.  Folks that are used to me on these boards know that I sometimes... ramble, a bit.




If that's short, and the earlier one is rambling...I'd hate to see the Extended Edition of a ledded post!


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 10, 2005)

ledded said:
			
		

> Yeah, while that is true and does give ya a small bit of a warm fuzzy to adjust your unit with, what about all the other times where the media doesnt hop on the bandwagon and the little guy gets the shaft?



Seems an odd situation to ..._adjust your unit to_, IYKWIMAITYD.


----------



## Torm (Feb 10, 2005)

MrFilthyIke said:
			
		

> God Bless America...



See, this just goes to show that y'all don't understand how America _really_ works. That woman was doing the girls a FAVOR. If she had been reasonable, it would have ended quietly right there. But now, she has set the girls (and possibly herself) up for book deals (paid), talk show appearances (paid), and such, and the girls didn't lose a dime - the local radio station raised the money for the actual event.

That said, it would be interesting if the girls went to the woman's house to "make amends", and just happened to, um, _accidentally_ fall and get hurt on her doorstep.    

P.S. Barsoomcore: I would like Australia, please. I don't ask for much.


----------



## Rel (Feb 10, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Seems an odd situation to ..._adjust your unit to_, IYKWIMAITYD.




Did you see the picture of the girls in question?


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Feb 10, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> Did you see the picture of the girls in question?




You're a bad, bad man.


----------



## Rel (Feb 10, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> You're a bad, bad man.




Now you're just avoiding my question.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 10, 2005)

I saw it, but I thought it was pretty much dominated by the big plate of cookies.  But hey, if that's what floats yer boat...  personally, I'd rather go with the picture on the "Pull Your Pants Up" thread myself.


----------



## Rel (Feb 10, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I saw it, but I thought it was pretty much dominated by the big plate of cookies.  But hey, if that's what floats yer boat...  personally, I'd rather go with the picture on the "Pull Your Pants Up" thread myself.




When you've been a Type 1 Diabetic for more than 10 years, the image of two pretty, young girls with a plate of chocolate chip cookies does funny things to you.

When I'm feeling really naughty I like to imagine that they have Krispy Kreme donuts in their pockets.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Feb 10, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> When I'm feeling really naughty I like to imagine that they have Krispy Kreme donuts in their pockets.




Jeez, imagine the lawsuit THAT would bring about... 

Rel: _Your honor, these two pretty girls forced me to eat Krispy Kremes at 10:30 at night after knocking on my door. I ended up in the hospital because I am diabetic, but it's all their fault. _

Judge: _I find them guilty, and they must perform public service by baking you sugar free cookies and donuts. And just because this isn't Virginia, they need to do it while wearing low rise jeans with their thongs showing. Case closed. 
_


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 10, 2005)

That might actually happen if barsoomcore was Dicator...

...and Rel was some kind of sycophant croney of his.


----------



## Henry (Feb 10, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> When I'm feeling really naughty I like to imagine that they have Krispy Kreme donuts in their pockets.




Dude, this is a family oriented board. Stop That!


----------



## Rel (Feb 10, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That might actually happen if barsoomcore was Dicator...
> 
> ...and Rel was some kind of sycophant croney of his.




If he ever does become Dictator then I'll be sure to apply for the position.

Henry:  Sorry.  Funny though - there have been two posts that I've made in the last couple of days that I thought might raise eyebrows from a Mod.  This wasn't one of them.

(If you want to see one then check out my last post in the NC Game Day thread. )


----------



## ledded (Feb 14, 2005)

MrFilthyIke said:
			
		

> If that's short, and the earlier one is rambling...I'd hate to see the Extended Edition of a ledded post!




Heh.  Yeah, the last time I really rambled in a post people started calling it my story hour.  After 128 pages in Word I just sort of went with it.  



			
				Rel said:
			
		

> When I'm feeling really naughty I like to imagine that they have Krispy Kreme donuts in their pockets.




Oh damn Rel, that made me laugh so hard I nearly peed myself... 

I can sympathize, my brother.  Oh, but not because I'm diabetec; I do *really* like donuts.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That might actually happen if barsoomcore was Dicator...
> 
> ...and Rel was some kind of sycophant croney of his.




Dude, where have *you* been?  I've been a sycophantic croney of his for over a year, I'm just waiting for it to pay off.  Somehow.  Anyhow.

(Barsoomie, I'd like Greece please.  I *really* think I can spruce the place up a bit).


----------

