Fezmid Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Ms. Young http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/04/costly.c...s.ap/index.html The part I find amusing: "Wanita Renea Young, 49, said she was at her rural home south of Durango around 10:30 p.m. when she said saw "shadowy figures" outside the house banging repeatedly on her door. She yelled, "Who's there?" but no one answered, and the figures ran away." followed up with: "The teenagers' families offered to pay Young's medical bills, but she declined and sued, saying their apologies were not sincere and were not offered in person." The parents probably didn't want to knock on her door and send her to tthe damn hospital again. Again, :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Wanita Young. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=17519 The lady actually won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 I saw that in the paper this morning, and was particularly amused by the woman's comment: ""The victory wasn't sweet," Young said. "I'm not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson." What lesson do you hope they learned, Ms. Young? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 I saw that in the paper this morning, and was particularly amused by the woman's comment: ""The victory wasn't sweet," Young said. "I'm not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson." What lesson do you hope they learned, Ms. Young? 229418[/snapback] I don't even understand how she won the case. The judge said they didn't mean any harm. If you can sue for that, can't you basically sue anyone that comes to the door for any reason? Or even someone that startles you with an unexpected phone call. Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 While I agree that Wanita went off the deep end, there is something fishy here! I find it hard to believe that two girls in their late teens were somehow oblivious to the fact that doing what they did at 10:30 PM, including banging on the door and running away rather than answering a person's inquiry as to who was there, was just a little out of the ordinary if not strange. It is possible that they were just a couple of air-headed do-gooders with no common sense, but this is just a little wierd to me. People should not be banging on other peoples' doors at that hour to "surprise" them with something, even if it was something ultimately nice. As for not making the apology in person, this seems strange, too. Why wouldn't the parents of well-meaning teenagers not just go over to her place on some Saturday afternoon and explain everything, apolgize and offer to pay for the medical bills? I realize the woman was overreacting but Geesh! It sounds like they must have made the offer through their lawyer instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 I saw that in the paper this morning, and was particularly amused by the woman's comment: ""The victory wasn't sweet," Young said. "I'm not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson." What lesson do you hope they learned, Ms. Young? 229418[/snapback] I think they should have learned not to go around banging on people's doors at 10:30 PM and not answering when asked who they are and then running away. While that may not send you or me into a tizzy, who knows what may have happened to this woman that made her paranoid. I recently had someone banging on my door at like 11:30PM. They wouldn't answer who they were. It freaked me out, but I insisted that they tell me who they were. As it turned out, they were at the wrong address, looking for a car they wanted to repo. It had my heart pumping pretty good, and I ain't no old lady living alone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 It had my heart pumping pretty good, and I ain't no old lady living alone! 229423[/snapback] I appreciate what you're saying. But keep in mind, she's 49. That's not close to being old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 I don't even understand how she won the case. The judge said they didn't mean any harm. If you can sue for that, can't you basically sue anyone that comes to the door for any reason? Or even someone that startles you with an unexpected phone call. Unbelievable. 229420[/snapback] I believe that she won because it was not reasonable what they were doing. Those exercising ordinary care should know that people might be freaked out by ringing doorbells late at night and then running away. She suffered actual damages and the judge awarded her those damages. He did not award punitives because he believed that the girls did not intend to cause her that kind of stress. Losing for negligence does not require bad intent, just acts that fall below the standard of ordinary care. If you pull out and broadside someone, you would be found guilty of negligence if the reason it happened was that you failed to yield to uncoming traffic and perhaps failed to maintain proper lookout. You didn't mean to hit the other care, but you were careless and that led to the damages. If you meant to pull out and hit the care, or if you were blitzed, that would be a different story. You could be laible for punititve damages for intending harm or for being grossly negligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 I appreciate what you're saying. But keep in mind, she's 49. That's not close to being old. 229427[/snapback] Good point. BUT, technically it really doesn't matter because you don't necessarily know who is inside or their emotional state. That's kind of what makes it stupid to do. Of course, if they knew she was high strung and they were doing it as a prank, that could make it worse. Anyway, I do think she went overboard, but we don't know all of the facts. Maybe the girls and their parents blew her off and it wasn't until after she sued that they agreed to pay the medical bills. She definitely would have been better off financially to have accepted their offer had they offered that prior to initiating the suit for obvious reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 I believe that she won because it was not reasonable what they were doing. Those exercising ordinary care should know that people might be freaked out by ringing doorbells late at night and then running away. She suffered actual damages and the judge awarded her those damages. He did not award punitives because he believed that the girls did not intend to cause her that kind of stress. Losing for negligence does not require bad intent, just acts that fall below the standard of ordinary care. If you pull out and broadside someone, you would be found guilty of negligence if the reason it happened was that you failed to yield to uncoming traffic and perhaps failed to maintain proper lookout. You didn't mean to hit the other care, but you were careless and that led to the damages. If you meant to pull out and hit the care, or if you were blitzed, that would be a different story. You could be laible for punititve damages for intending harm or for being grossly negligent. 229429[/snapback] Good explanation, thanks. But if the phone rings and startles you and causes you to have a heart attack, is the person that called supposed to pay your medical bills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 THAT'S JUST F-ING GREAT. HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN???? NOW YOU KNOW WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 This country is going downhill very fast! It's scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 THESE JUGDES ARE STARTING TO ACT LIKE THE REF'S IN THE NFL WITH INSTANT REPLY. THEY JUST DON'T WANT THERE RULING TO BE OVERTURNED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Good explanation, thanks. But if the phone rings and startles you and causes you to have a heart attack, is the person that called supposed to pay your medical bills? 229436[/snapback] Ahhh, now we get into the issue of foreseeability, which also is an element of negligence. One could argue that a person being frightened to the point of physical distress in response to someone banging on their door at 10:30 PM, not responding when asked who they are, and then running away is quite foreseeable. But in the case of your hypothetical, I think there is a bit of a distinction there. Calling late at night is rude, if you aren't family or friend, but people should not expect the phone ringing at that hour would be so unusual that it should startle someone to death. Now that doesn't mean that someone couldn't be so engrossed in some scary movie that when the phone rings, because they also have a bad ticker, that bam, heart attack. But I'm not sure that is within the scope of what would be the reasonably foreseeable consequences of calling on the phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 I saw that in the paper this morning, and was particularly amused by the woman's comment: ""The victory wasn't sweet," Young said. "I'm not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson." What lesson do you hope they learned, Ms. Young? 229418[/snapback] They learned that the neighbor is a paranoid nutcase. Reminds me of when I was a kid & we just moved into a new house. One of my father's relatives, who I didn't know, rings the bell, says "give this to your mother" & leaves me with a little package. I give it to my mother & she asks who the man was. I said I didn't know. My mother ends up calling the police & the bomb squad came over to open up the present. All had a good laugh, and nobody needed medical assistance. My mother overreacted, but did the rational thing & called the police. Why didn't this nutcase call the police if she was so worried? She sounds like someone who should get new "neighbors", all in padded cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thamus Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Don't get me, I agee with BuffaloBob. The lady did go over board. Something just isn't right here? Why 10:30 at night? Haven't they ever heard about the "10-10 Rule". That is, don't bother people in person or by phone after 10 PM or before 10 AM. Be well meaning kids, I guess they missed that leason? Who really knows what their real intent was? Can you mess with somebody even while appearing to a good dead? Maybe I am cynical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackur Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 God..................the lady is ignorant.......... seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackur Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Who really knows what their real intent was? Can you mess with somebody even while appearing to a good dead? Maybe I am cynical? 229457[/snapback] a good dead? I hope when I die that I'm a good dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thamus Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 a good dead? I hope when I die that I'm a good dead 229461[/snapback] I just noticed my post. Deed. My whole post should have been proofed. That was one awful piece of writing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Frightened, she spent the night at her sister's home, then went to the hospital the next morning because she was still shaking and had an upset stomach. ++++++ Treated at a hosiptal for "shaking and an upset stomach". Where is that dope who was here the other day saying that our health care system was fine as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts