Posted on 01/31/2009 11:12:16 AM PST by vivalaoink
I’m not sure that I believe the mother’s story. How do we know that the kid ingested the contents of the condom, before the mother pulled it out of his mouth?
Also, how do you know WHAT she has for evidence? If there is a used condom, DNA is an easy sample, and there would be no talk of a suit without one.
To the skeptics here, while I imagine some sick person might try this, I rather doubt a family of 5 would risk their reputations to illegally charge something like this, dragging their children into it too. It just doesn’t make sense. I’ve been in some very reputable hotels who need to clean up their acts in this regard, and would love a wake up call to hit them hard.
” And it was, probably just as clean and safe as any room in her own home.’
So you’ve seen her home? Otherwise you might be just making a wild a$# guess to discredit her.
“A condomn isn’t exactly a dangerous thing. disgusting maybe, but not dangerous. ‘
A young child could easily choke on a condom used or not. The condom could easily block their airway.
A used condom is most certainly dangerous as it contains material that could easily carry disease. This wasn’t an adult it was a young child and it wasn’t by choice. It was left over (allegedly) from a previous party that stayed in that room.
” A defense lawyer will have a lot of fun with this frivolous suit.”
I doubt it. Most likely the hotels insurance company will settle before it goes to a jury. Any defense attorney that seeks to have fun with this will likely find himself explaining why the judgement is so large.
Yes, it is disgusting how unsanitary everything is in a hotel room.
“It was clean, prove otherwise.”
That’s easy. It wasn’t clean, with apparently several witnesses.
It's not even clear that she pulled a condom out of his mouth.
Did the boy ingest the entire condom or just the "contents" of the condom? If it was just the contents, then the mother surely retained the condom which could be analyzed, right? I'm guessing not.
Pretty easy if they still have the condom. The hotel has records of who stayed in that room. Go take a DNA test of that person and it will prove where it came from.
The only "injury" was the mother exposing her own poor parenting. It takes a while for a toddler to pick up an ALLEGED used condom, stuff it all in his mouth, and chew it up good so that any "contents" were fully consumed, allegedly again.
And ther were TWo parents present, yet neither one noticed what the kid was doing. What was the main distraction I wonder?
You'd be surprised at what people will do for large sums of money these days.
No it doesn't. Prove there is any DNA on the condom first. Then prove it wasn't left there a year ago by someone else before you try drag some innocent person into court to TRY demand a DNA sample, which he does not have to provide since he committed no crime.
On the surface, this just doesn’t smell like fraud yet. Time will tell.
Exactly. It's u to her to rove there was anything "dangerous" on the condom. Even if she has it, any evidence, which she would have to pay for to have it tested, would probasbly be thrown out because the evidence wasn't handled properly.
She has no case. All these kind of people hope for is that the hotels and businesses they try to sue settle out of court to avoid the expense of a trial.
I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out later that these people have sued places before.
A half descent defense lawyer would have fun getting this thrown out.
maybe their other 4 kids? You are the wet dream of the insurance industry. They dream of getting people like you on juries. Because despite the facts, despite proof of negligence, you would never hold the hotel responsible because you would so covet the award that the injured party would receive.
There is never more ignorance displayed on FR than when it comes to the legal system and lawsuits. Its like listening to the Global Warming kool-aid drinkers on other sites.
She sounds like the kind of mom who would order her child a hot dog and then sue if he choked on it. I KNOW, she didn’t ask for this, but if a used condom, as grotesque as it is, is not typically considered a life threatening item.
She could have been actually watching him closely, I suppose. That would have helped.
Besides, she wouldn’t be able to get a reliable dna sample off the condom anyways, because the kid was chewing it, contaminating the evidence.
That alone would make it impossible to say it was left there by the previous guest, and also make it impossible for these people to prove it WASN’T theirs.
having the kid tested can prove nothing, since nothing was found. Even if something IS found sometime in the future, it would be impossible to prove he didn’t pick it up after the fact, or sometime before when he was chewing on something,
Maybe his mothers shoes that he got into while she wasn’t watching him in her own home. She could have stepped on a used condom while out walking one day, or her boyfriends condom that she was having a wild affair with while her husband was at work....
So punish this one because they are all usually pigstys? I think not.
Without any evidence it's not smelling like money. At least the Wendy's lady had real fingers in her chili.
wet dream of the insurance companies huh?
No, I’m afraid not. I believe innocent until proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
And there is plenty of reasonable doubt here as I have pointed out.
Adding fictitious facts to this story isn’t going to help you.
ahh, that’s where you’re coming from. You want the hotel industry hit hard, so blast this one away huh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.