New low: It's apparently
OK to sue little kids in
Strongsville.
Posted on 02/11/2005 11:21:34 AM PST by UpHereEh
As a general rule, suing a seven-year-old won't score you any points with St. Peter. But Mary Ellen Michaels and her lawyer, Judson Hawkins, already have guaranteed reservations at the Burning Lake of Fire Spa & Resort. Our saga began when Michaels was rollerblading down a Metroparks bike path in Strongsville last spring. She came upon a seven-year-old riding a bike. Behind the boy was his grandma, who was watching him while his parents were on a trip to New Orleans.
Michaels yelled at the boy to get out of the way. The kid stopped his bike, giving Michaels barely enough room to pass. She tried to squeeze through, but never made it. The toe of her rollerblade caught the bike's rear wheel. Michaels' leg snapped, and her foot twisted 180 degrees. "This was a serious injury," says Hawkins.
Most people would chalk it up to bad luck. What are you gonna do, sue a seven-year-old?
Well, if you're Mary Ellen Michaels, yes.
And just to secure her future in the Land of 1,000 Screams, she also sued Grandma and the boy's parents, who were a thousand miles away at the time.
The boy's lawyer politely notes that this was a bad move. "Basically, what we said is that even if you accept everything she says as fact, she still doesn't have a case," says Patrick Roche. Translation in non-lawyerspeak: "What the %$#@ is wrong with you, Mary Ellen?"
Both the trial and the appellate courts tossed the case. But that doesn't mean the kid's getting off scot-free. Michaels directed her lawyer to fight all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court. "I don't take frivolous cases," says Hawkins, whose hobbies presumably include stealing old people's medicine and torturing kittens. "I did considerable research before I sued a seven-year-old. Given the nature of the injury, I thought it merited a lawsuit."
Phil Hendrie did a bit with a guy suing a five-year-old on his show a couple of days ago. Once again, Life Imitates Phil.
How old is this bitch?
if this is a true story and not a satire, this B**** ranks right up there with the broad who took those cookie girls to court...
Sounds like she failed to yield.
Countersue for assault and battery, and failure to show proper care with rollerblades. The little boy likely has a better cause of action!! She hit him from behind, after all, if what I understand from the article is true.
So far, the court disagrees.
It certainly is tempting to think that none of the thoughtless actions I engage in that result in injuries to myself are actually my responsibility. It must be somebody else's fault because I certainly did not intend to injure myself. All I need to do is find a judge that agrees with me.
Sheesh! What a selfish, self-centered, scrooge-like POS!
Bike paths are not unlike roadways... you stay to the right, and the speed is usually 10-15mph.
No place for a teetering 7 y.o.
ahhh sounds like SHE ran into him - - plus he stopped, so was stationary - what was he supposed to do , evaporate?
This lady needs to have flaming bags of dog poop left on her front porch every night for now on. Her lawyer should be disbarred for bringing a case like this to court and should get the dog poop treatment as well.
Tough noogies, Jimmy, we lost the case; You're going to have to hand over your Tickle-Me Elmo, your race car bed spread and your Yu-Gi-Oh nightlight.
2) Everyone has (should have?) the responsibility to avoid collisions. She seems not to have exercised due caution ... appears to me to have likely been going too fast for the conditions.
One year too many.
ahhh sounds like SHE ran into him - - plus he stopped, so was stationary - what was he supposed to do , evaporate?Not if he was in her path. All the bike paths I've ever been on, specifically state the speed limit (usually around 15mph) and that you must STAY TO THE RIGHT.
It is the passer's responsibility to pass safely.
If the kid had swerved into her path, she might have a case (though it seems that she was travelling far too fast, so even then it wouldn't be a slam dunk), but if he stopped and waited for her to pass, it's not his fault that she tried to squeeze by without enough room.
On the other hand, the idea that the problem is the kid's age is frankly asinine. If it was actually the kid's fault, she'd be perfectly right to sue, I don't care if he's seven, or five, or three years old.
Hilarious.
At this point in time the emotional anguish of the entire family must be excruciating. The poor child has been warped for an entire lifetime by the emotional trauma. That's gotta be worth a couple million, right?
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.