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."
Unbelievable. I wonder if she's related to the lawyer from Chicago who kept the 7-year-old's dog, or maybe the woman who sued the cookie teens.
If she was folling the rules, and this accident was caused by this 7 y/o, then I don't see why the parents shouldn't be responsible for her losses.
I'm not saying $$$$$$$$$. I'm talking simple compensation. Surely that is just.
Umm that would be 'following'.
She was rollerblading on a Bike path, Since when is a license needed for a kid to ride on your bike paths. These paths belong to anyone on bikes dont they? Sounds to me like when Kerry busted his butt when he ran into the secret Service man,. If you cant control roller blades and Ski boards you shouldnt be riding them. Hollering to a 7 year old kid to get out of the way tells me she was completely out of control to begin with. What does she expect to get out of this suit? The kids allowance till he is 21? What an idiot. The lawyer needs to have his chain yanked too ,Hard.
A speed limit is generally about the maximum speed, so I don't think that the fact that the boy was probably going slower makes him responsible for this accident.
And dozens of other little towns will look on, shudder, and rule against expanding recreational facilities.
When you argue that this blader should and can sue and we should give her any time of day at all, you're cutting your own throat, bikepacker67--because people run away from anything that might bring a lawsuit around. That lawyer is keeping a new bike path from being built in a town near you.
"Their boring" WHAT? (Check your usage...)
Full Disclosure: Yah, sure. Try riding a bicyle on the streets in Scottsdale, AZ (land of the 12-ton SUV's driven by trophy wives on cellphones).
Cheers!
Children should have the right-of-way (except for cases of malicious intent) on public play paths over aging Baby Boomers and GenX codgers on wheels.
Uh-Oh! The Ohio Supreme Court -- better hope ol' Alice Robie Resnick is sober when they hear this one! Better yet, she better recuse herself!
Some people are guessing the kid was going over 15 mph, but the article says the grandmother was behind him.
Rollerbladers that I've seen can take a lot of room with the follow through. It sounds like that happened here: the chick uses more room than she thinks. She could have slowed down, she could have coasted with one foot directly in front of the other, she could have stopped. She seemed hell bent on not breaking speed or stride.
You keep repeating this "to the right" thing.
Can you explain where you get the idea that the boy wasn't properly staying to the right?
It's not conclusive at all; I read it exactly opposite to you. As usual, newspaper reporters can't write for $#!+ ...
In either case, common sense strongly suggests reducing speed when approaching an unpredictable obstacle ... such as a kid, or a 'blader, or a dog.
I've seen this sort of incident too often on the W&OD trail. Pretentious arse on 'blades or four-figure race bike hollers "geddouttamyway" (or some such) and moves to pass without paying attention to the response of the person in front. You simply must stop if there's an obsruction you can't safely dodge. First responsibility is to not run into things.
I don't ride the W&OD any more ... too crowded.
She's a Churchill fan (The Colorado Churchill).,..
If only the New Yorkers had access to this guy...
it would be an unforgettable exercise in the right
to free mayhem...Jake
Yer play'n the Devil's advocate, aren't you?
By definition it was a bike path. Wouldn't the kid on the bike have the right of way? I'd say she's probably subject to suit for reckless endangerment from the original event and that she, her lawyer and his law firm are subject to harassment and attempted extortion under color of law for this suit.
Children should have the right-of-way (except for cases of malicious intent) on public play paths over aging Baby Boomers and GenX codgers on wheels.Fine with me, but until that's spelled out on the sign, we're both out of luck.
OBTW, I've seen 'bladers who take up more than 1/2 the width of the path. Not fatsos: tall folks seriously swinging their legs & arms.
Rollerbladders should stay off BIKE PATHS!
Bush's fault
No, if YOU read the article you should be able to ascertain that the woman was out of control since she couldn't stop. The little boy on the other hand was able to stop. So why do you presume the woman wasn't going too fast? Judging by your screen name, I think you're a little biased here and you should just exit this thread.
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.