Posted on 01/16/2006 3:27:57 AM PST by beaversmom
ROGERSVILLE - The mother of a Rogersville boy who was injured in an accident last year on a new bicycle has filed a $900,000 lawsuit against the bike manufacturer and Wal-Mart, where the bike was purchased.
Elizabeth Burton, 625 S. Armstrong St., Rogersville, is the mother of Eric Burton, who was injured in an accident on Jan. 9, 2005. The boy's sister had received the Roadmaster Mountain Sport bicycle as a Christmas present from their father.
According to the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Burtons by Morristown attorney Gary E. Brewer, on Jan. 9 of last year Eric Burton was riding his sister's new bike on South Armstrong Street, but as he approached the Broadway Street intersection the brakes failed.
The bike didn't stop and continued onto Broadway Street into the path of an oncoming vehicle which had the right of way, the lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit further contends that as a result of the accident Eric Burton was severely injured, was hospitalized and will undergo continuing medical treatment.
Aside from Wal-Mart, the other defendants in the lawsuit include Pacific Cycle, Inc., based in Wilmington, Del., as well as its parent company Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., which is to be served with the lawsuit in Columbus, Ind.
The lawsuit alleges that Pacific Cycle manufactured the bicycle in a defective condition, making it unsafe. The lawsuit also alleges that Wal-Mart assembled the bicycle.
"The defendant (Wal-Mart) assembled and sold the bicycle in an unsafe condition and design when they knew or should have known by the exercise of ordinary care that the bicycle would be subject to failure," the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit seeks $750,000 for injuries and damages and another $150,000 for medical expenses. The defendants have 30 days from the Jan. 6 filing date of the lawsuit to either file a response or seek a time extension.
I had a three speed Schwinn, I walked up certain hills.
Well, those manufacturers, namely Pacific Cycle is what Wal-Mart chooses to carry. I'm not slamming Wal-Mart in particular. What I'm slamming is the whole concept of the department store bicycles. There are quality bicycles out there that are affordable. Unfortuantely, you can't buy a bicycle that's not of extremely poor quality from a department store.
Exactly. By comparison, our president maintains a brisk 9mph up steep hills on a modern bicycle.
Ah.. In absense of anything intelligent, you proffer the standard treason lobby tact - anyone you don't like must by default be a commy, socialist or fascist for pointing out the immoral proclivities of some Rinos in our midst.
So instead of answering the question, because you know that such action by government IS socialist, you "proffer" a personal attack.
Well, at least we know that at heart you are a socialist.
Go back and read your nutbag post. Are you really that dense or just hoping no one can read..
And still you won't give an answer to the question.
Have a nice day, Mr. Socialist.
Merely labeling someone does not make your case. My history of argumentation belies your charge. Or are you so short sighted and obtuse to believe that your charge is leveled in a vacuum. Keep talking. Really. You make it too easy. You're like debating with a liberal.
So why not just answer the question I asked?
Why should I? Your question isn't offered as such - it is rather offered as a charge - hollow rhetoric. You have no defense for yourself so you must attempt to slander your opponent. Just like a bloody liberal dim. When you have no defense you strike out. Perhaps you're just projecting your own behavior on others in attempt to hide what you are from yourself.. who knows. You've already lost.
Exactly what is it you think I should be defending? Asking you what you think government involvement in business should be? That seems a reasonable question, especially considering you apparently see nothing wrong with government requiring businesses to provide certain benefits.
"Just like a bloody liberal dim."
Yes, you are behaving just as they do.
"attempt to hide what you are from yourself"
Exactly what do you think I am hiding? The fact that I don't think government should be telling businesses what benefits to provide? I've never hidden that. In fact, that is what started this entire discussion.
Clearly, you are afraid to give a straight answer the question. Very telling.
Since when did "the government telling business what benefits to provide" become part of the argument? I thought the market was supposed to decide that. Apparently it wasn't working in the favor of business who then decided to vault the market and go elsewhere in order to undermine the market from without.. Who needs government interference when Government helps business subvert the market - oh, wait, that's government interference.. shoot. Guess you got me.. I'm agains government interference. And I'm actually for the government interfering in it's own proclivity toward interfering.. or stopping in otherwords. Apparently, that is your beef. Though I thought your beef was that I was a socialist because I'm apparently supposed to be for interference?
Oh do stop wasting our time. It's boring and just makes you look worse.
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.