Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BushisTheMan

Except if you read on, it looks like there were two conditions: 1. seeing the bill (makes sense to me that they would want proof of the expense before paying it), and 2. the woman had to agree not to sue for additional money. The second condition also makes sense, otherwise paying could, I think, be seen as automatic admission of liability and, rather than resolving the issue, would open the door to more damages. Both of those conditions seem reasonable to me...


86 posted on 02/17/2005 10:22:38 AM PST by GraceCoolidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]


To: GraceCoolidge

Well, unfortuntely the person at fault doesn't get to set the conditions, do they?

What is reasonable to me and you apparently wasn't reasonable to the Youngs. It's all relative.


196 posted on 02/17/2005 12:00:56 PM PST by BushisTheMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

To: GraceCoolidge; All

"Except if you read on, it looks like there were two conditions: 1. seeing the bill (makes sense to me that they would want proof of the expense before paying it), and 2. the woman had to agree not to sue for additional money. The second condition also makes sense, otherwise paying could, I think, be seen as automatic admission of liability and, rather than resolving the issue, would open the door to more damages. Both of those conditions seem reasonable to me..."

But here is the rub, as soon as you treat the issue as a legal issue with contracts to sign, the signing party may feel that the issue goes beyond families solving a private fuss and it enters the legal realm. I think the the "cookie" kook was probably legally correct in involving the local small claims court as a means of preserving her rights and having an official record. I don't think it was a question of the medical bills, they are easy to prove. In the end, the court did what the families should have done privately and moved on from, made the families pay the medical bills with the aggrieved party agreeing not to hold any further damages against them.

Now the families of the girls are flapping their wings like wounded birds, trying to heap shame and negative public opinion on the woman who actually had the harm done to her. The cookie "kook" may now have a case for public harrassment and loss of income be cause the Ostergaards, et al didn't know when to "Shut Up"! and take their lumps!

Now I'm sure the teens them-selves meant no real harm in their "random act of kindness", but I may not mean to hurt an old man if I accidentally knock him down. Yet, guess who is going to pay his unpaid medical bills...ME!

The lady was alone, and scared, prone to anxiety attacks. Its a dark night, and kids ringing door bells and running away have provoked some folks to even shoot at them. The lady thinks she is having a heart attack and goes to the ER. The girls and their families are culpable, despite some folks feelings about anxiety disorders as being beneath discussion.

100 years ago, the families would have settled on it verbally. Now every-one wants to be a lawyer or use one.


What's worse, the Cookie "kook", may now have a legitimate claim of public harrassment...starting with Mike Savage!



305 posted on 02/17/2005 2:56:54 PM PST by mdmathis6 (By playing the Devil's advocate, one can often separate self from the Devil!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson