My son was practicing his backward skating after a lesson. Quite accidentally, he ran into an older lady who was standing on the ice, in the middle of the flow of traffic. She tried to sue the rink but the case was thrown out, so she is coming after our family.
The facility has these signs posted for all to see:
1. Skate at your own risk/ This is a skate at your own risk facility
2. Backwards skating is permitted provided the ice isn't crowded.
3. Keep moving. Do not stop on the ice.
Question: Is it just me or does she not have a case here? She's trying to sue us for medical bills and, GET THIS, a helmet that she should have had on anyway!!!
Any input is greatly appreciated! Thanks!
2007-10-01 09:46:40 · 13 answers · asked by starbrite74♥♥ 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You have very good defenses. If you are in the U.S., then most states have comparative fault. This woman's comparative fault, for ignoring the signs and standing in the middle of the ice, in the flow of traffic, without a helmet, is high. In many states, if you can show that her comparative fault (or comparative negligence) is over 50%, then she cannot recover. Clearly, the signs were there and by choosing to go on the ice and stand there, she has assumed the risk that she would be in the way and possibly get injured.
If you have any type of umbrella insurance coverage, I would tender the claim to your carrier, which might provide a defense for your son and your family.
2007-10-01 10:12:57 · answer #1 · answered by lechisch 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The heading seems to indicate this is a small claims court question. The SCC can only deal with claims where the sum of money claimed for the injury (just the injury) is less than £1,000 and overall the value is under £5,000.
The claim must be issued (against your son) within three years of the accident. If there has been a judgement in a separeat claim as a result of this accident, youa re entitled to see it. The factual findings made in the court (as to what happened) are binding upon her in this action.
If your son is a minor (under 18) she could sue the parents but it would be utterly hopeless.
The truth is that in theory, if someone skates into you on an icerink and injures you it is possible, only possible, that they may have a claim.
On the facts you have outlined, I'd rate her chances at 20% or less.
You may find your home or car insurance will pay to enable you to defend the claim (if made).
It sounds like a class 1 try-on to me.
2007-10-01 09:56:32 · answer #2 · answered by JZD 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously this woman is just some nasty piece of trash looking for money. There are a lot of points that you have stated here, and im sure there are more that would make the judge side by you. First off, she was standing on the ice. (rule number 3 prohibits this). Secondly, she wasn't wearing a helmet at the time of the "acccident" so how can she be adding that into her amount. Lastly, your son bumped into her, he didn't attack her. If a simple fall on the ice (if she even fell) caused her to seek medical attention, she most likely shouldnt have been on the ice to begin with. Also, if you think about it, she wasnt paying attention to the people surrounding her either, or she would have simply moved out of the way.
2007-10-01 09:54:31 · answer #3 · answered by Jamie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really much to say here is there........you say in clause 2 "providing the ice isn't crowded" .......if the ice was crowded then technically you could have a problem.....you also say she is suing for a helmet that she should have had on anyway......If there are signs up stating that helmets MUST be worn, then the ice rink owners are in default for allowing her onto the ice without proper equipment......Finally, as you say, it is a high risk hobby / sport and accidents do happen. Providing all of what you say is cosher, I doubt that she will get anywhere with her claims.
2007-10-01 09:57:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The signs clearly warned her about standing still and skating at her own risk. Your son was doing something which was allowed. For her to win she has to prove someone was negligent (only she was) So I dont think theres much of a case. Especially if its been thrown out once!
2007-10-01 09:54:34 · answer #5 · answered by jeanimus 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that this case is covered by the small claims procedure. I have used the system successfully and don't think you have a problem. Check with your local County Court. They are very helpful.
I suspect that the lady is trying to scare you into making an offer of compensation. However to take this to court she would need to initiate a full blown civil action not small claims.
Stand your ground - GOOD LUCK
2007-10-01 10:10:12 · answer #6 · answered by Steve K 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its only going to cost her £40 to find out. She has a case after all skating backward is skating without due care and attention to other skaters.
2007-10-01 09:57:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your son will most likely end up being assigned some liability as he was skating backward and not looking where he was going. The signs at the rink may help your case and help mitigate your liability, however I don't think it will get you off completely.
2007-10-01 09:50:53 · answer #8 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If the receipts prepare that they have been offered at Christmas or in basic terms until eventually now her birthday or another present-giving celebration, it would lend some help to her declare that they have been presents. A cellular telephone is oftentimes used in general by ability of one man or woman, so it must be achievable to coach who became utilising it. If it became for her use, that would help her declare that it became a present.
2016-10-05 22:20:32 · answer #9 · answered by cris 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Another idiot!! I hope the judge laughs in her face. I would say she doesn't have a chance but you never know. I have fallen and been bumped on the ice and have never sued or been sued. I think she is just another sue happy person which unf. this country is coming too.
2007-10-01 09:50:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋