Hurt during call, cop sues victim's family - Page 2

**Gillespie** · 10-11-2007, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Exactly what I was thinking. I figured the cop was pissed off at the family because they were irresponsible and caused this poor little kid to suffer for the rest of his life, so she sued them because there was no way that her department or the DA would let her charge them criminally.

If it really is like the quoted article states, then, well, she can go to hell...

C'mon, man... don't go thinking she's being altruistic. What's next? Suing a family when their kid falls over and breaks his arm while riding a bike ("that kid should've been wearing BMX gear! Irresponsible!")? Breaking out a lawsuit when a toddler falls out of the tree they were climbing and breaks their neck, making them a quadriplegic for the rest of their life ("that kid should've been wearing a safety harness and a safety mattress should've been under that tree! Irresponsible!")?

Leaving a 1 year old in a bathtub alone while you go run to the store or go watch TV is irresponsible and negligent. A 1 year old wandering outside and falling into a pool is simply tragic. You can't protect a kid from everything, and it only takes one second for something bad to happen. Suing the family for such a thing is incredibly evil and steps out of bounds for what legal systems should do, in my opinion. The district attorney would never charge a family in this sort of situation with a crime because there was no crime that was committed.

Anyway... hope I didn't steer this topic away from the original point.

**CingularDuality** · 10-11-2007, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillespie

Leaving a 1 year old in a bathtub alone while you go run to the store or go watch TV is irresponsible and negligent. A 1 year old wandering outside and falling into a pool is simply tragic. You can't protect a kid from everything, and it only takes one second for something bad to happen. Suing the family for such a thing is incredibly evil and steps out of bounds for what legal systems should do, in my opinion. The district attorney would never charge a family in this sort of situation with a crime because there was no crime that was committed.

You're right. But what would you do if you were a cop that answered a call at a house where you find out that the family was out front having a few beers with the neighbors while the 1 year old was wandering around the backyard, with an unfenced pool, while not knowing how to swim? There are accidents, and there are negligent incidents. And it surely requires personal judgement to decide how to categorize any situation. I'm not even sure that this cop did it for this reason (it sounds like she did it because she's loopy/greedy), but I can see it happening. I'm not a cop on the streets, but even I have seen some negligent things that I wish parents could be arrested for. I can only imagine the things that cops see when they respond to calls at people's homes. But, yeah, we're getting off topic because I wrote about the first thing that popped into my mind...

And since we're already off topic, I will say this: More young children are killed by swimming pools every year than by guns. Negligence is negligence. Reasonable safety precautions must be taken if you're going to have such things...

**Gillespie** · 10-11-2007, 03:08 AM

I understand what you're saying, especially in regards to negligence...

However, the facts presented in the article don't tell me enough to make any sort of leap of judgment such as what you theorized. Hell, it doesn't even say what sort of swimming pool it is. Safety screens can't go up around those above-the-ground swimming pools. And the water doesn't need to be deep to drown a 1 year old. Hell, it could've been a Wal-Mart kiddie pool that this poor little guy fell into.

Anyway... sad story. Very tragic. The cop is very, very wrong in doing this.

**CingularDuality** · 10-11-2007, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillespie

However, the facts presented in the article don't tell me enough to make any sort of leap of judgment such as what you theorized...The cop is very, very wrong in doing this.

Right. I guess it popped into my head because I was trying to think of any valid reason to do such a thing and it was the only thing I could think of...

I highly doubt that my theory is why she's doing this.

Switchcraft · 10-11-2007, 06:27 AM

More than one burglar (as in trespasser, intending to commit a felony) has successfully sued home owners on the theory that the home owner is responsible for injuries caused by negligence and unsafe conditions, regardless (or even irregardless!) of why the burglar was present. I do believe that those cases re disgusting abuses of tort law, but when I look at this case, I am left wondering:

If, for instance, the officer had been chasing a criminal and someone negligently dropped a brick from a high-rise construction site, injuring the officer, would she have the right to sue? Or does being on duty mean she has no rights that an ordinary citizen would have?
What if she was on duty, bought a milkshake, but someone had accidentally cleaned the milkshake machine with bleach, and it poisoned her?

What if the home-owner in this case had modified the stairs to his house, and it wasn't up to code, and the stairs collapsed, paralysing her in the rubble?

So in this case, she responds to a call, is injured at the scene of the call, and alleges that negligence on behalf of the home-owner is to blame. I think it's probably ludicrous to expect that there wouldn't be wet floors where a boy is brought in from a pool, but most importantly this is no big deal, because people getting injured at your house is exactly why you have home-owner's insurance.

Seriously, when I bought my first home I was required to have $100,000 coverage just in case my cat bit someone. This decorated officer is suing over what she claims left her with permanent injuries, and while I'm thinking this isn't the best way to go about it, I wish people wouldn't go about acting like she's victimizing the family. I would be shocked if the insurance company didn't provide an attorney and settle this on their behalf, with not a penny spent out of the family's pockets. It probably won't go to trial, it will probably be settled out of court with minimal involvement by the family, and a tidy sum to an injured police officer.

Tacky? Sure. But if you were in a car accident that could be considered someone else's fault, and your medical insurance would cover your injuries, would you still not expect the other driver's insurance company to pay your bills, rather than your own insurance company's? I don't see the differencel here.

Switch · 10-11-2007, 06:52 AM

I wonder if they can sue her for being clumsy and damaging the floor. It'd be no biggie, the police are insured for that kind of stuff. Makes sense, right?

**Ferris Bueller** · 10-11-2007, 11:25 AM

No, switch, it doesnt. The Suit she filed against them is a personal suit. If they sue her for anything while she's an active duty police officer, the suit gets picked up by the department and doesnt effect her at all.

**TheFeniX** · 10-11-2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Exactly what I was thinking. I figured the cop was pissed off at the family because they were irresponsible and caused this poor little kid to suffer for the rest of his life, so she sued them because there was no way that her department or the DA would let her charge them criminally.

That seems like a dangerous precedent to set. The US criminal justice system isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn solid on it's face. Most trials require a serious concerned effort for a conviction because most criminal cases require a unanimous verdict (I know this for murder, I could be wrong about lesser offenses. Feel free to correct this if you know better).

The American civil court system, on the other hand, is rife with injustice due to judges not doing a great job of filtering out frivolous cases, an automatic "lose if you don't show up (even if there's no real evidence against you), and only a majority of jurors voting against you for a verdict.

I find this disturbing, but it's not just limited to civil court. I don't really care about Michael Vick, but one of my coworkers is a huge sports fan and listens to ESPN radio at work. From what I've heard, Vick has already plead guilty to federal charges and is now being charged in State Court. Jeopardy doesn't apply since "it's different jurisdictions." I find that laughably stupid even if Vick is a dirty bastard who belongs in jail.

There shouldn't be loop-holes like this to punish people you can't make a decent case against. Sure, some people might deserve it, but it just reeks of corruption and people thinking they know better "sticking it to" someone.

**Magnum50** · 10-11-2007, 11:54 AM

Officers can be sued... the department doesn't take the lawsuit, hell they do anything they can to distance themselves from it to leave the officer too hang... but both or only one (department or cop) can be sued.

now come on folks, if you think something then say you think, don't post something as fact when you really have no clue...like...

Quote:

If they sue her for anything while she's an active duty police officer, the suit gets picked up by the department and doesn't effect her at all.

WRONG!

**leejo** · 10-11-2007, 12:42 PM

I'm with Switchcraft on this one. The entity that will pay for any defense and who will write any checks is the homeowner insurance issuer. The story may be cop sues poor little kids stricken-family, but the target is the insurance company. That's much less exciting isn't it?

**Tempus** · 10-11-2007, 01:48 PM

And no more right. Since it's 'only' the insurance company (ultimately meaning everyone who pays for insurance), it's ok?

Nowadays, everytime someone gets hurt, or even inconvenienced, someone else has to pay. Sure, some get jackpots, but the rest of society is paying for those jackpots. The only consistent winners are the lawyers.

**leejo** · 10-11-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempus

And no more right. Since it's 'only' the insurance company (ultimately meaning everyone who pays for insurance), it's ok?

Nowadays, everytime someone gets hurt, or even inconvenienced, someone else has to pay. Sure, some get jackpots, but the rest of society is paying for those jackpots. The only consistent winners are the lawyers.

I don't think that money is more free if it happens to belong to an insurance company, or the government, or a homeowner with a disabled child, or an injured police officer. If she incurred expenses during this call and suffered lost income, pain, etc, then somebody is going to wind up out of some cash and I don't see why it should be the cop. It was their house, it was their emergency that caused her to be there in the first place.

This is exactly why people have insurance.

**CingularDuality** · 10-11-2007, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

That seems like a dangerous precedent to set. The US criminal justice system isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn solid on it's face. Most trials require a serious concerned effort for a conviction because most criminal cases require a unanimous verdict (I know this for murder, I could be wrong about lesser offenses. Feel free to correct this if you know better).

The American civil court system, on the other hand, is rife with injustice due to judges not doing a great job of filtering out frivolous cases, an automatic "lose if you don't show up (even if there's no real evidence against you), and only a majority of jurors voting against you for a verdict.

It wouldn't set any precedent, as the cop would never say that her civil suit was intended to punish bad parents that couldn't be punished by the criminal system. She would simply claim damages based on the civil claim and either win or lose that suit based on the merits of that case.

But like I said, that was simply the only theory that I could come up with that didn't have me thinking that the officer is a heartless bitch, and I've seen no evidence to make me think my theory is correct.

Quote:

I find this disturbing, but it's not just limited to civil court. I don't really care about Michael Vick, but one of my coworkers is a huge sports fan and listens to ESPN radio at work. From what I've heard, Vick has already plead guilty to federal charges and is now being charged in State Court. Jeopardy doesn't apply since "it's different jurisdictions." I find that laughably stupid even if Vick is a dirty bastard who belongs in jail.

Double jeopardy absolutely applies here! In fact, that's specifically why the Constitution forbids being punished twice for the same crime. If the charges are directly related to the same allegations, then he can not be punished twice. But think about this (and I really haven't been following this case closely): What if his federal charges were for animal cruelty and interstate shipping of animals for illegal activity. Well, those charges have nothing to do with running a gambling ring, so even if he's found guilty of those two crimes, there's nothing to stop the state from pursuing the gambling charges, which is a totally separate crime from his federal charges. The state could NOT charge him with any crimes related to animal cruelty or shipping fighting dogs, since he had already been tried for those crimes.

Make sense?

**Gillespie** · 10-11-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I don't think that money is more free if it happens to belong to an insurance company, or the government, or a homeowner with a disabled child, or an injured police officer. If she incurred expenses during this call and suffered lost income, pain, etc, then somebody is going to wind up out of some cash and I don't see why it should be the cop. It was their house, it was their emergency that caused her to be there in the first place.

This is exactly why people have insurance.

From what I read in the newspaper article, her medical insurance and... uh... union... *gurgle*

OK, I'm talking out of my ass and can't come up with any terms and words I'm thinking of. To make it concise, her medical benefits paid for the knee-related injury. I doubt (although don't know) she lost any wages for having to take time off work to heal for a damaged knee incurred in the line of duty.

**Gillespie** · 10-11-2007, 06:22 PM

Apparently, her attorney has announced that the officer will drop the lawsuit. Her department also placed her on leave. They didn't give a precise reason, but in a released statement, they said something about reviewing the incident after the controversy caused.

Also, of interest to me since I mentioned it in the post above this one: "Eichhorn broke her kneecap and missed two months of work because of the Jan. 9 incident. Her medical bills and pay during that time were covered by the city or its insurance carrier."

Anyway. Read here:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...l_tab01_layout

There's a PDF of the court document for the lawsuit at this updated page:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...ness-headlines

The amount requested in the civil suit wasn't extravagant ($15,000) compared to some of these crazy civil suits that defy reason, so it leads me to believe that we don't have some facts. Perhaps Sgt. Eichhorn was boned by her insurance company for the said amount. I'm not sure, just presenting a theory based on what I've read.

That said, suing the family is still very crummy, despite whatever reasons she had. ;P It seems like double-dipping. Her workman's comp should've covered everything while she was undergoing surgery or whatever it was she did with her knee. Hell, maybe she should've hired a better attorney that could have spun some sympathy out of this situation: "Hey, we're not suing the family, we're aiming at their insurance company because this officer got stiffed on some medical bills."

Instead he vilified the family, which is still a hilariously stupid statement to read. "They made themselves out to be the victim!" Hahaha. ;P

10-11-2007, 03:08 AM	#18 (permalink)
Gillespie Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 1,067	Re: Hurt during call, cop sues victim's family I understand what you're saying, especially in regards to negligence... However, the facts presented in the article don't tell me enough to make any sort of leap of judgment such as what you theorized. Hell, it doesn't even say what sort of swimming pool it is. Safety screens can't go up around those above-the-ground swimming pools. And the water doesn't need to be deep to drown a 1 year old. Hell, it could've been a Wal-Mart kiddie pool that this poor little guy fell into. Anyway... sad story. Very tragic. The cop is very, very wrong in doing this. __________________ <ArmA Information/SOPs> <ArmA Admin Team> <TG Req. Reading>

10-11-2007, 06:27 AM	#20 (permalink)
Switchcraft Join Date: May 2003 Location: New York, NY Age: 31 Posts: 1,096	Re: Hurt during call, cop sues victim's family More than one burglar (as in trespasser, intending to commit a felony) has successfully sued home owners on the theory that the home owner is responsible for injuries caused by negligence and unsafe conditions, regardless (or even irregardless!) of why the burglar was present. I do believe that those cases re disgusting abuses of tort law, but when I look at this case, I am left wondering: If, for instance, the officer had been chasing a criminal and someone negligently dropped a brick from a high-rise construction site, injuring the officer, would she have the right to sue? Or does being on duty mean she has no rights that an ordinary citizen would have? What if she was on duty, bought a milkshake, but someone had accidentally cleaned the milkshake machine with bleach, and it poisoned her? What if the home-owner in this case had modified the stairs to his house, and it wasn't up to code, and the stairs collapsed, paralysing her in the rubble? So in this case, she responds to a call, is injured at the scene of the call, and alleges that negligence on behalf of the home-owner is to blame. I think it's probably ludicrous to expect that there wouldn't be wet floors where a boy is brought in from a pool, but most importantly this is no big deal, because people getting injured at your house is exactly why you have home-owner's insurance. Seriously, when I bought my first home I was required to have $100,000 coverage just in case my cat bit someone. This decorated officer is suing over what she claims left her with permanent injuries, and while I'm thinking this isn't the best way to go about it, I wish people wouldn't go about acting like she's victimizing the family. I would be shocked if the insurance company didn't provide an attorney and settle this on their behalf, with not a penny spent out of the family's pockets. It probably won't go to trial, it will probably be settled out of court with minimal involvement by the family, and a tidy sum to an injured police officer. Tacky? Sure. But if you were in a car accident that could be considered someone else's fault, and your medical insurance would cover your injuries, would you still not expect the other driver's insurance company to pay your bills, rather than your own insurance company's? I don't see the differencel here.

10-11-2007, 06:52 AM	#21 (permalink)
Switch Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NJ Posts: 1,238	Re: Hurt during call, cop sues victim's family I wonder if they can sue her for being clumsy and damaging the floor. It'd be no biggie, the police are insured for that kind of stuff. Makes sense, right? __________________ \|TG\|Switch Better known as: That noob who crashed the chopper. That noob who ran over the mine. That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle. That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

10-11-2007, 11:25 AM	#22 (permalink)
Ferris Bueller Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Orlando, FL Age: 26 Posts: 5,160	Re: Hurt during call, cop sues victim's family No, switch, it doesnt. The Suit she filed against them is a personal suit. If they sue her for anything while she's an active duty police officer, the suit gets picked up by the department and doesnt effect her at all. __________________ \|TG-6th\|Ferris Bueller Important TG Reading \| Support TG - Become a Supporting Member \| TacticalWiki - Your TG Guide Kicked/Banned? READ THIS FIRST! \| Complete list of TG Admins \| Think Someone Did A Good Job? Nominate Them For a Ribbon! Report Problem Players/Appeal Your Ban \| Learn TG - The TG Mentoring Program __________________ "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." -Lazarus Long

10-11-2007, 12:42 PM	#25 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Hurt during call, cop sues victim's family I'm with Switchcraft on this one. The entity that will pay for any defense and who will write any checks is the homeowner insurance issuer. The story may be cop sues poor little kids stricken-family, but the target is the insurance company. That's much less exciting isn't it?

10-11-2007, 01:48 PM	#26 (permalink)
Tempus Join Date: May 2003 Location: Miami, FL Age: 38 Posts: 8,252	Re: Hurt during call, cop sues victim's family And no more right. Since it's 'only' the insurance company (ultimately meaning everyone who pays for insurance), it's ok? Nowadays, everytime someone gets hurt, or even inconvenienced, someone else has to pay. Sure, some get jackpots, but the rest of society is paying for those jackpots. The only consistent winners are the lawyers. __________________ Battlefield 2/2142 Game Officer Contact me with server/player/admin issues. -- Suits are what you wear when doing things you shouldn’t want to do anyway. FROM THE TACTICAL GAMER PRIMER. 3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

10-11-2007, 06:22 PM	#30 (permalink)
Gillespie Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 1,067	Re: Hurt during call, cop sues victim's family Apparently, her attorney has announced that the officer will drop the lawsuit. Her department also placed her on leave. They didn't give a precise reason, but in a released statement, they said something about reviewing the incident after the controversy caused. Also, of interest to me since I mentioned it in the post above this one: "Eichhorn broke her kneecap and missed two months of work because of the Jan. 9 incident. Her medical bills and pay during that time were covered by the city or its insurance carrier." Anyway. Read here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...l_tab01_layout There's a PDF of the court document for the lawsuit at this updated page: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...ness-headlines The amount requested in the civil suit wasn't extravagant ($15,000) compared to some of these crazy civil suits that defy reason, so it leads me to believe that we don't have some facts. Perhaps Sgt. Eichhorn was boned by her insurance company for the said amount. I'm not sure, just presenting a theory based on what I've read. That said, suing the family is still very crummy, despite whatever reasons she had. ;P It seems like double-dipping. Her workman's comp should've covered everything while she was undergoing surgery or whatever it was she did with her knee. Hell, maybe she should've hired a better attorney that could have spun some sympathy out of this situation: "Hey, we're not suing the family, we're aiming at their insurance company because this officer got stiffed on some medical bills." Instead he vilified the family, which is still a hilariously stupid statement to read. "They made themselves out to be the victim!" Hahaha. ;P __________________ <ArmA Information/SOPs> <ArmA Admin Team> <TG Req. Reading> Last edited by Gillespie; 10-11-2007 at 06:46 PM.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links