Stupid lawsuit of the day
Walter Olson brings us this, um, enlightening case:
On a $5 dare from friends, 13-year-old Justin Porter climbed 35 feet up an electric transmission tower. Who was to know such an adventure might prove dangerous? 19,700 volts later, his mother, Anna Thebeau, is suing the electric utility, Ameren, saying it should have fenced off the tower against trespassers, should have posted a big warning sign on it, should have designed it so that it could not be climbed up, and should have insulated the wires far overhead.
I hope the judge zaps the suit pronto.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog » Blog Archive » Choices - Fool or Saved
- Target Rich Environment » Blog Archive » Copper Thieves
- Choices - idiot or Saved | JesusMySavior
- Overlawyered
- Lean Left » What Kind of Idiot?
- The American Pundit » Blog Archive » Stupid of the Day
- Another Frivolous Lawsuit
- Durr, maybe we should touch the electricity George. « The Ramblings of Mathaytace Christou
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
JustOneMinute
» Susan Rice To The United Nations
Belmont Club
» Good enoughGateway Pundit
» Change... Obama Continues Boycott of FOX NewsBelmont Club
» Crusader RabbitRight Wing Nut House
» THE INCREDIBLY STUPID THOUGHTS OF DEEPAK CHOPRANewsBusters.org
» MSM Ignore India's Strict Gun Control LawsWeekly Standard
» Canada Plans to Save the Big 3, TooTigerHawk
» Blame America firstDavid Frum
» Will the Harper government collapse?NewsBusters.org
» Matthews Picks Wrong Day To Mock Joe The Plumber on Ghostwriter
Stupid kids should not make their momma
wealthy, nor a lawyer like (breck girl) silky.
I hate it for the kid, but get real. DO NOT TAKE A DARE !
We should put a fence around streets and have big signs warning of danger! Then sue the DOT if someone gets hit…
I’m sorry kid but you’ve just become a poster boy, it’s really sad but don’t monkey around power lines, don’t talk to strangers and look both ways are all things that one must learn in order to pursue a healthy life.
I think a George Carlin quote is appropriate in this instance.
“The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn’t grow up to have kids of his own.”
The electric company should counter sue the parents for letting him out into the real world. Clearly a child this stupid is a hazard to the general public.
OKAAAYYYYY….
It wouldn’t have been a dare if it was safe, right???
Geez, yes, of course I feel horrible for the parents of that kid. I’m just so sick and tired of lawsuits that are dumbing down the kids.
Let’s see, Godzilla went up against high tension wires. So did The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. So did the Colossal Beast, as did Gorgo. The Giant Behemoth did. So did the giant Tarantula.
I dunno. Seems like a healthy kid just following in the footsteps of many a good giant monster movie.
Honestly though, while most of the claims in the suit are absurd, the idea of the fence and the sign really do seem kinda reasonable, though I agree the suit should be thrown out, if nothing else because of the extremist position the mother has taken.
Sounds like a classic case where the defendants would use an “assumption of the risk” defense if the suit went forward. There is some legitimate question to how evident the danger would be to a 13 year old boy, and whether a sign and a fence would have really deterred them. If this is a jurisdiction of comparative negligence, a court or jury could find that the kid was say, 80 percent negligent and the electric utility was 20 percent negligent (for not putting up a fence or signs). In other words if 1 million in damages are awarded, the defendant would only pay 20 percent of it. The lawyer for the plaintiff would then collect just about all of that and leave the plaintiff herself with a total of 5 bucks.
Don’t you love our justice system?
It’s all about money, and not the kid. Seems these days, everyone is looking for a way to get millions, regardless of circumstances…encouraged by poor lawyers who get 30%. We have so many lawyers now, suing is the only way to make any money. People are encouraged to sue, so it has now become a routine. I remember once, lawyers were “illegal” here in Virginia. People were so disgusted with them, they banned lawyers. We ought to look at that statute again.
Maybe, with enough stupid lawsuits, we’ll be force to wrap the whole world in rubber and put a warning label on everything. Or maybe we could make stupid people assume the full risk for the stupid things they do.
Excuse me, but the “victim’s” parents forgot to sue those other kids $5 each for the dare money. It’s not like pigs to leave even crumbs behind…
Alternate Ending: Unless this happened in Vegas or Atlantic City, gambling is illegal. If I were the local DA I’d throw the book at this kid for taking a bet, illegaly, and for trespassing. If we want to live in Bizzaro World, let’s go all the way.
I’ve known since I was 5 climbing power line towers was dumb and dangerous. I would also guess that the tower had a sign (unless it was stolen or vandalized) for idiots like this kid. And, the lines are insulated. The insulation is air - that’s why they’re so high.
Don’t pee on the electric fence…
Ahhh, natural selection DOES work. It appears his mother is the real idiot though and he may be the victim of bad parenting and bad genes.
The kid should have been arrested for trespassing.
I dunno, the suit sounds like a reach but it doesn’t strike me as unusually odd, except for the part about insulating the wires. It’s not as though the “attractive nuisance” argument were new.
If the electric company loses the case, all they’ll have to do is charge the homeowners more to help defray their costs.
I feel for the parents (a little). It’s the lawyer who took the case that should be drawn and quartered.
I really think that these frivolous lawsuits would stop in a hurry if the lawyers who file them were responsible for paying the all of the court costs and defendant costs associated.
Why can’t the legal profession realize that they bring utter contempt upon themselves with their idiotic actions?
Another example of the liability lottery. If something happens to you or a loved one, don’t grieve simply use it as a way to get rich. I feel bad for the family, but obviously there is more stuff on the mom’s mind than power plant safety. The kid was breaking the law and there should be no reward for that type of societal behavior. I’m in the power industry and overall plants and transmission towers are quite safe, but there is a certain amount of inherent danger that cannot be avoided, especially if rules and regulations are not followed strictly. Besides, I’m sure that even if signs would have been posted and all of the safety measures talked about in this article were implemented, it would have encouraged the dare that much more. Part of the dare is living on the edge and assuming the risk. He knew what he was doing was wrong and so did the friends that dared him to do it. No sign would have stopped them from placing the dare, and no fence would have stopped him from going through with it if he wanted the money and the thrill of completing it.
Designing the tower so it couldn’t be climbed is impractible, because trained personnel have to be able to climb it to perform maintenance. As far as insulating the wires, you are talking a major expense to provide very little utility. I’m sure not many people are willing to pay electric bills that are considerably higher than they already are in order to protect a few numbskulls who want to try something stupid and illegal as climbing a transmission tower. I hope this lawsuit quietly goes away, but I’m afraid that Ameren will probably settle it and give the mom somewhere between $10K to $100K to make it go away.
I’m reading this here in Tennessee and watching the lawsuits pile up in the Selmer Cars for Kids Parade accident. The one thing I’m noticing is the consistent amount of $5,000,000 from every one of them.
I know this was a different situation. In fact, I knew one of the children killed. The thing that irks me is that every lawyer is suing for the same amount. It’s like they all got together before contacting the families to decide the dollar amount they would go for.To add to my ire is one of the women suing for “Lack of Consortium” from her husband (for $5,000,000 naturally) because she claims he can’t perform since the accident.
I do believe that all the families involved in this tragedy deserve compensation. I just find it troublesome that all the suits filed are for the same amount.
On Topic: I feel sorry for the kid and his family, but at 13 (A LONG time ago) I knew better than to mess with power lines. He should have known better too, dare or not.
Isn’t this how John Edwards made his millions? Blood sucking ambulance chasers.
By the mothers standards, there should be the same sort of signs and fence around the Congressional building!
Anyone who doesn’t know the danger of going near electrical wires and such is a Darwinian accident waiting to happen. My sympathies go out to the mom, but, quite frankly, accidents, albeit tragic, happen.
I feel bad for the parents, but don’t think that they should be allowed to sue.
If they honestly think that their 13 year old was too stupid to realize that electricity kills, then what does that say about how he was raised?
People like these are what make the Darwin Awards so entertaining.
You realize this isn’t high tension powerlines we’re talking about here, right? It’s standard city poles. . .the kind that are placed regularly between yards, along fencelines, etc. etc. There are 10’s, if not 100’s of thousands in any given mid-size town.
Is it reasonable to impose upon home-owners by fencing off portions of their yards to head-off the possibility of a fool removing him/herself from the gene pool?
The mother should sue herself for not teaching her kid how to deal with peer pressure.
This is a classic example of “if your friends told you to jump off a cliff, would you?”
Yashmak, I totally agree with your points; however, in the essence of fairness the story does say it is a “transmission tower”. This tower isn’t simply a pole between yards, but your point is well taken that it would lead to considerable expense for the producers to add additional safety measures that aren’t really necessary.
Geeeeez! I remember some of the dumb stunts my friends and I pulled at that age, and if one of us got hurt our parents didn’t think to sue anyone. They just beat the you-know-what out of us for being so stupid.
So who would the parents have sued had the kid stuck a screwdriver into an outlet in his own home? Who would they have sued had the kid turned on the disposal and stuck his hand down in it? Perhaps if the kid had ever played on a jungle gym (which many schools no longer have on playgrounds), he’d have gotten the picture that it hurts to fall even three feet.
Kids will be kids I know that when I was 13 I did some STUPID stuff. Yet I did not die in the process. This was one of those things that went extremely bad. The mother should just shut up and hope the power company doesn’t sue for trespassing.
It also reminds me of a local story about thining the herd.
http://www.wlwt.com/news/13686746/detail.html
Oh for the love of god!
Dems should come with a fence around them, and signs that say “I could become unhinged.” Frivolous lawsuits are a huge problem in our country. Lawyers and judges in this country are morally corrupt, willing to put aside morals to make tons of money. Sad.
I guess the MC Hammer Stop - Don’t Touch This public service commercial - maybe it’s only shown by our local electric company - never got the point across to the kid.
There are plenty of PSAs and other information out there to let people know that they should not do stupid things. For some, it just does not matter.
I feel sorry for the kid and the family - why not sue the kid that dared him or his family? Heck, sue the town for the placement of the lines in an area that is too accessible! Sue! Sue! Sue!
Darwin wins again! He’s 0-5,000,000,000! Undefeated champ!
I sat on a mock jury once and the idea was, the company has money, make them pay. Sadly, the people killed in this real event were just stooopid. The “jurors” did not care about the facts, just the settlement.
In the end, even though the company was not at fault, I advised them to settle because people are not interested in the rule of law.
This family will make millions.
obviously this was a tragic thing to have happen to any family … but suing the electric company is just another example of the ridiculous state of the legal system and frivolous lawsuits …
Forrest Gump “stupid is as stupid does” …
other than tniles #16 I doubt most people have ever stood at the base of an electric transmission tower … they take up a significant amount of ground … I would imagine it would cost a $1000 or more to put a fence around the base of one … now take that times the number of these towers in this country … it would take millions if not billions of dollars to fence all of them … and who is going to ultimately pay for that … you and me … the electric companies will pass on that cost to the consumer …
I hope this electric company does not “settle out of court” … all that would end up being is an open invitation to more frivolous lawsuits by setting a precedent that they are willing to pay people off …
By 13 years old this kid should have known the dangers these powerlines hold. And Im quite sure that that kid could read as all the powerlines Ive seen have danger signs posted on them.
This mother needs to learn a hard lesson, watch your kids! Teach them… if the schools aren’t teaching them what he should already know by common sense then she should have taught him.
Im sick of these kinds of cases clogging up our courts.
Rena
Personal Responsiblity.
learn it, live it, love it.
My kid certainly knows better.
In this day and age, a lawsuit like this fails to surprise me.
Kids horsing around or playing ‘dare’ with high voltage doesn’t surprise me.
And even if the authorities provide large ‘warning’ signs and fences around high voltage equipment . . .it won’t prevent this type of tragedy or stop insane lawsuits. But if we find ourselves behaving like the French and build. . .
A monument to honor the french fried trespassing dead youth avoiding arrest
That might still raise an eyebrow here.
Yeah, and when the local paper did an article on my company a year ago, they referred to the picture of an autoclave as a “centrifuge”.
The voltage range of transmission lines on high tension towers is between 85000 and 765000 volts. The voltage carried in this story, however, is a mere 19700 volts.
I repeat, it’s a regular power pole.
Seriously people… its called the attractive nuisance doctrine and it has been around in common law forever, long before the “libtards” or “dims” or whatever other clever names you people come up with came and stole your children’s souls.
Before we go decrying the suit, why don’t we let some people who will have ALL the FACTS and know a little something about the LAW decide if the case has merit.
For example, I love it when I hear armchair attorneys criticize the so-called “McDonalds Hot Coffee” suit. We all know which one. Well the facts of that case was not just that she spilled coffee on her. It was that McDs was serving their coffee far beyond what was considered safe or what was industry standard. It was that McDonalds knew of many instances of their super-heated coffee causing similar injuries. It was the fact that, with this knowledge, they chose to do nothing about it and allowed a situation that they knew to be dangerous to persist. That is why they were sued, and deservedly so.
Know the facts and the law.
Power companies are favorite targets for lawsuits (one of my relatives works at the company here in NYC). Just to prove it, here’s a great, true story:
One winter evening a couple of years ago, a young woman and her friends were skateboarding down the middle of a street in New York City. The young woman, under the influence of alcohol, at some point fell off her skateboard and on to a manhole cover for the steam line (NYC powers many buildings by steam). Unfortunately, the woman was wearing a skirt and going “commando,” the steam vent was hot, and she ended up with the power company logo literally branded to her a$$.
Anyway, she won a settlement against the company and the city for “negligence.”
Regular utility poles only stick about 40 feet out of the ground. So if the kid made it nearly to the top of a regular utility pole, why did it get reported as a transmission tower? Also, modern distribution happens at 12,500 or 13,200 volts, not 19,700 volts. OTOH, very few transmission towers carry less than 110,000 volts nowadays.
On another note, I slipped off a neighbor’s banister when I was six-years old. My parents did not sue. When I found out about “attractive nuisance” lawsuits some years later, I complained (I was probably 13) that they hadn’t sued. They told me I had had no business being on the neighbor’s banister in the first place.
On the other hand, the little old lady didn’t climb through the drive-through window and up onto the coffee brewer on a dare - get burned - and claim McDonalds should have signs and barbed wire to prevent it…
Missing the point. It is established law that property owners have a duty to take proper precautions when they know that they have something dangerous on their property that might attract the interest of those less able to make wise decisions.
We do not know the facts of this case, whether proper precautions were taken by the electric company or whether the boy was capable of making a proper decision here. If so, then I hope the case is dismissed as quickly as possible.
The point is that a lot of people jump to conclusions when they really know nothing.
Just so we are all on the same page: these are the conditions necessary for “attractive nuisance”:
1. The place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and
2. The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children,
3. The children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it
4. The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and
5. The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children
Its a pretty high standard to reach. Al in St Lou, I think, unfortunately your bannister case would have failed condition 2.
sad for the kid (we’ve all done stupid stuff in our lives, granted most of us not this stupid and lived to tell about it) but this does not entitle anyone to recieve free money for bad parenting. Geesh.
chapoutier said:
Just so we are all on the same page: these are the conditions necessary for “attractive nuisance”:
thanks for the definition …
obviously the “condition” and “risk” in this case are the electrical lines themselves … that said … per your list of requirements as a “nuisance” …
1. The place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and
Power pole - 40 feet in the air - Transmission Tower - not sure but would estimate 150 feet or more - can’t honestly say that is an expected place for children to trespass
2. The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children,
Can’t argue with this one … we all know electricity can be dangerous
3. The children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it
I can’t accept that a 13 year old would qualify as not realizing the risks of electricity
4. The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and
Electrical lines high off the ground seems like reasonable means to slighten the risk
5. The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children
Number 4 trumps number 5
Well, here’s the power company’s side:
“Ameren argues that in Illinois, “the general rule is that owners and occupiers of land are under no duty to trespassers to keep their premises in any particular state or condition to promote the safety of trespassers, whether they be minors or adults.”
Ameren said courts elsewhere have held that utilities were not obligated to protect trespassers, citing the case of a 13-year-old mentally challenged boy shocked after climbing a ladder to reach a building’s roof. A court later dismissed that boy’s lawsuit, ruling the child was capable of appreciating the danger posed by electric lines.”
AlohaGuy
Thanks …
dissecting the term “attractive nuisance” …
Methinks we have explained why they are called “nuisance” suits …
and the only part I see that is “attractive” is the potential money the plaintiffs and attorneys are hoping to get …
I should have included a disclaimer that I am in fact a lawyer. But don’t ahte me yet! I am one of the kind republicans like because I help rich people and companies keep their money.
That said, forgive me for thinking that perhaps a court of law should decide what the law is, rather than go on the good word of the electric company’s lawyers. I notice they say “courts elsewhere have determined.” One of the wonderful things about our system of federalism is that the law is not the same from state to state. Maybe an Illinois court should say what Illinois law is.
Sure there are completely frivolous suits out there and people willing to take advantage of a legal system that I believe is, for the most part, well intentioned. But a person that has a prima facie case deserves to have it heard by a court. They may not win, hell they may not deserve to win, but that does not mean that they do not deserve the chance to present the facts and present their interpretation of the law, let the other side do the same, and allow our legal system to work. Many of you here may not have much faith in that system to come to the correct conclusion, but that is an argument too big for this little ol’ thread.
The real fact of the matter is that everyone hates lawyers until they need one and everyone hates a law until it benefits them.
The story I remember reading in the Star Ledger in the mid-1970s was that a couple of neighborhood kids climbed a fence, tossed the homeowner’s cat into the pool, stoned the cat until it drowned, and then the parents of the kids sued the homeowner for having an attractive nuisance. Maybe this was just an urban legend. I sure hope so.
That is a good point. There are a lot of chain emails going around about “absurd lawsuits” meant to rile people up against our system, like the one about the robber who sues for slipping on the floor when trying to escape the store, or something like that. The problem is that 99% of these are made up, urban legends as you say.
On an entirely different note Al, form St. Lou, I will be visiting your fair city in September and would love a good recommendation for real BBQ.
chapoutier
LOL … I was pretty sure already that you were in the legal field … but I won’t hold that against you …
Just think most of us are tired of seeing the courts continuing to be inundated with these kinds of suits.
A “Daring” Haiku
Boy climbs ‘lectric tow’r
Sizzle, pop! He won’t swim in
the gene pool. Thank God.
Again, without speaking to the merits of this particular case, I think we can all agree that there needs to be harsher penalties (or perhaps greater enforcement of existing penalties)for those that bring clearly frivolous suits. Both for the plaintiff (payment of legal fees, contempt of court) and for the lawyers that would represent them (contempt of court, bar disciplinary action).
chapoutier
I totally agree with that … remove the unbridled temptation to go after a company or an indivual’s money without a valid complaint by putting penalties in place for wasting the courts time and the peoples money …
Perhaps electric fences would keep kids off the power towers…
Another point upon which democrats and republicans, conservatives and liberals alike should be able to agree….
NEVER pee on an electric fence. It hurts as much as one would imagine.
Like I said before, the family will make millions.
Our county just settled a lawsuit of $100,000 because they knew they would lose millions. Why? A guy was doing a back flip on a trampoline and landed on his head and neck and is a quad. I hate it for him. He was practicing for a county sponsored show. If it had been in his back yard having fun – nada, zippo, zero, zilch.
The common denominator in these two cases (and the McDonalds case) is money. That is all that is required for a lawsuit.
Making money 101 – it IS that simple.
You just proved my point. What are the details of this “county sponsored show”? Was this guy acting at the direction of the county? That would make a huge difference in whether or not they are liable. Did they provide proper safety equipment? Did this guy hold himself out to be a trampoline expert to the county? It is easy to cherry-pick facts and throw them up and get a reaction. It is the job of juries to consider ALL the facts and reach a decision.
As for the rest of your post, it isn’t really even coherent.
By the time I was five, I knew power lines were dangerous. Then there is all of the news reports and uility adds that tell you to stay away from power lines. At leased he took him self out of the gene pool. Another canidate for the Darwin Awards.
Were only your political leaders as willing to embrace Darwin as so many of you here appear to be.
Y’all must be the enlightened wing of the neocons.
Ouch, that hurt - not.
Hmm write a long dissertation on the case which, for the most part, will get ignored because it is too long or trim it to make a point. I guess I have to simplify it more.
1. You do not need a case when there is a company with loads of money. Case in point, which was brought up earlier, McDonalds. Hot cup of coffee dumped on the woman’s lap while in a car (on the passenger side). It had nothing to do with hot coffee (coherent enough).
2. Lawsuits have been won by silk pony channeling a baby! Getting this yet?
3. Do you really believe that if the person was a professional trampoline hopper it would have made a difference? Naive!
4. The health care system has been devastated by tort law. You being a lawyer should know that without a long list of cases that I do not produce.
Should I go on?
Now, I could expound for hours or attempt to make a point. Your shot, as comical as it is to me, was not to make a point but maybe to show your superiority because you are a lawyer and maybe I am just a hick that just does not have the ability to understand a simple concept that frivolous lawsuits exist and are a lucrative business.
P.S. I don’t ahte you! I also happen to agree with you but my head is not in the sand. Oh, and, “it isn’t really even coherent” is not very coherent.
Please On-My-My Soap Box, let the big boys who know how to use their words argue this one.
Whaaaa? I want what you are apparently smoking.
Seriously…I am sure that all your silly little thoughts make perfect sense in your head, but clearly something is lost in translation because you simply are not making sense. Let Aloha and Desert take this one and go back to playing with your tinker toys.
Throw this into the mix. The others who dared the kid, how old were they? they certainly may have known sending someone up a power tower was certain death is this attempted murder?
On July 18th, 2007 at 11:13 pm, chapoutier said:
Personal assaults aside, I succeed you are obviously the better man.
ajmontana
True statement … I think there is a lot of “blame” that could be passed around in this matter including the “dare” group we know nothing about as far as ages and such … there’s only one reason they are singling out the power company … that is where the money is …
Yup…
Thank you DesertLover. Yet another person who gets it.
Be careful, I tried that approach and well…
hmm, thought lawyers were good at research as well as word use? Didn’t take google long to find http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/temp/584422.pdf top of page 19 mentions silky pony’s win via channelling a dead baby. the win was later turned over but the precedent was still made and has been attempted elsewhere (hence this note from Ohio).
the kid is dead, can’t punish him further for his stupidity. the parents suffer in their grief but still apparently need reminding to take their responsibilities seriously while the peer group that pushed the dare should be rounded up to be held accountable.
I have a 13 yo son, and asked him if he would ever climb one. He said no (of course, because I was the one asking.) I really do hope I have raised my son w/ enough sense to know that it is illegal and stupid to climb on of those.
I do feel sorry for this family, and the amount of debt they have because of this, but it’s his own doing. Sorry.
Thank you too Fineous Reese.
I guess I should have given my disclaimer: Stoopid redneck who may use the wrong words from time to time i.e. succeed and secede - oops.
OT, big money draws big lawsuits - period. The lawsuit needs no basis. We can only hope that there are judges who will throw out cases like the judge who wanted $65 million for his lost pants!
/wondering why people hate lawyers
What we need here is for Troy McClure of “the Simpsons” to do one of his classic PSA’s, this one titled “Transmission Towers — Deadly but Well Worth the Dare!”
On July 18th, 2007 at 2:45 am, Lincoln said:
Maybe that wouldn’t have deterred them, but it certainly would’ve made this lawsuit pretty much impossible to pursue!