This week's Dumb Lawsuit story

[proud2BlibKansan]

Family now suing school district over deadly cafeteria crash
By JIM SUHR
Associated Press Writer

SHILOH, Ill. --
The parents of a second-grader killed when a widow plowed her car through his elementary school's cafeteria added the school district as a defendant Thursday to their wrongful-death lawsuit that already named the 85-year-old driver.

Ryan Wesling's parents accuse the Shiloh School District No. 85 and its board of negligently not adequately inspecting the exterior cafeteria wall through which Grace Keim drove Jan. 29 in this village about 29 miles east of St. Louis, killing 8-year-old Ryan.

The amended lawsuit, filed in St. Clair County Court in nearby Belleville, claims the district failed to ensure the wall was crash-worthy and "reasonably safe" even though it was foreseeable an automobile could strike it. The school system also "was aware of the particular danger or risk to which its students were exposed" and failed to warn them of the wall's vulnerability, the lawsuit claims.

"It was just a failure to protect the kids," said Jack Spooner, an attorney for Ryan's parents, Amanda and Kevin Wesling.

more . . . http://www.bnd.com/336/story/100783.html

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Very probable

that the widow has limited assets. The school district has many more. As for danger--it would seem to me if the cafeteria were placed in such a way that cars might come off a road and crash into it, there would be concrete barriers or the like in front of the cafeteria, rather than "stronger walls".

My condolences to the family of the child who was killed.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. So it's okay to sue the school district because it has more assets?

Sorry I disagree.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. I'm sure it is something the lawyer thought up

and most school districts have a large liability policy in place. That's what I meant by assets. The woman who drove the car might not have anything but the bare bones in insurance, and not many assets to take away. An insurance settlement with the school district might be larger than what could be gotten from going after the driver. Doubt if the claim flies, though, unless there has been a history of car crashes near that school.

[treestar]

9. No, but that doesn't mean there is no case and that it should

not be looked into. Any competent lawyer looks into the matter on more than a superficial level - they'll get sued for malpractice if they don't. And if they find there could be negligence or a theory of liability they have a duty to name that defendant.

Then it's up to the jury, where the well heeled defendant can hire lawyers to defend it.

The well heeled defendant will also bring in expensive expert witnesses.

And they will do it in the case where they are liable, too. Everyone goes on about frivolous lawsuits, but never about frivolous defenses, which exist also. There is no prejudment interest, and big defendants know the interest value of money in the meantime and put off settling as long as they can.

[Madspirit]

3. It's not a "dumb" lawsuit; it's a "grief" lawsuit

I hope the judge throws it out of court but these parents are just grieving and looking for someone to lay it on.

It's odd though. We have had so many cars running through buildings in Austin, grocery stores at least twice and restaurants, many of the businesses now have large concrete structures built in front.

Lee

[NeedleCast]

4. Money wont bring their kid back

Somehow I doubt it's the parents idea to sue the school. Sounds like something their lawyer probably came up with.

[Blackhatjack]

6. Allow me to take the unpopular position of explaining what might be going on here....

When schools are constructed with any amount of federal money, and almost all are, there are incredibily detailed and complex standards of construction that must be met in order for the contractor to be paid with federal funds. During the construction process there have to be many more inspections of the work done and materials used than would be required in the construction of a commercial building.

IN this particular case I SUSPECT the attorney has investigated the building construction requirements and maintenance requirements in accordance with federal building regulations and found that either the materials used or the method of construction did not meet those standards.

The question is whether the car crashing into that wall built to the proper standards with proper materials and properly maintained would have prevented the death of the child.

In our city the State and County contracted to build a new wing of the elementary school which would increase the size of the school by about 50%. The original contractor who won the bid brought in their team and did the construction work for almost 2 years, and they were close to 80% finished, when an inspection turned up major problems with both materials and workmanship. The entire structure was torn down, and the contract relet to another contractor to do the job. The first contractor objected saying they had built the school according to all state and county and commercial standards. Court told them --not good enough. Schools are different. Cough up the money you were paid, and you get nothing for the effort.

The family certainly cannot get their child back by suing for money. However, suits like this make others aware of possible problems with buildings and their maintenance. Plus no one knows what their expenses were with this child. If the court determines that the accident was not foreseeable, and that the building standards and maintenance did not contribute to the death of the child, then the case will be dismissed. But if the building was deficient in workmanship and/or materials and it contributed to the child's death they should recover. A jury will determine what the approriate amount should be if the insurance company and the family cannot reach an out of court settlement.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Thanks - that is very interesting!

[treestar]

8. Thank you. Indeed, one finds that most of these suits cited

for the proposition that the courts are run amok by silly lawsuits, are, upon further inspection, nothing like what they are hysterically proclaimed to be.