I wasn't trying to open a can. I was just trying to cite an example of suing for probable, future damages (as opposed to actual, current ones). IIRC some of those HIV suits were successful, unless you know an appellate court ruled otherwise. (Obviously, in any such case, the degree of probability would be an issue in trial.)
FL Police Officer Sues Victim's Family
- Thread starter Melly
- Start date
I wasn't trying to open a can. I was just trying to cite an example of suing for probable, future damages (as opposed to actual, current ones). IIRC some of those HIV suits were successful, unless you know an appellate court ruled otherwise. (Obviously, in any such case, the degree of probability would be an issue in trial.)
Jeana (DP)
Former Member
Dang Nova, smile!! I wasn't getting on your case.
I know of no appellate court rulings on HIV cases. That's not something I would have paid much attention to per se as we weren't involved in those types of cases. I can do a cursory search, however, if you'd like.
Dang Nova, smile!! I wasn't getting on your case.
I know of no appellate court rulings on HIV cases. That's not something I would have paid much attention to per se as we weren't involved in those types of cases. I can do a cursory search, however, if you'd like.
Sorry, Jeana, I didn't think you were. I'm having a frustrating day with computers and my response was probably more terse than I realized.
I think we would have heard about it if a high court ruled that plaintiffs can't be awarded damages for harms that are probable rather than actual. The effect on HIV litigation alone would have made such a ruling headline news.
I was still just thinking out loud about whether the (now former) plaintiff in this case could have won for her "future" arthritis. I think she could have, at least as a matter of law, but I'm sure there would have been a battle over just how likely that future harm is.
Lots of damage settlements deal with issues such as how much the defendant's care will cost over the remaining years of his/her life. All such calculations must be based on probability rather recorded, historical fact, no? This is why I don't believe the original contention by another poster that a plaintiff can only sue for harms that can be currently evidenced.
Jeana (DP)
Former Member
Sorry, Jeana, I didn't think you were. I'm having a frustrating day with computers and my response was probably more terse than I realized.
I think we would have heard about it if a high court ruled that plaintiffs can't be awarded damages for harms that are probable rather than actual. The effect on HIV litigation alone would have made such a ruling headline news.
I was still just thinking out loud about whether the (now former) plaintiff in this case could have won for her "future" arthritis. I think she could have, at least as a matter of law, but I'm sure there would have been a battle over just how likely that future harm is.
Lots of damage settlements deal with issues such as how much the defendant's care will cost over the remaining years of his/her life. All such calculations must be based on probability rather recorded, historical fact, no? This is why I don't believe the original contention by another poster that a plaintiff can only sue for harms that can be currently evidenced.
Oh, I definately agree (and did before) that a plaintiff could absolutely sue for "future harm" if she can provide an expert who can testify as to the probability of such "future harm." We've seen that in cases where babies are injured during childbirth, etc. Of course, we don't know what the probability is that this cop would have any future problems or if her attorneys/experts could even prove to the trier of fact that it was possible to know with any degree of certainty. I'm surprised, however, that she never spoke with any of her superiors before she filed this lawsuit. The fact that she's being investigated for filing it leads me to believe that things are not I had first suspected.
In Texas, this is the case also. When my back was broken by a student, workers comp paid all my medical bills and I received a check for my impairment. It was about 990 dollars per point of permanent impairment. Also, my back is paid for in full for life...so any additional problems directly related to my injury are covered 100% as are my medications for the injury. Now, that being said..you have to jump through hoops and wait forever before things get done. Also, most of the better doctors won't take you because they don't pay enough. However, she can get physical therapy forever on worker's comp. and most places like that do take it.
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
Very interesting story. I am sure there is more to this than meets the eye - I would love to know the back story. This is a 12-year officer in good standing with a file full of accolades who sued against the advice of her bosses....and then dropped the suit quickly....very curious.
She and her attorney must have considered how very very difficult (if not impossible) it would be to find a jury sympathetic to the officer given the family's lot at the end of the day.
I wonder if she was trying to push the PD's hand to get more money for treatment, pain and suffering, future disability and how it negatively impacts her career, etc....I don't really know much about workers comp or how that works.
She and her attorney must have considered how very very difficult (if not impossible) it would be to find a jury sympathetic to the officer given the family's lot at the end of the day.
I wonder if she was trying to push the PD's hand to get more money for treatment, pain and suffering, future disability and how it negatively impacts her career, etc....I don't really know much about workers comp or how that works.
Worker's comp doesn't pay anything for pain and suffering. The only thing it pays for is the medical treatment and medicine for the specific injury and a set amount for each point of permanent impairment. It is real cut and dry...no room for bargining. The amount is set by law. They pay a certain amount for injury, or the loss of hands, eyes, legs...etc. Everything has a preset price. They also pay for retraining if you can never do your specific job again. If you are permanently impaired for life against doing ANY kind of work...they also provide payment for that. It is a formula based on your income you were earning...with a cap of course. I have no idea what the current cap per week is now.
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
Thanks, deandaniellws. I wonder if the officer felt like WC wasn't coming through - I do know that sometimes you have to fight them to get them to pay. Perhaps she felt like the PD wasn't helping her with her WC claim and filed this suit to cause the PD embarrassment and light a fire under them.
I don't know - just thinking out loud here. The second article about the case dismissal said the PD had put her on leave with pay while investigating things.
Yeah, and that makes me wonder even more! You can't fire or harass anyone on Worker's Comp.or who has filed a claim and missed work because of it. The law will crack down on you BIG TIME!!!! Makes me wonder what is REALLY going on here. I am betting that the officer in question is not as innocent as she seems.
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
You might be right - I wonder if we'll ever hear the full story.
awww this is so sad....... the poor baby and family.... I know I've heard of other stories of people suing because they got hurt on someone elses property, so she may be able to win.. but really thats a pretty heartless thing to do to this family.... I doubt she's going to be in as much financial ruin or pain as this family is in....I could never bring myself to do a thing like that to someone... thats like an extra slap in the face
angelmom
The love stays...forever in our hearts
After this latest development, it makes me wonder if there was a disagreement between the officer and the doctors and her supervisors about when/if she would be able to return to work. If the docs cleared her and the bosses put her back in the rotation before she felt she was truly ready OR she really didn't want to go back at all, then this may have been her way of getting more leave.
Ya never know, but this poor family got caught in the middle. And going back to reread the article, the baby was only a year old. I was picturing a busy 2 or 3yo little firecracker. Who would think that a 1yo could get out? Unless a door were left open, I would feel perfectly safe with them in the house and a pool outside. Makes me wonder if a door was not pulled shut tight - how did that happen? So sad.
Ya never know, but this poor family got caught in the middle. And going back to reread the article, the baby was only a year old. I was picturing a busy 2 or 3yo little firecracker. Who would think that a 1yo could get out? Unless a door were left open, I would feel perfectly safe with them in the house and a pool outside. Makes me wonder if a door was not pulled shut tight - how did that happen? So sad.
catsmeow
Pets are family too.
EXACTLY, except that I'd say any why would any other crime or emergency vary from this?
This officer and this lawsuit is disgraceful in my opinion. This family is suffering WHATEVER the reason for their child having almost drowned. It doesn't sound as though it was anything criminal or there would have been charges, so it was accidental, which we all know HAPPENS and it is SO tragic, so horrible, so sad what has happened to this poor child and this family and to have this brought forward? Sue the department if you don't feel fairly compensated for your injuries.
Apparently, we will need to put away throw rugs and stuff too in case we ever have a fire and a fireman trips on his way through the house. If she'd tripped on a rug, would she have sued? Or a toy? This lawsuit makes me ill.
MagicRose99
Watch out for my thorns!
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
- Messages
- 4,447
- Reaction score
- 212
What I find sad is that something like this lawsuit makes bad 'relations' between the public and LE / rescue personnel. If everyone were afraid to let these people on their property or in their homes for fear of being sued, especially in an emergency situation, then what good can these agencies do?
No they can't. And they KNOW it is a HUGE NO NO. That is why I think some other problems are going on with this cop. I think this is probably the icing on the cake and they are going to use some other reason to get rid of her.
A couple of things...
Someone on workmans comp can be terminated if they no longer can perform their duties...
However, the company would still have to pay the benifits and then WC would figure what was a equatable disability payment based on injury and income etc.
My husband mentioned what a can of worms would be opened if this lawsuit had progressed...
For example what if an officer while serving a search warrant injured themselves on someones property?
How could a homeowner be held liable if they had not invited the officer in?
Someone on workmans comp can be terminated if they no longer can perform their duties...
However, the company would still have to pay the benifits and then WC would figure what was a equatable disability payment based on injury and income etc.
My husband mentioned what a can of worms would be opened if this lawsuit had progressed...
For example what if an officer while serving a search warrant injured themselves on someones property?
How could a homeowner be held liable if they had not invited the officer in?
They can't be terminated until the time limits run out and the benefits are paid....at least not in the state of Texas. In Texas, it is a peroid of two years. I know this because a child broke my back while I was teaching.:loser:
Jeana (DP)
Former Member
Didn't they call 911? That is an invitation.
True, but yikes! Do we want to live in a world where people are afraid they'll be sued if they call 911?
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 114
- Guests online
- 3,185
- Total visitors
- 3,299