Suing for ice on sidewalk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in this thread are flat out vile and needlessly hostile to OP. And they're mostly stupid and have zero understanding of the American legal system.

Can you explain (no snark). I have responded previously that I don’t understand how she has a case when the owners cleared their walk and were not negligent. Does the US legal system really just allow anyone to sue with no evidence and no noticeable ice? And if so, why would every car accident caused by black ice not be able to be blamed on HOA’s and the county? I’m kind of fascinated by this. Thanks!

There's too many variables for anyone to be able to opine on whether OP has a viable case. But most people are arguing over the wrong issues. The main issue will be whether the state OP was injured in requires home owner's to maintain their sidewalks. Some do, some don't. The other issue will be whether the homeowner breached their duty (compare the homeowner who failed to put out salt during a multi day period of cold weather and freezing rain versus the homeowner who didn't put out salt 4 hours into a cold snap).

Instead of these issues, posters are going off on wild tangents. Firstly, OP can prove through her testimony that the ice was there. She doesn't need anything more. It would be up to the jury to decide whether or not it finds her credible. Secondly, waiting 6 months to file suit is not a long time at all. She can bring suit anytime before the statute of limitations expires, which for torts would be at least a few years. Thirdly, whether or not OP has short term disability insurance is immaterial as to whether or not she has the right to sue. Finally, there's simply no such thing as "countersuing" because you're angry or annoyed about being the party to a lawsuit, and the US doesn't allow fee shifting unless there's a specific statute that allows for it (like civil rights cases that allow a prevailing plaintiff to recover attorney fees in addition to damages).

It seems there's a toxic mix of trolling and ignorance in this thread. It's disheartening, and shows the true colors of many of the posters here.

You seem to know the laws. Could you answer this?
If I'm driving and get into an accident caused by ice on the road, can I sue the city, county, or state for not removing snow on the road? Would I have a case? This actually happened to me.
Or this whole suing thing only applies to sidewalk on homeowners properties?
What if it is the sidewalk in front of a public building? I'm assuming the city or county is responsible for removing ice. Can I sue them?

It's very hard to sue gov't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People in this thread are flat out vile and needlessly hostile to OP. And they're mostly stupid and have zero understanding of the American legal system.

+1. It's kind of insane, actually. One of the principles behind the tort system is to shift liability to the party where it legally resides and so that the rest of society doesn't have to take on the financial and societal burden of providing for the injured party. If you are legally obligated to clear your sidewalk of ice and you don't the legal principle is that you should be subject to liability. You can think that's wrong, but it is actually the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in this thread are flat out vile and needlessly hostile to OP. And they're mostly stupid and have zero understanding of the American legal system.

+1. It's kind of insane, actually. One of the principles behind the tort system is to shift liability to the party where it legally resides and so that the rest of society doesn't have to take on the financial and societal burden of providing for the injured party. If you are legally obligated to clear your sidewalk of ice and you don't the legal principle is that you should be subject to liability. You can think that's wrong, but it is actually the law.

Well seeing as the law is different in each state (as has been stated repeatedly), it may not actually be the law. In the DMV you have anywhere from 12-72 hours to clear your sidewalk depending on where you live. OP would have to prove that I’ve had been there longer than that, which she can’t do. So no, it’s not the law that you have to stare at your sidewalk 24/7 to ensure ice doesn’t develop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in this thread are flat out vile and needlessly hostile to OP. And they're mostly stupid and have zero understanding of the American legal system.

+1. It's kind of insane, actually. One of the principles behind the tort system is to shift liability to the party where it legally resides and so that the rest of society doesn't have to take on the financial and societal burden of providing for the injured party. If you are legally obligated to clear your sidewalk of ice and you don't the legal principle is that you should be subject to liability. You can think that's wrong, but it is actually the law.

Well seeing as the law is different in each state (as has been stated repeatedly), it may not actually be the law. In the DMV you have anywhere from 12-72 hours to clear your sidewalk depending on where you live. OP would have to prove that I’ve had been there longer than that, which she can’t do. So no, it’s not the law that you have to stare at your sidewalk 24/7 to ensure ice doesn’t develop.

DP - and not just stare at it, since OP acknowledges the ice couldn't be seen, but feel all over it constantly on your hands and knees, just in case. What a bizarre image.

Generally there is a provision to make a reasonable effort, or similar wording.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People sue for bogus injuries purportedly suffered when someone rear ends them at 2 mph. There are endless TV commercials encouraging people to sue for everything. Suing is the American way.

This is absolutely covered by homeowners' insurance, and you should be offered a decent settlement. Do it.

It's really gross that you and others think the fact that any settlement would be covered by homeowner's insurance is relevant in any way.

If course it is relevant. There is a huge difference between taking from a family's finances a taking from the insurance policy they pay for for this exact reason.

Except that that family’s insurance premiums will go up after the claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People sue for bogus injuries purportedly suffered when someone rear ends them at 2 mph. There are endless TV commercials encouraging people to sue for everything. Suing is the American way.

This is absolutely covered by homeowners' insurance, and you should be offered a decent settlement. Do it.

It's really gross that you and others think the fact that any settlement would be covered by homeowner's insurance is relevant in any way.

If course it is relevant. There is a huge difference between taking from a family's finances a taking from the insurance policy they pay for for this exact reason.

Except that that family’s insurance premiums will go up after the claim.

Then they should have salted their sidewalk. Car insurance goes up after a fender bender even if you’re not at fault.

[Anonymous]

I still think op is scum for trying to hurt a family for her own gain. OP and the person in her life who asked if she used both deserve all the bad karma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People sue for bogus injuries purportedly suffered when someone rear ends them at 2 mph. There are endless TV commercials encouraging people to sue for everything. Suing is the American way.

This is absolutely covered by homeowners' insurance, and you should be offered a decent settlement. Do it.

It's really gross that you and others think the fact that any settlement would be covered by homeowner's insurance is relevant in any way.

If course it is relevant. There is a huge difference between taking from a family's finances a taking from the insurance policy they pay for for this exact reason.

Except that that family’s insurance premiums will go up after the claim.

Then they should have salted their sidewalk. Car insurance goes up after a fender bender even if you’re not at fault.

Np not in all states. It only goes up in “no fault” states. If you get hit in a different state, only the person responsible’s insurance goes up. As it should…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still think op is scum for trying to hurt a family for her own gain. OP and the person in her life who asked if she used both deserve all the bad karma.

+100

[Anonymous]

Not wading through all these responses….sorry if I’m repetitive.

Presumably your insurance company covered your medical expenses. Which means anything you recover will first go to the insurance company to make them whole.

Next, it is extremely unlikely that an attorney will take this on contingency, especially given the involvement of the insurance company.

So, go for it…pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket to an attorney. If you actually have to go to trial and engage experts, the costs will be more than what you thing you are entitled to. So, you will have to settle for a reduced amount and turn that $ over to your insurance company who will then thank you for being the stoodge who paid an attorney so they could recover their expenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still think op is scum for trying to hurt a family for her own gain. OP and the person in her life who asked if she used both deserve all the bad karma.

I think you're scum for lacking any sympathy for OP who was injured as a result of someone's negligence. Your utter lack of empathy deserve all the bad karma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still think op is scum for trying to hurt a family for her own gain. OP and the person in her life who asked if she used both deserve all the bad karma.

You are ridiculous. She had actual damages and if it was from negligence by the homeowner, she has a right to recover them. presumably she too has a family who was hurt but the homeowner's laziness.

No one is trying to "hurt a family." So far the only "hurt family" is OP's.

[Anonymous]

What a ridiculous law. OP is solely responsible for what happened to her. You have to exercise caution when walking after a snow storm. She was reckless. Other people certainly walked on that same sidewalk and were fine.
Who is she gonna blame and sue next? Another homeowner because she slipped on a banana peel in front of their house?
Stop with the victim mentality and take responsibility for your failures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a ridiculous law. OP is solely responsible for what happened to her. You have to exercise caution when walking after a snow storm. She was reckless. Other people certainly walked on that same sidewalk and were fine.
Who is she gonna blame and sue next? Another homeowner because she slipped on a banana peel in front of their house?
Stop with the victim mentality and take responsibility for your failures.

Walking outside is reckless? It's obviously don't understand what the word reckless means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a ridiculous law. OP is solely responsible for what happened to her. You have to exercise caution when walking after a snow storm. She was reckless. Other people certainly walked on that same sidewalk and were fine.
Who is she gonna blame and sue next? Another homeowner because she slipped on a banana peel in front of their house?
Stop with the victim mentality and take responsibility for your failures.

Possibly, if you have a duty to remove trash from your sidewalk. Glad a lot of lazy homeowner eyes have been opened in this thread