Suing for ice on sidewalk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I put down salt in the morning and evening when there are icy conditions. Basic good citizenship.

Good citizenship? You are destroying the environment. Salt on the sidewalk is bad for the environment. You are polluting and contaminating drinking water. You are killing endangered wildlife in freshwater ecosystems.
Wear the proper shoes and you won't fall. It is not that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I slipped on an icy sidewalk outside someone's house (isolated black ice on an otherwise cleared ground), fell and broke my arm, was disabled for 8 weeks, could not work and was no covered by STD. Turns out that the property owner is responsible for the sidewalk where I was. I'm not the litigious type, but do I actually have a case? Would you sue for this?

No, this is a very weak case. You would have to document and prove a very clear and gross negligence from the homeowner to win such a case. You said it was isolated black ice on an otherwise cleared ground. This seems to suggest that the homeowner had cleared the sidewalk but there were isolated spots. This doesn't look like negligence.
You would also have to show that you took all reasonable precautions to avoid this accident.
While homeowners must clear the sidewalk, you still have to take all reasonable precautions when walking in icy conditions, wear appropriate shoes, slow your pace, etc... You can't just look for an icy spot, put your foot on it, fall and sue people (not saying this is what you did, but some people do this).

[Anonymous]

This thread is such a Rorschach test!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Walking after a storm as if there was not risk of ice and not paying attention is reckless.
I'm certain many people walked on that same sidewalk before and after her without any issues because they proceeded with caution.
She was reckless, careless and now want to blame others for her failure.
Who is she going to sue next? She'll sue the coffee shop because they didn't tell her that the hot cup of coffee she ordered was hot?

You’re referring to the McDonalds scalding coffee case. The plaintiff won that case. The coffee was extremely excessively hot and she got second and third degree burns in her groin. In prompted a total reset on the temps of McDonalds coffee machines. So, nice try but you lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it but suing will make things worse. Just let it go.

Won't be worth the win.

Worse for who? It would likely be worth the win to OP.

For the stress and guilt of terrorizing people. Worse feeling for OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Walking after a storm as if there was not risk of ice and not paying attention is reckless.
I'm certain many people walked on that same sidewalk before and after her without any issues because they proceeded with caution.
She was reckless, careless and now want to blame others for her failure.
Who is she going to sue next? She'll sue the coffee shop because they didn't tell her that the hot cup of coffee she ordered was hot?

You’re referring to the McDonalds scalding coffee case. The plaintiff won that case. The coffee was extremely excessively hot and she got second and third degree burns in her groin. In prompted a total reset on the temps of McDonalds coffee machines. So, nice try but you lose.

Yes she won but was awarded very little after McDonalds appealed the decision.
She was burned and lived with the scars for the rest of her life.
Coffee is still hot and can still give you 2nd to 3rd degree burns.
If the lesson you learned from this is that you can be careless so you can sue people, I feel sorry for you.
Don't be an idiot. Coffee is hot and can burn you. Don't be careless. Even 5 year old know that.

[Anonymous]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck (1912–2004),[2] a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, Liebeck's attorney filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence.

Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. The jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident. They awarded Liebeck a net $160,000[3] in compensatory damages to cover medical expenses, and $2.7 million (equivalent to $5,000,000 in 2022) in punitive damages, the equivalent of two days of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to three times the amount of the compensatory damages, totalling $640,000. The parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.[4]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did you wait until Summer to do this?

Why did you capitalize summer? It's not a proper noun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it but suing will make things worse. Just let it go.

Won't be worth the win.

Worse for who? It would likely be worth the win to OP.

For the stress and guilt of terrorizing people. Worse feeling for OP.

You're assuming she would feel those things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Walking after a storm as if there was not risk of ice and not paying attention is reckless.
I'm certain many people walked on that same sidewalk before and after her without any issues because they proceeded with caution.
She was reckless, careless and now want to blame others for her failure.
Who is she going to sue next? She'll sue the coffee shop because they didn't tell her that the hot cup of coffee she ordered was hot?

You’re referring to the McDonalds scalding coffee case. The plaintiff won that case. The coffee was extremely excessively hot and she got second and third degree burns in her groin. In prompted a total reset on the temps of McDonalds coffee machines. So, nice try but you lose.

Yes she won but was awarded very little after McDonalds appealed the decision.
She was burned and lived with the scars for the rest of her life.
Coffee is still hot and can still give you 2nd to 3rd degree burns.
If the lesson you learned from this is that you can be careless so you can sue people, I feel sorry for you.
Don't be an idiot. Coffee is hot and can burn you. Don't be careless. Even 5 year old know that.

She was awarded a pretty penny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you sue for this you are evil. Open and shut.

I hate people like you. Too stupid to understand nuance. Open and shut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I put down salt in the morning and evening when there are icy conditions. Basic good citizenship.

Good citizenship? You are destroying the environment. Salt on the sidewalk is bad for the environment. You are polluting and contaminating drinking water. You are killing endangered wildlife in freshwater ecosystems.
Wear the proper shoes and you won't fall. It is not that hard.

Proper shoes? No, you would need microspikes to safely walk on ice.

And you know there's ecosafe salt, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Walking after a storm as if there was not risk of ice and not paying attention is reckless.
I'm certain many people walked on that same sidewalk before and after her without any issues because they proceeded with caution.
She was reckless, careless and now want to blame others for her failure.
Who is she going to sue next? She'll sue the coffee shop because they didn't tell her that the hot cup of coffee she ordered was hot?

You’re referring to the McDonalds scalding coffee case. The plaintiff won that case. The coffee was extremely excessively hot and she got second and third degree burns in her groin. In prompted a total reset on the temps of McDonalds coffee machines. So, nice try but you lose.

Yes she won but was awarded very little after McDonalds appealed the decision.
She was burned and lived with the scars for the rest of her life.
Coffee is still hot and can still give you 2nd to 3rd degree burns.
If the lesson you learned from this is that you can be careless so you can sue people, I feel sorry for you.
Don't be an idiot. Coffee is hot and can burn you. Don't be careless. Even 5 year old know that.

She was awarded a pretty penny.

600k doesn’t seem like much when you’re suing McDonald for life altering scars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There are entire law practices that do this exact sort of work and they know how to work with insurers. Something like this would be settled out of court and likely without much more than a demand letter and a few phone calls. People really don't understand the first thing about how this works.

Yea some of these people are in fantasy land. Pay a retainer to a personal injury attorney? Fully reimburse insurance? All of that is negotiable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Walking after a storm as if there was not risk of ice and not paying attention is reckless.
I'm certain many people walked on that same sidewalk before and after her without any issues because they proceeded with caution.
She was reckless, careless and now want to blame others for her failure.
Who is she going to sue next? She'll sue the coffee shop because they didn't tell her that the hot cup of coffee she ordered was hot?

You’re referring to the McDonalds scalding coffee case. The plaintiff won that case. The coffee was extremely excessively hot and she got second and third degree burns in her groin. In prompted a total reset on the temps of McDonalds coffee machines. So, nice try but you lose.

Yes she won but was awarded very little after McDonalds appealed the decision.
She was burned and lived with the scars for the rest of her life.
Coffee is still hot and can still give you 2nd to 3rd degree burns.
If the lesson you learned from this is that you can be careless so you can sue people, I feel sorry for you.
Don't be an idiot. Coffee is hot and can burn you. Don't be careless. Even 5 year old know that.

She was awarded a pretty penny.

600k doesn’t seem like much when you’re suing McDonald for life altering scars.

THIS. And she would have very little left after her lawyers take their cuts.