Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reminder - there are 2 daycares on the grounds of the close. "

Which are the two daycares on the grounds?

Beauvior and SAECC

Anonymous wrote:Reminder - there are 2 daycares on the grounds of the close. "

Which are the two daycares on the grounds?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legal duty to warn and instruct. Would be an interesting torts hypothetical case. Guess you went to a B-level law school where you weren't asked to stretch that mind of yours?

That would generally used in a products liability case. No, I am not the person that asked you how you did in first year torts.

Another new poster here. I was also thinking it would make for an interesting premises liability action (even though it's off the premises). Someone was telling me recently about a case where a truck driver idling off-premises was robbed, and the operator of the loading dock was held responsible, because he failed to warn the truck driver about the danger of robbery where the driver was parking.

But the hypo being posed here -- another driver totally unrelated to the school getting injured offsite by a negligent parent driver -- seems even a further step removed. I can't see how the school could possibly have done anything in this situation to create a legal duty it owes to other drivers off campus. It's got no legal authority over the parent driver's off campus actions, and nothing about its operation of the carpool line increases the risk of negligent driving (as witnessed by the many other carpool parents who drive properly).

Interesting to consider though. I'm sure some clever plaintiffs' lawyer could cook up a theory. I foresee struggles on SJ though.

Not true. There are BZA neighborhood agreements in place with regard to the behavior of parents driving in carpools. I assume that the BZA has some legal binding, but that's not my area of law. BTW, as an atty, you might want to start thinking outside of the box. While duty to warn and instruct is used primarily for products liability, that does not preclude its use in other areas. Duty to warn, for example, is a pretty flexible legal concept--stretching from premises liability to professional codes of ethics for psychologists (Tarasoff) and, of course, products liability (tobacco).

You were the one, weren't you? Who was the class jackass after the first month of law school? Who was the center slot in a___hole bingo? (Don't need to answer, we know.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has NO ONE actually called NCS to alert them about this driver? You could even point out the bad publicity they're getting on DCUM. Given that some people on this thread actually know the mother, you could even tell NCS to call her directly and let her know that she could kill a child with her horrible driving. No one wants that kind of liability. If she does (god forbid) actually hit a child, and NCS was alerted to her reckless driving but did nothing about it, I forsee lawsuit on their hands.

How'd you do in your torts class in law school?

Legal duty to warn and instruct. Would be an interesting torts hypothetical case. Guess you went to a B-level law school where you weren't asked to stretch that mind of yours?

Good one! Rapier wit at work.

Anonymous wrote: Reminder - there are 2 daycares on the grounds of the close.

Can a parent of a child at NCS please pick up the phone before the posting on DCUM is "Black Acura hits child while zooming down Pilgrim Rd"

Anonymous wrote:To all the legal analysis posters. Get a job, and spare all of us your legal discourse. I'm on the thread since I drive my children to school on Pilgrim and this post caught my eye. I then had to wade through your ridiculous dribble drabble To get the facts. Spare us all, please. Signed, secure working lawyer (who doesn't need to "stretch her mind" or show off her wonderful ability to critically think on DCUM.)

Yak yak yak. The legal discussion was the only interesting part of this thread! Quit misdirecting the discussion.

You don't happen to drive an Acura, do you?

To all the legal analysis posters. Get a job, and spare all of us your legal discourse. I'm on the thread since I drive my children to school on Pilgrim and this post caught my eye. I then had to wade through your ridiculous dribble drabble To get the facts. Spare us all, please. Signed, secure working lawyer (who doesn't need to "stretch her mind" or show off her wonderful ability to critically think on DCUM.)

Anonymous wrote:Wait, is this the mom with the DC plates or the MD plates. Im confused

My sighting was of a black Acura MDX with DC plates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not true. There are BZA neighborhood agreements in place with regard to the behavior of parents driving in carpools. I assume that the BZA has some legal binding, but that's not my area of law. BTW, as an atty, you might want to start thinking outside of the box. While duty to warn and instruct is used primarily for products liability, that does not preclude its use in other areas. Duty to warn, for example, is a pretty flexible legal concept--stretching from premises liability to professional codes of ethics for psychologists (Tarasoff) and, of course, products liability (tobacco).

Thanks for your tip on how to do my job; I'll try to keep that in mind.

I already pitched it as a premises liability action. It's not too hard to cook up some theory -- negligence, premises liability, etc. But the struggle you will have is finding some relationship that creates a duty of care between the school and the other driver. I'm sure either of us could develop a creative theory with about 15 minutes of thought, but I still think it will falter on SJ.

That tip wasn't meant for you, premises liability person. I think you're a pretty good legal thinker--it would be fun to cook up some legal approach to slow down Acura driver (I think the BZA might be a good place to start)! I meant the tip for the other lawyer who seems to have boxed her/himself into a simple version of torts law.

Anonymous wrote:Not true. There are BZA neighborhood agreements in place with regard to the behavior of parents driving in carpools. I assume that the BZA has some legal binding, but that's not my area of law. BTW, as an atty, you might want to start thinking outside of the box. While duty to warn and instruct is used primarily for products liability, that does not preclude its use in other areas. Duty to warn, for example, is a pretty flexible legal concept--stretching from premises liability to professional codes of ethics for psychologists (Tarasoff) and, of course, products liability (tobacco).

Thanks for your tip on how to do my job; I'll try to keep that in mind.

I already pitched it as a premises liability action. It's not too hard to cook up some theory -- negligence, premises liability, etc. But the struggle you will have is finding some relationship that creates a duty of care between the school and the other driver. I'm sure either of us could develop a creative theory with about 15 minutes of thought, but I still think it will falter on SJ.

could someone who sees this person just tell her we're writing about her and try to get her to stop? DCUM posts are not going to make her quit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legal duty to warn and instruct. Would be an interesting torts hypothetical case. Guess you went to a B-level law school where you weren't asked to stretch that mind of yours?

That would generally used in a products liability case. No, I am not the person that asked you how you did in first year torts.

Another new poster here. I was also thinking it would make for an interesting premises liability action (even though it's off the premises). Someone was telling me recently about a case where a truck driver idling off-premises was robbed, and the operator of the loading dock was held responsible, because he failed to warn the truck driver about the danger of robbery where the driver was parking.

But the hypo being posed here -- another driver totally unrelated to the school getting injured offsite by a negligent parent driver -- seems even a further step removed. I can't see how the school could possibly have done anything in this situation to create a legal duty it owes to other drivers off campus. It's got no legal authority over the parent driver's off campus actions, and nothing about its operation of the carpool line increases the risk of negligent driving (as witnessed by the many other carpool parents who drive properly).

Interesting to consider though. I'm sure some clever plaintiffs' lawyer could cook up a theory. I foresee struggles on SJ though.

Not true. There are BZA neighborhood agreements in place with regard to the behavior of parents driving in carpools. I assume that the BZA has some legal binding, but that's not my area of law. BTW, as an atty, you might want to start thinking outside of the box. While duty to warn and instruct is used primarily for products liability, that does not preclude its use in other areas. Duty to warn, for example, is a pretty flexible legal concept--stretching from premises liability to professional codes of ethics for psychologists (Tarasoff) and, of course, products liability (tobacco).

as an area resident I have called Sidwell about drivers and recieved a very supportive responses. they were very concerned about the safety of their children as well as others. I would assume NCS would respond in a simlar manner. Reminder - there are 2 daycares on the grounds of the close.

Can a parent of a child at NCS please pick up the phone before the posting on DCUM is "Black Acura hits child zooming down Pilgrim Rd"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legal duty to warn and instruct. Would be an interesting torts hypothetical case. Guess you went to a B-level law school where you weren't asked to stretch that mind of yours?

That would generally used in a products liability case. No, I am not the person that asked you how you did in first year torts.

Another new poster here. I was also thinking it would make for an interesting premises liability action (even though it's off the premises). Someone was telling me recently about a case where a truck driver idling off-premises was robbed, and the operator of the loading dock was held responsible, because he failed to warn the truck driver about the danger of robbery where the driver was parking.

But the hypo being posed here -- another driver totally unrelated to the school getting injured offsite by a negligent parent driver -- seems even a further step removed. I can't see how the school could possibly have done anything in this situation to create a legal duty it owes to other drivers off campus. It's got no legal authority over the parent driver's off campus actions, and nothing about its operation of the carpool line increases the risk of negligent driving (as witnessed by the many other carpool parents who drive properly).

Interesting to consider though. I'm sure some clever plaintiffs' lawyer could cook up a theory. I foresee struggles on SJ though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know EXACTLY the car you mentioned. She zoomed through the stop sign on Pilgrim the other day.

Since everyone knows who it is ... what do we need to stop her?

*ahem*

Next time you see her, write her plate number down then call the school and 311.

I don't have a dog in this fight since my kids don't go there, but you all need to alert the school about it already. Especially since some of you pp's know or can guess who it is.