LegalMatch: Personal Injury

Explaining The Gross Negligence Lawsuit

Ever wonder how people who do stuff like this or this or this not only get away with it without being hauled off to the loony bin, but in many case actually have a legal leg to stand on that allows them to be awarded millions of dollars? It's one of the most common questions I get regarding the law and it's no surprise why, in case you missed it earlier, millions of dollars. It's also one of the most hotly contested aspects in the legal world. Why you ask? Again, millions of dollars.

In case you haven't figured out the answer to my first question or what I'm talking about yet, I'm referring to a little something call "gross negligence" which is the legal basis used to secure the aforementioned millions of dollars for all of these types of lawsuits. What is it and how does it work, you ask? Excellent question, I'll get to it right now, but if you're too busy or lazy to read on click here to get the bullet pointed version.

RICKROLLED SON!!! I've got to get those in while I can before YouTube starts pulling his videos. Geez, people will pull even the crappiest creative/intellectual properties once it gets popular enough. That almighty dollar…always ruining everyone's good time…

Anyway, back to the law. Gross negligence is a legal doctrine that allows people who have been injured or wronged by the actions or inactions of a tortfeasor, which is a fancy legal word meaning a person whose wrongful act causes injury to another hence the term "tort law." And in tort law there are basically two ways to establish a lawsuit against another party: either through a lawsuit for intentional harm (where someone acts to intentionally hurt you, such as a person punching you in the face) or unintentional harm AKA negligence (where someone's actions accidentally causes you harm). An example of unintentional harm would be someone wanting to punch your friend, who is standing in front of you, in the face and right before the punch hits your friend, he ducks and you get your clock rocked instead. That's negligence in a nutshell.

But what makes it complicated is when this principle is used to assign blame to a mall owner because you fell on a wet floor in their mall. It's also what makes companies like McDonalds and Starbucks put warning labels on their cups of coffee telling you the coffee is hot. In fact it's what makes companies put stupid labels on things, period.

"So how do you assign responsibility to someone who didn't actually cause you harm?" is your next question. I'm psychic, that's how I knew. Basically you go through the five elements of negligence: duty, breach of duty, causation, proximate (foreseeable) causation, and harm. If the lawsuit fulfills each of the elements then you've got a case for negligence.

Take the McDonalds coffee case: the plaintiff there claimed McDonalds had a duty to warn its customers that their coffee was very hot. They breached their duty by not including a warning label. When the woman dropped her coffee, it caused her severe burns, which was a foreseeable consequence of McDonald's failure to warn her that the coffee was hot. This resulted in harm to the plaintiff by way of burns.

Seem very convoluted to you? Well, that's how arguably much of the law works in America. It's also why we have so many frivolous lawsuits in this country. But don't get me wrong, negligence liability is a sound legal doctrine. Without it, travesties like harm from asbestos, polluted water sources, and all other manner of corporate and personal wrongdoing would go uncompensated and unpunished. Negligence lawsuits ensure that things like that don't happen. All I'm saying is, try not to abuse it people.

Silly Lawsuit Alert: Coach Sued for Teaching Poor Slide

"Look before you leap" is a popular phrase used to warn people that they need to be aware of what they are getting into before starting. 

It should also apply to a recent case out of Queens, New York involving a high school softball injury.  Fifteen year old Alina Cerda is suing the City Education Department, her high school, and her high school softball coach for failing to properly instruct her on sliding techniques which, in turn, led to her broken ankle on a failed sliding attempt.  Her argument rests on the school's alleged failure to hire a competent coach and the coach’s negligence in instructing on an aspect of the game. 

Sports are inherently dangerous and because of the potential for a variety of foreseen and unforeseen injuries, it is the participants that should be prepared for them the best they can and not instigate silly lawsuits.  There are, of course, those instances in which a school would be held responsible but most injuries are the result of the individual behavior. 

So, to what extent can a school be held liable for the injuries sustained by players?  LegalMatch provides some instances in which schools have been found liable for injuries:

• permitting injured, unfit, or unequal players to compete

• providing unsafe facilities or equipment

• negligently moving an injured player

• failure to employ a competent coach 
  

• failure to provide proper supervision or training 
  

I think somebody needs to talk to these people about assumption of risk and contributory negligence.  The basic gist of the concept is that an individual voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which he was participating at the time of his injury.  

For instance, sliding into a base is a part of playing baseball or softball and so a player would implicitly assume any risks involved with it.  Getting shot by a gun while playing would not be an aspect a player would be expected to be prepared for.  I think it is totally ridiculous to place all the responsibility of playing a game on the coach, especially at the high school level where there is such a range of athletic abilities.  Hopefully, the judge will see that this case has no merit!