I am SOOOO Mad!

So true that they are afraid of accidents. Just last friday a 10 year old boy hit his head on the bottom at my daughters practice. I called her from my son's meet and she was full of the news of them boarding him and taking him by ambulance to the hospital. Fortunately he was OK. My daughter also hit her head when she was 6. She was working with the coach, I was in the next lane lap swimming. She had done about 10 dives perfectly and the coach asked me to stop and watch her because she was so pleased with her start. I must have jinxed her because she went straight down and hit. Luckily she was only 40 pounds and the water was 5 foot, and she was OK, but it is a very sick feeling to see that and know there is nothing you can do to stop it. I know, a little off the subject, but it is why high dives are being removed and blocks are being removed and now in our town, deep water is being removed from the lap swim. Unfortunately, you take these away, people never learn how to do it.

Originally posted by swimpastor I...... find a way to conquer this litigation-fear-induced insanity yet? Thank you. Yeah.... abolish insurance companies. In other words, unfortunately there's not much you can do about it.

Originally posted by Conniekat8 Yeah.... abolish insurance companies. In other words, unfortunately there's not much you can do about it. Quality suggestion. Yes, get rid of insurance companies so that when facilities are sued and lose, instead of the insurance companies paying the judgement the facilities can pay and subsequently immediately go out of business. The concept of pooling or sharing of risk is what enables many litigation prone businesses from going under in a litigation mad society.

Pastor: First off, say three hail Mary's and absolve yourself of such venemous thoughts regarding Ys. Secondly, you do indeed live adjacent to counties with Masters programs where you can dive off blocks until you are defrocked for activity unbecoming a pastor. There are a ton of practice times around the greater Charlotte area. Send me a private note and we'll get you all happy again.

QUOTE]Originally posted by swimpastor I Anyone find a way to conquer this litigation-fear-induced insanity yet? Thank you. Change the law so the loser of the lawsuit has to pay for the winner's legal fees. Historically, BTL, this is what happened. End of silly lawsuits.....

Old Dog, Apparently you have never been in the position of someone with little to no resources having been harmed by a wrongdoer with massive resources. Most trial lawyers I know, including myself, are proud to fight for the disadvantaged, knowing that we are only compensated when we prevail. my $0.02 carl botterud

Originally posted by botterud Old Dog, Apparently you have never been in the position of someone with little to no resources having been harmed by a wrongdoer with massive resources. Most trial lawyers I know, including myself, are proud to fight for the disadvantaged, knowing that we are only compensated when we prevail. my $0.02 carl botterud A change in the law as I suggested would not preclude you from doing what you do.....it would make a lawyer think twice about taking up frivolous lawsuits that represent nothing more than "Legal lottery"..."let's sue and see if we can get lucky"... sueing McDonalds for hot coffee... sueing the Y for having starting blocks...the disappearance of diving boards all across the USA...I know you know of all the abuse...things need to be changed.

I don't know of any Y sued due to an injury off of a starting block. I'd venture that the insurance carrier while collecting huge premiums demands that the Y eliminate that activity, and others, to reduce it's own risk and build profits . . . all the while blaming trial lawyers. Are there frivilous lawsuits? Sure, but they are few and far between based on my first hand experience in the trenches. As for the mythical "coffee" canard, set forth below are the true, verifiable facts, as posted on the Public Citizen website: Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case In 1992 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive-through McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar when the hot coffee spilled out on her lap causing third-degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks. This infamous casehas become a leading rallying point for those advocating restrictions on the ability of consumers to use the_U.S. civil justice system to hold corporations accountable for the injuries they cause. A New Mexico jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages and, in an instant, the media and legal communities were up in arms. Newspaper headlines such as “Hot cup of coffee costs $2.9 million,”or “Coffee Spill Burns Woman; Jury Awards $2.9 Million”painted the picture of a “runaway jury,” an unreasonable award and a perverted system of justice. However, both the media and those who want to take away consumers’ legal rights conveniently overlooked the facts of the case, creating a “legal myth,” a poster-case for corporate entities with a vested interest in limiting the legal rights of consumers. The Facts A detailed look at the facts of this case reveal that in light of McDonalds’ actions, the awards were justified: By its own corporate standards, McDonald’s sells coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. A scientist testifying for McDonald’s argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third degree burns. However, a doctor testifying on behalf of Ms. Liebeck noted that it takes less than three seconds to produce a third degree burn at 190 degrees. During trial, McDonald’s admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s received more than 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee; some of the injured were children and infants. Many customers received severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks.In addition, many of these claims were settled, amounting to more than $500,000. Witnesses for McDonald’s testified that consumers were not aware of the extent of danger from coffee spills served at the company’s required temperature. McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers and could offer no explanation as to why it did not. As a result of her injuries, Ms. Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years.Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald’s about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000.McDonald’s countered with a ludicrously low $800 offer. McDonald’s had several other chances to settle the case before trial: At one point, Liebeck’s attorney offered to settle for $300,000. In addition, days before the trial, the judge ordered both sides into a mediated settlement conference where the mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald’s settle for $225,000._ McDonald’s refused all attempts to settle the case. The Findings The jury found that Ms. Liebeck suffered $200,000 in compensatory damages for her medical costs and disability. The award was reduced to $160,000 since the jury determined that 20 percent of the fault for the injury belonged with Ms. Liebeck for spilling the coffee. Based on its finding that McDonald’s had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the jury then awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages; essential to the size of the award was the fact that at the time McDonald’s made $1.35 million in coffee sales daily. Since the purposes of awarding punitive damages are to punish the person or company doing the wrongful act and to discourage him and others from similar conduct in the future, the degree of punishment or deterrence resulting from a judgment is in proportion to the wealth of the guilty person.Punitive damages are supposed to be large enough to send a message to the wrongdoer; limited punitive awards when applied to wealthy corporations, means the signal they are designed to send will not be heard. The trial court refused to grant McDonald’s a retrial, finding that its behavior was “callous.” The judge, however, announced in open court a few days after the trial that he would reduce the punitive damages award to $480,000.Both sides appealed the decision. Before the appeals could be heard the parties reached an out-of-court agreement for an undisclosed amount of money. As part of this settlement, McDonald’s demanded that no one could release the details of the case. Based on the facts, Corporate America’s and much of the media’s trivial portrayal of the case is deceptive and disgraceful. They have painted a misleading picture of a “legal horror story” when in fact, the case demonstrates a legal system that punishes corporations for misconduct and protects consumers who may be victims of their wrongdoing. Note: The nature of the private settlement and lack of public court documents resulted in the use of primarily newspaper sources. November 30, 1999 . _ _Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, No. CV-93-02419, 1995 (N.M. Dist. Aug. 18, 1994). . “Hot cup of coffee costs $2.9 million; Damages awarded to woman scalded at McDonald’s.” The Orange_County_Register, Aug. 19, 1994, at C1. . _ _“Coffee Spill Burns Woman; Jury Awards $2.9 Million,” Wall Street Journal, Aug. 19, 1994, at B3. . _ _Gerlin, Andrea, “A Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided McDonald’s Should Pay a Woman Millions for a Hot-Coffee Spill,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 1, 1994, at A1. .__ _ Morgan, S. Reed, “Verdict Against McDonald’s is Fully Justified,” The National Law Journal, Vol. 17 No. 8;_Oct. 24, 1996, at A20. . _ _Gerlin, supra note 4, at A4. . _ _Morgan, S. Reed, “McDonald’s Burned Itself,” The Legal Times, Sept. 19, 1994, pg. 26. . _ _Morgan, supra note 5, at A20. . _ _Sherowski, Elizabeth, “Hot Coffee, Cold Cash: Making the Most of Alternative Dispute Resolution in High Stakes Personal Injury Lawsuits,” 11 Ohio_St. J. on Disp. Resol. 521, 1996. “McDonald’s Settles Lawsuit of Woman Burned by Coffee,” Liability Week, Vol. 9 No. 47;_Dec. 5, 1994.__ . Gerlin, supra note 4, at A4. _ _Morgan,_supra note 5, at A20. . Morgan, supra note 7, pg. 26. . § 908 (a); § 908 (e) Punitive Damages, Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, American Law Institute (1979) . Morgan, supra note 5, pg. 26. . Howard, Theresa, “McDonald’s Settles Coffee Suit in Out-of-Court Agreement,” Nation’s Restaurant News, Dec. 12, 1994, pg. 1. carl

It helps to know the building manager well. I have gone to her, told her I need block practice, and she has told the guards that I can do block starts at low pool usage time. Build a relationship with the people at the facility that can help you, and you may be able to get around the rule.

Originally posted by botterud I'd venture that the insurance carrier while collecting huge premiums demands that the Y eliminate that activity, and others, to reduce it's own risk and build profits . . . all the while blaming trial lawyers. Oops, sorry. I guess it is the fault of insurance companies and "Corporate America". I'm sure they don't hire hot shot trial lawyers who stand to gain millions for their victories... Something has to change.......