Thread: “They were just, like, ‘I’m sorry! I’m sorry!”

When I saw this article, it reminded me of this thread: http://straightrazorpalace.com/conve...ral-grump.html

I guess textspeak is more dangerous than some of us previously imagined:
------------------------------------------------
Texting Teen Falls Down Manhole

From: Texting Teen Falls Down Manhole - News- msnbc.com

We all know that walking and texting is a tough combination -- but a Staten Island teen learned the hard way when she fell into an uncovered sewer manhole while trying to send a message.Now, the family of Alexa Longueira, 15, intends to sue.
The girl suffered a fright and some scrapes on her arms back after she dropped into the hole on Victory Boulevard.


"It was four or five feet, it was very painful. I kind of crawled out and the DEP guys came running and helped me," Longueria told the Staten Island Advance.. "They were just, like, 'I'm sorry! I'm sorry!"
For its part, the Department of Environmental Protection said its workers had turned away briefly to grab some cones when the incident occurred.
"We regret that this happened and wish the young woman a speedy recovery," DEP spokeswoman Mercedes Padilla said in a statement. She added that crews were flushing a high-pressure sewer line at the time.
The girl was checked out at Staten Island University Hospital and released.
Sewer line workers are supposed to cut off pedestrian access to work sites or at least mark them with warning signs.
The family said they will file a lawsuit -- for what, though, is not immediately clear. Her mother, Kim Longueira, said it doesn't matter that her daughter was walking and texting, and also, the 'gross' factor that can't be ignored.
"Oh my God, it was putrid," she said. "One of her sneakers is still down there"

Suing? If I sued for every stupid thing I had ever done...

There really should have been barriers up & maybe a fella keeping a watch, but she really should have been paying more attention.
Maybe she'll get run over while reading the cheque on the way to the bank?

What are her damages?

She has none. She can't prove anything other than stupidity.

Originally Posted by singlewedge

What are her damages?

She has none. She can't prove anything other than stupidity.

Agreed. That doesn't mean the city won't settle out of court and write a check for say, $10,000 and call the incident closed rather than pay multiples of that in court even if most likely the case would go nowhere for the girl and her family.

Chris L

Originally Posted by singlewedge

What are her damages?

She has none. She can't prove anything other than stupidity.

Well, damages would be whatever injuries she has. Whether they are her fault or not, or if this claim is actionable, that is another story.

If I remember correctly (BIG if)
Negligence = Duty + breach of duty which causes damages.

Do they have a duty to PHYSICALLY block a manhole (as opposed to simple signage?) If yes....then there is a breach of duty.
Next, did this breach of duty CAUSE the injury? Well, but for their breach (if indeed there is one), she would not have been injured. Then again, but-for her lack of care...she still would not have been injured (is the but-for test onus on the defendant or the plaintiff? I think in tort law, different states can see it differently).

If they do NOT have a duty to block the manhole, but simply putting up cones near it, or a sign, then they might be able to beat it, as this girl would not ahve seen a sign any more than the manhole, right?


Ah, negligence...so confusiong and counterintuitive.

Maybe they should have sent a text or IM? "like, u r totally about to fall into a sewer"

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Negligence = Duty + breach of duty which causes damages.

It seems to me the city has a suit against her for wasting the time of its workers. It was her negligence that caused the injuries when she breached her own duty to look where she was going. I'll bet a blind man or woman would have navigated around it without injury

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

It seems to me the city has a suit against her for wasting the time of its workers. It was her negligence that caused the injuries when she breached her own duty to look where she was going. I'll bet a blind man or woman would have navigated around it without injury

Hey! That was my next post. Get out of my head would you?

I agree that the girl is an idiot, but someone whose car was wrecked for running into an uncovered manhole would be able to sue as well. What the hell is a manhole doing uncovered? To me, this is more negligence on the part of the township and it just so happened that a girl who wasn't paying attention fell into it.

10k sounds about right.


EDIT: and before I get crucified by the anti-text conglomerate, let's just say that it was some kids playing ball or a young child who wandered off. The opportunities for accidents are countless and all could be avoided if somebody had done their job properly.