Would you sue?

[SeaCat]

A Staten Island teen learned the hard way that texting and walking can be just as dangerous as texting and driving.

Alexa Longueira, 15, was walking with a friend and was texting when she fell down an uncovered sewer manhole on Victory Boulevard in Travis on Wednesday, according to the Staten Island Advance. She fell down the open hole with sewage at the bottom, suffering some scrapes on her arms and back.

"It was 4 or 5 feet, it was very painful. I kind of crawled out and the DEP guys came running and helped me," Longueria recounted to the Advance. "They were just, like, 'I'm sorry! I'm sorry!"

The Department of Environmental Protection said workers had left the manhole unattended for just a moment to get some cones from the truck, but the agency was doing a full investigation.

"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.

Workers are supposed to block off worksites or mark them with warning signs.

The Susan E. Wagner High School sophomore was look at by doctors at Staten Island University hospital and released.

However, the girl's family says they are filing a lawsuit, though on what grounds is still unclear. Her mother, Kim Longueira, argues the fact that her daughter was walking and texting is irrelevant, and, while luckily the sewer was not full at the time, the ‘gross' factor still can't be ignored.

"Oh my God, it was putrid," she said. "One of her sneakers is still down there."

(Taken from the New York Daily News)

Now I admit that the D.E.P. is liable because they hadn't put up the cones before they opened the hole. However what about the girls liability?

Would you sue in this case? On what grounds?

Cat

 

[glynndah]

For recovery of medical bills, yes, because the workers should have put up the barriers. Texting really doesn't enter into it. However, adding pain and suffering on top of that, no. She should have exercised a "reasonable amount" of caution, too.

 

[Liar]

If I was an uncovered sewer manhole, I'd sue the kid.

Why is anyone but you resposible for when you don't watch where you're going?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Its culpable negligence by DEP. They knew or shoulda known that opening the manhole created a safety hazard.

 

[michchick98]

Where was the friend she was walking with? Yeah, there was negligence on the part of the DEP, but what about her friend saying, "Hey, dumbass, watch where you're walking!"

Okay, so maybe not quite those words. I agree with glyndah. Sue for the cost of medical care, but nothing more. The mother should be also questioning why her daughter was so careless.

I think there's liability on all parties involved.

 

[DesertPirate]

Nobody is responsible for their own actions anymore, it's ALWAYS someone elses fault!
Seems to apply both ways here!
A true celebration of stupidity.

 

[Trudy_Antone]

Absolutely 100% DEP's fault. These people are drilled in Occupational Health and Safety procedures and failed to do their job. They created the hazard and are liable for the consequences.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with not taking responsibility for her own actions. What if she had been a blind person, an elderly person, a young child? Had she walked in to a pole, yes, but a hole in the ground that wasn't supposed to be there?

 

[TE999]

She has a case on DEP and they should pay her medical bills, period...she was careless...they were negligent. I'm sure the lawsuit will include recompense for such twaddle as 'pain and suffering' and 'emotional distress'...the mantra of every slip and fall lawyer in the US.

No damn wonder insurance and health care costs are so high...we need tort reform, then health care reform.

 

[Handley_Page]

The stupid kid should have looked where she was going.
There's a large measure of personal responsibility involved.
And what was her friend doing the while ?

If the accident had happened to a blind person, yes, I think there would be a case to argue,
but 15 year old kid should know enough to watch where she's going !

 

[michchick98]

Absolutely 100% DEP's fault. These people are drilled in Occupational Health and Safety procedures and failed to do their job. They created the hazard and are liable for the consequences.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with not taking responsibility for her own actions. What if she had been a blind person, an elderly person, a young child? Had she walked in to a pole, yes, but a hole in the ground that wasn't supposed to be there?

But again, she was with someone. Couldn't the person with her have said something? The blind person or the elderly person or the young child you use as examples more than likely would've had someone with them and, therefore, that someone would've warned them of the potential danger.

 

[glynndah]

But again, she was with someone. Couldn't the person with her have said something? The blind person or the elderly person or the young child you use as examples more than likely would've had someone with them and, therefore, that someone would've warned them of the potential danger.

Two fifteen year old girls walking together? Really?

 

[Weird Harold]

But again, she was with someone. Couldn't the person with her have said something? ...

Two fifteen year old girls walking together? Really?

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the friend everyone thinks should have warned was the person she was texting with. or at least texting also.

 

[SumLightCat]

Seriously, if you don't have the common sense to watch where you put your feet, then gods help you. And no, she should be laughed out of court and the time and money spent on something useful. Like recycling.

 

[penandpaper]

Although, I agree we're responsible for our actions - let's take a different scenario. Let's say they were backing a truck up and hit her. Would everyone here who thinks she is completely at fault still say she's at fault. In my opinion, it's the same thing. They are both liable. One has to be aware of the surroundings, and a worker has to be aware of the people going in and out of the environment he's working in.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

She is partially at fault, I agree. But people are getting too hung up on her texting to realize that the D.E.P. workers screwed up. It is their job to put up all warning devices before they create a hazardous environment. They failed at their duties, and I think that anyone hurt by their incompetence should be duly compensated. What if the girls had just been gabbing with each other, sharing a laugh, completely distracted just by their own company? People injure themselves in this manner all of the time. We don't judge them so harshly do we? Well, some of us do, but we shouldn't.

I feel that she should be owed medical expenses plus 10%. Not an outrageous amount, hopefully (unless the hospital overcharges again).

 

[SimonBrooke]

For recovery of medical bills, yes, because the workers should have put up the barriers. Texting really doesn't enter into it. However, adding pain and suffering on top of that, no. She should have exercised a "reasonable amount" of caution, too.

You know, I couldn't disagree more strongly. People ought to take responsibility for themselves, not try to duck it at every opportunity. The kid is clearly a walking Darwin Award wannabe.

 

[Liar]

She is partially at fault, I agree. But people are getting too hung up on her texting to realize that the D.E.P. workers screwed up. It is their job to put up all warning devices before they create a hazardous environment.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I don't consider a fully visible, easily seen and avoidable, big, circular hole in the pavement a hazardous environment.

Unless my mode of transportation is a unicycle. And I'm going backwards.

 

[sadangel]

For recovery of medical bills, yes, because the workers should have put up the barriers. Texting really doesn't enter into it. However, adding pain and suffering on top of that, no. She should have exercised a "reasonable amount" of caution, too.

This in my opinion. She should have been more observant of where she was and what was going on around her though. That's just my take.

 

[sadangel]

The stupid kid should have looked where she was going.
There's a large measure of personal responsibility involved.
And what was her friend doing the while ?

If the accident had happened to a blind person, yes, I think there would be a case to argue,
but 15 year old kid should know enough to watch where she's going !

The thing is, most blind people would have avoided the hole, because those using seeing eye dogs, will be warned by the dog. Those using canes, will notice there is no tap-tap before taking another step. Those with someone, usually the person is very observant of what is surrounding them.

My mother's husband of 9 years is blind and is able to avoid many things that seeing people seem to stumble on in their lack of being aware of their surroundings.

The girls, both of them, should have been more aware. That doesn't take away from the responsibility of the workers and how things should have been handled before hand with proper caution signs and cones. But the girl needs to accept her part of the responsibility of her falling into the man hole.

 

[Katyusha]

Maybe I'm nuts, but I don't consider a fully visible, easily seen and avoidable, big, circular hole in the pavement a hazardous environment.

Unless my mode of transportation is a unicycle. And I'm going backwards.

I agree...it's not like the "wet floor" signs, where no matter how much you're watching you may not be able to tell that the floor is wet and slippery if the warning cones aren't there.

I've noticed that nobody here is talking whether or not the workers should face some punishment by DEP and how severe it should be. The investigation into the incident is likely to determine whether this was a case of sheer negligence by the workers or if something more was going on, but regardless of what's turned up, they do need to be disciplined by their organization for failing to perform a required duty of the job.

What I'm NOT understanding in this discussion is the idea that the lawsuit should go through but the girl must also take responsibility for her actions. How, if the guys are court-ordered to pay her bills (and maybe a little more, as a few have stated), is she to be held responsible for her negligence in the situation?

I think the way this ought to be handled is for DEP to punish their guys according to whatever guidelines they have set up, and for the girl to pay her parents back for the medical bills, either with her allowance or with pay from a job if she has one. If she has neither? Work it off around the house.

And before anybody throws out more "what ifs," such as "what if she'd been more seriously injured or killed," understand that the punishment needs to fit the situation. "What ifs" can be bandied about until Mars crashes into us and it won't change what ACTUALLY happened. People should not be punished according to "what ifs." But, for those who want to ask more "what ifs," consider this one: what if the cones HAD been out and she tripped over one and fell into the manhole, all due to not watching where she was going?

 

[Edward Teach]

The DEP seems clearly negligent. Their policy is to put cones out before opening a hazzard and they didn't.

Texting doesn't matter.

Maybe the girl was even distracted by the worker getting the cones, maybe she thought she had an emergency message, maybe she thought she was being followed, maybe her eyesight is bad from texting all the time, maybe a thousand things.

Nothing trumps the DEP being negligent.

 

[michchick98]

Although, I agree we're responsible for our actions - let's take a different scenario. Let's say they were backing a truck up and hit her. Would everyone here who thinks she is completely at fault still say she's at fault. In my opinion, it's the same thing. They are both liable. One has to be aware of the surroundings, and a worker has to be aware of the people going in and out of the environment he's working in.

That's essetially what I'm trying to say. I wasn't excusing the carelessness of either the girl who fell or the DEP, I am simply saying that all parties involved are liable for the accident in some way or another.

 

[DesertPirate]

She has a case on DEP and they should pay her medical bills, period...she was careless...they were negligent. I'm sure the lawsuit will include recompense for such twaddle as 'pain and suffering' and 'emotional distress'...the mantra of every slip and fall lawyer in the US.

No damn wonder insurance and health care costs are so high...we need tort reform, then health care reform.

An open season on trial lawyers would have a greater effect on the good of this country than anything else.

 

[Boxlicker101]

As I see it, the DEP was negligent, because they should have had signs up. At the same time, the girl was also guilty of conrtibutory negligence.

 

[XsnowbunnyX]

I get it, the DEP was negligent. At the same time, this child clearly needs life assistance. She's not a baby. She needs to learn how to look where she's going. As far as I can see, since the DEP was in the process of getting the cones when she fell, it shouldn't be a case. The little girl needs to take responsibility for herself.

Damn this American generation.