Girls sued for delivering cookies

I'm sorry but America is weird. I've heard of suing at the drop of the hat but never thought it actually happened. I mean, come on. They were being good Samaritans and "right neighbourly" and they get sued over it?!

Quote:

---

Source: CNN

Friday, February 4, 2005 Posted: 4:15 PM EST (2115 GMT)

DURANGO, Colorado (AP) -- Two teenage girls who surprised their neighbors with homemade cookies late one night were ordered to pay nearly $900 in medical bills for a woman who says she was so startled that she had to go to the hospital.

Judge Doug Walker declined Thursday to award punitive damages, saying he did not believe the girls acted maliciously.

Taylor Ostergaard, 17, and Lindsey Jo Zellitti, 18, baked the chocolate chip and sugar cookies one night last July.

They made packages with a half-dozen cookies each and added large red or pink construction-paper hearts that carried the message, "Have a great night."

The notes were signed with their first initials: "Love, The T and L Club."

Then they set off to make their deliveries.

Wanita Renea Young, 49, said she was at her rural home south of Durango around 10:30 p.m. when she said saw "shadowy figures" outside the house banging repeatedly on her door.

She yelled, "Who's there?" but no one answered, and the figures ran away.

Frightened, she spent the night at her sister's home, then went to the hospital the next morning because she was still shaking and had an upset stomach.

The teenagers' families offered to pay Young's medical bills, but she declined and sued, saying their apologies were not sincere and were not offered in person.

The girls declined comment after the ruling. Taylor's mother said the girl "cried and cried."

"She felt she was being punished for doing something nice," Jill Ostergaard said.

Young said the teenagers showed "very poor judgment"

"The victory wasn't sweet," Young said. "I'm not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson."

The teens said they did not answer when the woman called out because they wanted the treats to be a surprise.

---

As the saying goes MsMittens...a good deed never goes unpunished.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry but America is weird. I've heard of suing at the drop of the hat but never thought it actually happened. I mean, come on. They were being good Samaritans and "right neighbourly" and they get sued over it?!

---

Well I gotta tell you that there is no other place I would want to live, however... things have really changed in the last 20 years. :rolleyes:

maybe they made bad cookies, but i would like to try some of their baked goods :-) it was a stupid lawsuit though. and even more stupid that the lady actually won it. what is America coming too?

ATTN: The Texan

Quote:

---

Judge Doug Walker declined Thursday to award punitive damages, saying he did not believe the girls acted maliciously.

---

No damages were awarded...



Brings to mind THIS STORY

bigb - I hate to refute you, but....

Quote:

---

DURANGO, Colorado (AP) -- Two teenage girls who surprised their neighbors with homemade cookies late one night were ordered to pay nearly $900 in medical bills for a woman who says she was so startled that she had to go to the hospital.

---

damages WERE awarded. Punitive damages were not. There's a difference -

Actual damages are the loss incurred by an injured party, and include lost wages, medical bills, property repair costs, etc.

Punitive damages are extra damages awarded at the judge's discretion to cover such intrinsic things as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and other things that cannot directly have a price tag affixed.

Basically the girls had to pay her medical bills.

Now in my mind, this was the prime example of an idiotic lawsuit, but there's a few things that weren't covered in the article which could have bearing, and therefore make the case legitimate. Those things being:

1. The girls delivered the cookies at around 10:30 at night.
Since it was after the supper hour, there's good reason to believe these girls could have been up to no good - and a good lawyer could influence a jury to believe such a thing. The later in the evening it was, the more chance of this happening...and the more chance the 'victim' was scared into such a fright. Understand that little old ladies go to bed before 10:00 pm, and that little teenage girls don't seem to understand this. This is probably why the judge believed there was no malicious intent, but still found for the plaintiff.

2. Did these two girls have any history whatsoever of causing mischief in the neighborhood?
If they had, would you want a known mischief maker coming up to your house in the middle of the night unbidden?

3. Is the neighborhood in question in a high or medium crime area?
If so, there were STRONG grounds for the lady's panic attack.

4. Was the victim bedridden or unable to 'fend for herself' in defense of her home (IE: did she have a gun, or was she capable of taking care of a dog, or picking up the phone and calling 911?)
If the victim was unable this strengthens her case. If she was able and had such means available to her, it weakens it.

5. Did the victim in question have a history of panic attacks or panic calls to 911?
If the victim had a documented history of panic attacks, her case is again strengthened. If she had a long history of 'crying wolf' to the police, the victim's credibility is weakened.

See what I'm digging at here? What the girls were accused of doing and what they were actually doing might have been two entirely different things...in this case they most likely were trying to do something nice for their neighbor, however the 'little old victim lady' went into such a panic that she incurred medical expenses at the actions of these two young ladies. The young ladies should bear the liability imho, and the judgement was sound, as stupid as this entire lawsuit was.

Now that's much better...stick to the facts...I have to agree for the most part with l3lacklce...although it was a good deed...and it was a stupid lawsuit...the girl's made one mistake, which wasn't apparent till l3lacklce brought it up...

as a Charity Co-Ordinator myself it is frowned upon to knock on doors or phone or solicit in any manner after 9 pm, in fact, some communities have bi-laws against it...if it had been at 6 pm rather than 10:30 pm the girl's probably wouldn't even have to cover the medical...I think the hour is what did them in.

I hope the old hag gets mugged and robbed while her neighbors
look the other way "not wanting to get involved"

Why do you think no one wants to help a stranger in distress any more?
If a tornado knocks her house down, she'd prolly sue the rescue squad
for trespassing. Nasty old witch.
:cool:

Quote:

---

Understand that little old ladies go to bed before 10:00 pm, and that little teenage girls don't seem to understand this.

---

She's 49, that hardly qualifies her for "little old lady" status.

Quote:

---

2. Did these two girls have any history whatsoever of causing mischief in the neighborhood?
If they had, would you want a known mischief maker coming up to your house in the middle of the night unbidden?

---

Now, I don't know for certain...but teen-age girls who are at home on a weekend night baking cookies to surprise their neighbors with don't neccesarily fit the profile of most teen delinquents.

The girls wanted it to be a surprise, so they did it after dark and didn't answer when called to. It may not have been the best judgement call ever, but nothing to sue over. They're teen-agers, they're meant to have bad judgement. At least theirs came in the form of delivering surprise cookies at 10:30, not driving drunk or something.

And the girls parents offered to pay the old b*tches medical bills to begin with.

She'd never get away with it here...it's very hard to win even a good lawsuit in Canada...and judge's aren't inclined to award big paydays even if you do win. I've heard of cases here where someone won a lawsuit and ended up owing money...and it's not uncommon.

Like I said...the girl's made one bad judgment call...wrong time...and the woman took advantage and tried to milk it for what she could...personally she shouldn't have gotten anything and should have apologised to the girls...but what can you expect when everytime you turn on an American T.V. station you see a lawyer telling you how much money they can get you if you sue. Up until very recently, lawyers, doctors, etc...weren't even allowed to advertise their services in Canada.

As for l3lacklce...I think he was just trying to play the devil's advocate...I don't think he was suggesting that they might be true...or at least that was my impression.

Quote:

---

As for l3lacklce...I think he was just trying to play the devil's advocate.

---

I don't think Ice takes second fiddle to ANYBODY :D

But the rest of Eg's post makes perfect sense to me :

Damn it, it must be time for me meds .......... I'm agreeing with people

Has anyone seen my meds : Doh: :drink:

In that case...if he wasn't playing the devil's advocate, as I assumed...I'll have to ammend my previous comment, on my second post, from: for the most part I have to agree with l3lacklce...to: for the most part I do not agree with l3lacklce.

Eg
:D

P.S. Thanks ! I don't usually get to the agreement stage that quick...it usually takes a few pages first. ;) :D

Apparently the judge did see the time of night as being the major factor...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...odd_cookies_dc

I dont see why anyone is surprised about the case. If you are allowed to sue a resturant for you being obiese why not sure teenagers for delivering cookies? There have benn so many similiar case in the US it is no longer funny. I half expest that if you tried to help someone being mugged you would probably be sued by the muggers as you attacked them first. Actually wasnt there a case like that about a burgaler who sued and won after the person who owned the house he was burgaling threaten him with a gun? I am just waiting for the first case where someone sues a co-worker for giving him the flue.

What about the guy who sued Starbucks because he got his thingy squished claiming that the seat lid moved and caught it while trying to take a number two...he won too !!! :eek:

Quote:

---

I don't think Ice takes second fiddle to ANYBODY

---

Thanks for the vote of confidence Mr. Fox.

In fact, I was doing nothing more than objectively reviewing the case, offering up my thoughts to Mrs. |ce, who 'lawyerized them' and then placing the whole bundle here. Any attorney will look at both sides of his argument in order to win his case. These mitigating circumstances might have given justification to, what we here in the |ce household felt at least, an otherwise completely assenine case.

49 DOES count as 'little old lady' Deb, much as I hate to admit it. (Mrs |ce and I are rapidly approaching that age as well, although she's closer to it than I am... and officially we admit to no older than 39. It was 29 up until last year but it became physically impossible for our eldest son to be 21 then, so we adjusted accordingly. For heaven's sake, we could be Grandparents by now).

Oh, and back to ya again Deb, you'd be amazed at what mischief two young ladies can cook up in the kitchen even on a weekend night. They could've been grounded and playing with exlax cookies or somesuch... Again, lawyerizing, so don't take that too seriously. My demon-teen (now 19) stepson quite often was found spending Friday and Saturday evenings at home, and was also quite often found helping neighbors with this or that task about their households. Unfortunately, he was also found carrying a neighbor's 52 inch teevee across a meadow one bright, sunny morning to sell to support his drug habit. He now lives in the pen, having turned felon at age 18.

Egaladeist -

Quote:

---

I have to agree for the most part with l3lacklce...

---

Quote:

---

I'll have to ammend my previous comment, on my second post, from: for the most part I have to agree with l3lacklce...to: for the most part I do not agree with l3lacklce.

---

Thou Waffler! Have faith in the |ceman, lest thou become perceived as 'sucking up to the winner, or worse, being French (French Canadian perhaps?).'
Quite frankly, I agree 100 percent with RCGreen's response. The woman's a complete nutter, as are the lawyers and judges involved in her case. I hope it hails all over her (uninsured) car and she tries to sue God. Of course, with her luck, she'd probably win... :rolleyes:

Maybe the judge figured this was how Martha Stewart got started and wanted to put an end to it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by |3lack|ce

Egaladeist -



Thou Waffler! Have faith in the |ceman, lest thou become perceived as 'sucking up to the winner, or worse, being French (French Canadian perhaps?).'
Quite frankly, I agree 100 percent with RCGreen's response. The woman's a complete nutter, as are the lawyers and judges involved in her case. I hope it hails all over her (uninsured) car and she tries to sue God. Of course, with her luck, she'd probably win.. [/B]

---

Thou Waffler...I am Not :D As I said...I thought you were just being a Devil's Advocate...and later I ammended it taking it into consideration that foxyloxley has known you longer than me...but now you have again, for the most part, confirmed my original statement...as more facts become available I reserve the right to change my stand again...see...that's what happens when you watch too many political debates ! :D

Irish-Scottish Canadian...explains why I like to argue...eh ? :D

I bet granny is a liberal. :D Durango is a "small" town and fairly secluded. Maybe it did scare the hell out of her. But court damages? Idiotic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by |3lack|ce
bigb - I hate to refute you, but....

---

Refute away, I stand corrected. Thanks. :cool:

And to prove that you can make a competition out of ANYTHING :
I give you this excerpt from the 'Stella Awards' :

Quote:

---

The "Stella" Awards rank up there with the Darwin awards. Stella Liebeck.
The 81-year-old lady, who spilled coffee on herself, and sued McDonald's.

This case inspired an annual award for the most frivolous lawsuit in the U.S.

The following are this year's nominees:

1. January 2000: a jury of her peers awarded Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas. $780,000 after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler, who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little bastard was Ms. Robertson's son.

2. June 1998: 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical
expenses when his neighbour ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman
apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car, when he was trying to steal his neighbour’s hubcaps.

3. October 1998: Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania was leaving a house
he had just finished robbing, by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation; Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance, claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed, to the tune of half a million dollars.

4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas was awarded $14,500
and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbour’s beagle. The beagle was on a chain in a fenced-in yard. The award was less than the amount sought, because the jury felt the dog might have been provoked at the time by Mr. Williams, who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 because she slipped on a beverage and broke
her tailbone. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her
boyfriend 30 seconds earlier, during an argument.

6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighbouring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies' room, to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 in dental expenses.

AND, THE WINNER IS.....

7. And the winner is: Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City. In November 2000
Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip on the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he couldn't actually do this. He was awarded
$1,750,000 and a new Winnie.
(Winnebago actually changed their handbooks because of this court case, just in case there are any other complete morons buying their vehicles.)

---

Double check those: http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp Sometimes those that are truly outrageous are in fact outrageous. It's interesting how much stock we put into what we read on the Internet. Highlighted here: http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=264714

Quote:

---

As I said...I thought you were just being a Devil's Advocate...and later I ammended it taking it into consideration that foxyloxley has known you longer than me...

---

What I MEANT by that was [allegedly] humourous :)

Sorry Eg :

apologies for the double post, but it wasn't really an edit option


[edit]
Jeez MsM, were you WAITING for someone to post the Stella link :)

Again not really an edit option, but I'd run out of post whore excuses

You should have an edit option. It lasts for 1440 minutes. (24 hours) .. and I'm a fast typist. :D

Hi foxyloxley,

That's what I thought...I was joking too...that's why I put so many :D in those two posts. :D

This whole lawsuit is really, really, stupid. Why not sue the maker of the door because enough soundproofing materials were not included during manufacturing so that a knock on the door could not wake up a sleeping resident? Why not sue the makers of the window because the glass was not made with dark dyes, thereby preventing shadows being seen by highly exciteable residents?

If it was me, I would countersue the old hag for not being a vegiterian (probability here), because if she had not been a glutonous meat eating carnivore then her heart would be healthier, and I would not be experiencing mental anguish and suffering caused by the ole biddys trip to the hospital.