http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/26/toddlers.claim.ap/index.html

STAMFORD, Connecticut (AP) -- A 2-year-old model and actor who cut his head at a playground is seeking unspecified lost wages and other compensation from the city.

Konrad Mader of Greenwich was running toward a treehouse at a playground November 4 when he crashed into a railing, according to a claim filed last week by his mother and reported Friday by The Advocate of Stamford. The blond toddler received several stitches.

Deena Mader, the boy's mother, did not specify how much she is seeking on behalf of her son.

In a letter to officials, she demanded compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering and a "lost wage amount due to his inability to audition or take modeling or commercial jobs while his head heals."

Mader blamed the boy's injury on a green railing, which she said blends in with the landscaping. Mader said the railing should be painted a brighter color.

"This accident was preventable had the railings and safety measures been correct at this park, " Mader wrote in her claim.

Tom Cassone, the city's director of legal affairs, said his office is investigating the claim.

Joe Falzone, a facilities manager in charge of maintaining city parks, said he is not aware of defects in the playground and there are no plans to make changes.

What a truely f***ed up society they live in.

Solution: lock the mother in jail for violating child labour laws. If they aren't sufficient drag her in front of the UN HRC.

What the f***, kill the mother. People like that should be shot.

sigh

its sad that australia is heading the same way :(

Yeah, obviously she's living through her son... why put the little kid through all this legal crap you greedy whore.

Maybe next time the kid should be rolled in bubble rap so he doesn't hurt himself.

Seriously, why can't people take responsibility for accidents like this.

Oh woops did I mention the 'r' word, sorry.

What a truely f***ed up society they live in.

Huh? What about the Australian guy that sued the council for breaking his ankle or whatever (damn, can't find the article now) - he got something like $35,000 for it from memory?

Sorry, this isn't a problem confined to the US. They just get more money out of it, so try harder. I'm sure a billion of these stupid claims are dismissed every day that never make the papers that would restore your faith in humanity a little bit more.

haha like the kid has any clue about how much money he gets. Oh dear, the mum needs a smack in the head.

f***in a, this is just another one of those cases that could have been avoided if you needed a license to have a child

^^ hear hear

that is just f***ing ridiclous, the mother jus wants more freakin money! maybe the council should sue the mother for not watching her kid properly or sue the kid for being a dumbass

I agree with trog on this one, it aint just their american society, it's YOUR f***ed up WESTERN society aswell.

Glad we agree mate.

Huh? What about the Australian guy that sued the council for breaking his ankle or whatever (damn, can't find the article now) - he got something like $35,000 for it from memory?

Some dude in canberra did the same thing, he was drunk and he ran down a big slippery dip and f***ed himself up. they had to pull the thing down :(

Dads mate is a playground builder and the amount of things he has had to go and remove because its 'unsafe' or someone f***ed themselves up on it. Its real bulls***.

bloody greedy bitch!!!

Sorry, this isn't a problem confined to the US.

But it is more extreme in the US and it is a problem which emerged from the US and influenced Australian culture and society, along with all the other crap which has filtered into our society from the US. Yes, they have provided us with some good things, before your rant starts...

yeah its stupid what people can sue for these days, origanly the laws where in place not to reward stupidity but for peolpe who acctually got hert because of bad condtions ( and hert badly)...but i gess stupidity pays off now....excuse me while i go ram the car in to a pole then sue the council for putting the pole there!!

Its sad the world is heading that way, rarely will you find a person that will take responsibility for their actions... It's always not 100% somones fault.

The law system is so f***ed commonsense wise its not funny :/ Too many stupid rules regulations and laws where people get off on technicalities when its plainly obvious they are guilty!

On the flip side though, with the reforms that the Qld government are trying to bring in (successfully, the Qld parliament might as well be suspended and replaced with a dictatorship at the moment), suing your local council when they really should be held responsible is going to be a lot harder. Compensation through the legal system is designed to bring a person back into the position they would have been in before the wrong was comitted against them.

The system is already in most ways likely to under-compensate the victim. With the reforms, they are bringing in hard limits on payouts etc, so with major injuries you are likely to be a long way out of pocket, and with the new directions to the courts on what they have to consider in deciding if the council should have taken action, it'll be much harder to bring a claim with real merit. Sure, it cuts down on some of the stupid claims, but it'll hurt real people as well.

As a side thing, what CAN make it very easy to sue a council is if you (or someone else) has specifically warned them of a danger. If the child's mother had written to the council about the saftey of the park, saying that the green bar was dangerous, she'd almost certainly be able to get compensation for the medical costs.

The "unspecified future earnings", "pain and suffering" and "puntitive damages" that you hear massive sums being awarded for in US courts are much rarer here. Because the US Constitution guarantees you a jury trial if you are bringing an action for over $20 (A massive sum when written, but obviously they didn't index it to inflation), you can get a jury to hear your case and award the damages - and they love hitting companies hard. Those $20 Million for pain and suffering for getting hit on the head with a shovel in k-mart cases that you hear about on the internet are almost always reduced by at least 90% on appeal - because the appeal is heard by a panel of judges, not a jury. In Qld, you won't get more than about $5K for pain and suffering, no matter how bad it is. "Puntitive damages" are essentially outlawed in Qld now in personal injury cases except in very extreme circumstance (puntitive damages are to "punish" the offender).

Basically, in Australia, the only time really huge payout are awarded is when the medical and care expenses of the person are huge - quadriplegia, profound mental retardation etc - and even then you have to justify everything you are claiming for.

Wow, that became more information than most of you want, I'm sure.

The problem with stories like this is that they never go into any great detail. Its nice to see all of you offering your completely correct opinions about it though.

But from what I read I see nothing wrong with it. If the bar was not easily visible or blended into its environment then the child should be compensated and the bar should be painted.

I agree with trog on this one, it aint just their american society, it's YOUR f***ed up WESTERN society aswell.

it's our problem too, don't pretend australia isn't involved in it, and seeming you live amongst it then it's your problem as well.

I don't think that's in question here Ross. Sure, it sounds like that particular bar may not have been in full view or whatever.

But the fact is, something like this, she should be wanting the $100-odd dollars it cost for her to take her son to the doctor and get a few stitches...

But I can guaran-f***in-tee that knowing society today, she will end up getting about $30,000 out of it, due to "Lost Wages" and "Psychological Trauma". THAT is the f***ing point in question here. I would fully expect to be reimbursed for the doctors fee if it indeed was the other parties fault... but what f***ing lost wages? he's a 2 year old child. The wound will heal in a week, so that if he does *need* to go and model somewhere, it will be easily covered by makeup.

But no, she'll say that her son wasn't able to model for 6 months due to a bump on the head, and claim that the whole "ordeal" was incredibly traumatic for her and her son... so that's easily worth, what? another 30 grand at least!

f***en freeloading whore. I hope she gets everything that's coming to her.

The system is already in most ways likely to under-compensate the victim. With the reforms, they are bringing in hard limits on payouts etc, so with major injuries you are likely to be a long way out of pocket, and with the new directions to the courts on what they have to consider in deciding if the council should have taken action, it'll be much harder to bring a claim with real merit. Sure, it cuts down on some of the stupid claims, but it'll hurt real people as well.

under-compensate?????

a guy who has no drivers linces(think he lost it due to bad drivig) gets drunk one nite loses control of the car on a turn and sues the council and wins i think $3 milion because the road wasnt straight. (cant find the story and not sure bout the amount but it was somthing stupid ike that). how was he under-compensated..more importantly how did that get to court in the first place.if you ask me the judge in that case shoulda been shot for the ruling!! so i think the new laws making harder to sue are good.

under-compensate?????

a guy who has no drivers linces(think he lost it due to bad drivig) gets drunk one nite loses control of the car on a turn and sues the council and wins i think $3 milion because the road wasnt straight. (cant find the story and not sure bout the amount but it was somthing stupid ike that). how was he under-compensated..more importantly how did that get to court in the first place.if you ask me the judge in that case shoulda been shot for the ruling!! so i think the new laws making harder to sue are good.

I think what he was saying is that the government is bringing in some new system where they will under-compensate.

so i think the new laws making harder to sue are good.

i thought ok i meant to also say that thats a good thing they wont pay as much, lets not forget that every time they make a pay-out its coming out of the taxes we pay..i dont pay taxes so that some lazy sob whos stupidity got him f***ed up, get a s*** load of money out of my hard work.

if you ask me the judge in that case shoulda been shot for the ruling!! so i think the new laws making harder to sue are good.

No, the LAWYERS who take up these cases that should be shot (the Judge should always hear whatever case is brought before them impartially). It's the lawyers fault for allowing people to bringing that sort of s*** into court in the first place.

No, the LAWYERS who take up these cases that should be shot (the Judge should always hear whatever case is brought before them impartially). It's the lawyers fault for allowing people to bringing that sort of s*** into court in the first place.

No. you see with the current system the court has to decide if something is worth going to court over, lawyers as much as i hate them, just wanna get paid, its like blameing a teacher for the curriculm. at the end of the day its the courts respossibility to have some sence and realise that something is just not right. although im not saying that the lawyers are completly inocent.

Edit: being impartial if lets say you where the judge in my examle would you have awarded the money? being impartial doesnt mean being stupid, it means use your judgement with out favoring one side to the other.

^^ ok, you have point, though I still think that Lawyers who take on these cases should be penalised in some way (ie, they are not able to receive any payment for services provided by them) I'm pretty certain that we would soon see a dramatic drop off in claims based on peoples stupidity as evolution sorted out the gene pool.

HERMITech i agree the hole "if you dont win you dont pay" thing is stupid it just incoriges people to sue even thogh they arent allowed to advertise it any-more they still have that system. this should be changed and it should be applied only in cases where the person claiming has a really really good reason, but just cant afford lawyer charges.

I agree with trog on this one, it aint just their american society, it's YOUR f***ed up WESTERN society aswell.

Errr, its yours too d*******, you choose to live in it.

how do u know there arnt ppl who take responsibility for f***ing themselves up? cause i can garauntee u wont read about it in a paper - "Man builds more playgrounds just like the one he broke his arms on", ur just not gonna see that in a newspaper or on the net - for all u know just as many ppl take responsibility as those who do stupid s*** like this greedy woman, u just dont hear about them - just hearing about only the greedy ones makes u think that everyone is greedy


oh, and sorry if this has been said - i kinda stopped reading through the thread when ppl started writing heaps :S

Spr1nk1lb0rg0tr0n1lat0r2000xyz

make your name SHORTER!

But from what I read I see nothing wrong with it. If the bar was not easily visible or blended into its environment then the child should be compensated and the bar should be painted.

Based on the information in the article, I disagree because I think that the idea that everything an organisation builds should be built in such a way that a 2-year old can wander around playing without being able to injure itself, is unreasonable. In my opinion the responsibility should rest on the parents when it comes to checking out a public area they are going to allow their 2 year old child to freely play in. 2 year olds hit their heads on things regardless of whether they see them or not - the bar could be neon pink against a black backdrop and it almost certainly would've still happened.

f***in a, this is just another one of those cases that could have been avoided if you needed a license to have a child.

People need licenses to drive yet you still see people doing f***ed up s*** on the roads. Something tell me a parenting license would be the same.

Some dude in canberra did the same thing, he was drunk and he ran down a big slippery dip and f***ed himself up. they had to pull the thing down :(

Boo Big slipery dips rock!

Dads mate is a playground builder and the amount of things he has had to go and remove because its 'unsafe' or someone f***ed themselves up on it. Its real bulls***.

I can see there being a day there wont be any playgrounds, poor kids their f***ed up as it is. Laws are just f***ed up, just running a small event is a pain it the arse with insurance, the few have f***ed it up for the many.

I can see there being a day there wont be any playgrounds, poor kids their f***ed up as it is. Laws are just f***ed up, just running a small event is a pain it the arse with insurance, the few have f***ed it up for the many.

i agree with you, and the problem is that in most cases the laws arent being fixed, and insurance companies are capitalising on it..also the few have become or are becoming many and if laws arent fixed then gone are the days of even going to the park because the insurance will be to high......

maybe im being to pesamistic but you have to admit that is the way things are going.

I can see there being a day there wont be any playgrounds.

In Qld, the laws were recently reformed by the Civil Liability Act 2003. It has a number of sections dealing with suing public authorities, which includes the local councils who are responsible for your playgrounds.

Now you have to show (sorry, I'm quoting from memory here, might not be 100% accurate) that "no reasonable council would have taken the action in question". You have to consider "the limited budget" of the councils, and you can't question the allocation of money (i.e. you can't say "they should have spent more money on the playgrounds and less on the mayor's furniture").

When you take all that into account, it looks like (and no cases have been decided) that it's going to be really tough to sue a council over a playground injury - you'll have to show that no council would have left the green coloured bar unpainted and you can't say "they should have spent the money painting the green bar instead of doing something else" and the council can cry poor and you pretty much can't argue againt them.

Contrary to popular belief, lawyers don't just take up any case. Usually they assess the situation and then decide whether it is worth pursuing (whether it is even a reasonable case in the first place). Honestly, unless the lawyer had lots of money to throw around and time to kill, (or the clients are so upset that they fund it themselves), they will not even consider pursuing it. The more time wasted pursuing a pointless case, the more money is passing by.

So then why are such cases being reported all the time, as if it's some kind of epidemic? It's popular news after all. We never get the full story... Lawyers shouldn't be the main target.

Some dude in canberra did the same thing, he was drunk and he ran down a big slippery dip and f***ed himself up. they had to pull the thing down :(

That (and this thread) reminds me of a slippery dip that was at my old primary school, it was a huge mofo, the top of it would have been 2-3 meters off the ground, coming off a sort of treehouse style thingo, and it was fairly steep. Not one of those pissy little ones that you can look over.
And it was in the lower grades (1-3) play area as well.
Can't imagine something like that being built these days.

anyone remember those really high ones that came in 3 parts on a flatbed truck? at fairs mostly, they were about 10m high at the top and you sat on potato sacks to slide down them. they were so cool, but i haven't seen any of them around for about 2 years now. i wonder if this thread topic has anything to do with it...
btw, that is not meant to be sarcastic. if anyone has seen one, tell me where.

Very true Jim, but I guess the point I was trying to make was, that it doesn't matter how much cash she rightfully deserves, she will throw in all kinds of other s*** like "Pyschological Damage" and just other inane s***, just to make a quick buck.

The sad part is, too many people nowadays see something like this, and don't see "Oh, well I was actually in the wrong", or "Well it IS their fault, so lets make them pay for the damages they caused". They see "oh sweet, my child got injured on THEIR playground, time to get rich quick". Society as a whole, I dont care if you live in America, Australia, England, Germany, France, wherever, the fact is, it's f***ed EVERYWHERE. This isn't an "Only in America" thing. This happens everywhere, and it's times like these where I feel embarassed to call myself a Human Being.

Very true Jim, but I guess the point I was trying to make was, that it doesn't matter how much cashshe rightfully deserves, she will throw in all kinds of other s*** like "Pyschological Damage" and just other inane s***, just to make a quick buck.

she rightfully deserves

she doesnt rightfully deserveany thing far out the kid is 2 friggen years old the kid was gonna hit his head even if as said eariler the bar was nieon pink agianst a black background, the fact is it f***in happend and its a 2 year old so itll probly happen heaps more times is she gona sue evry time the trips or hits its head? for money she rightfully deserves, for all the hard work she didnt do she couldnt even watch the kid ffs!

I was actually just replying to Spr1nk1lb0rg0tr0n1lat0r2000xyzmegadestructatronofdoomandomfgbbq pharcyde =] I didn't have any comment on what she actually deserves, I would have to say that each case would need to be looked at individually when determining what level of compensation to award someone. Some of the demands we hear about in the media sure seem crazy though.

That (and this thread) reminds me of a slippery dip that was at my old primary school, it was a huge mofo, the top of it would have been 2-3 meters off the ground, coming off a sort of treehouse style thingo, and it was fairly steep. Not one of those pissy little ones that you can look over.

u didnt go to freshwater state primary in cairns by anychance did you?

coz thats exactly what they used to have

it was there for ages, but eventually got taken down coz of the obvious risks

we used to hang off it everywhere
no wonder its gone

Nah it was Milton ss in brisbane, the slide is long gone though.

that is almost as f***ed up as people being able to sue pet owners on behalf of the pet ffs.

you can sue for just about any thing any more

Um, so you don't think that if your dangerous dog destroys my property, or eats one of my hypothetical children, that I should be able to recover the cost of fixing my property or buying another child on the black market?

People need licenses to drive yet you still see people doing f***ed up s*** on the roads. Something tell me a parenting license would be the same.

Now, imagine if people didn't need drivers' licenses, and how f***ed up that would be.