Court: Hockey-Stick Injury Could Be Considered an Accident

January 10, 2008

  • January 10, 2008 at 2:45 am
    Calif ExPat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    SAFECO is going to get creamed on this – they should have settled w/in Policy limits – the Child of Tender Years concept will sink them

  • January 10, 2008 at 3:15 am
    Eli says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Kudos to Daniel. I’ll bet old Caleb won’t ever shoot his mouth off again. Nobody should have to put up with harassment particularly at a juvenile skill camp where he was trying to improve himself. This was an intentional act regardless of the severity of injury and should not be covered.

  • January 10, 2008 at 3:23 am
    Hank says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree on both counts. Shoot your mouth off and pay the price. At any age! And he may not have meant to hit the kid in the head, but he INTENTIONALLY swung his stick. I think both will learn a good lesson from this.

  • January 10, 2008 at 4:26 am
    Actuarial_girl says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “A key issue: Did Daniel, the boy who swung the stick, believe he was going to seriously hurt Caleb?”

    My thought: Did Caleb, the boy who teased for 3 days, believe he was going to seriously hurt Daniel?

    If so, then he should have to deal with the circumstances. He spent three days of teasing Daniel…kids are even more cruel these days…and inviting others to join in — and he didn’t expect the kid to retaliate somehow? Yeah right.

  • January 10, 2008 at 4:40 am
    Good Hands says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Safeco will sink on this one for MANY reasons. First, tort law does not ascribe near the intent to an 8 year old it does to an adult; inability to guage the outcome. Second, he intended to hit the shoulder pad and missed; the definition of an accident. Third, he intended to hit Caleb but did not intend to cause the level of injury he did; the serious injury was an UNintended consequence.
    They should have settled. Period.

  • January 10, 2008 at 6:02 am
    KOB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Is Daniel at the “Age of reason”? can he be held liable for his acts? Now, when the NHL promotes fights/brawls, rough hits into the boards, and even gives just a 5-minute penalty for high-sticking, no wonder a kid believes that it is part of the game (even in the locker room). Hey, I just put on my Pltf. Atty hat and believe I can make a case against the NHL, as a bad influence on the “yutes” of today.

  • January 10, 2008 at 6:48 am
    Nebraskan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t have too much to add…i was just suprised the parents suing were only asking for the policy limits. i know we all post on here how tired we are of our letigous (did i spell that right?) society, but at least these folks aren’t money hungry and were willing to accept an amount that was outrageous. i actually found that to be a positive in this article…call me crazy! lol…

  • January 10, 2008 at 6:50 am
    Nebraksan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sorry, meant to say at least these parents were willing to accept an amount that WASN’T outrageous and would make them multi-millionaires (adults suing churches for millions due to abuse when they were children will hopefully learn something from this!!)

  • January 11, 2008 at 8:59 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Spoken like a true actuary. The fact of the matter is that the kid appropriately acted in retaliation for Caleb being a jerk and harassing him. The notion he intened to hit him “on the shoulder pads” was obviously invented and implanted by his defense attorney. When your _issed off and fed up with some jerk and decide to swing at him with a hockey stick you intend to hurt him, not just hear the click of a stick on his pads. That would only make things worse. The fact that he may not have “intended” to injure him so severely is BS. There was no “foreseeability” there but the fact remains, he wanted to send a message. Safeco made the right call to deny. Unfortunately, our lovely legal system will again prostitute the process to get some money for kid and his parents.

  • January 11, 2008 at 9:06 am
    ernie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m curious about whether or not the operators of the hockey camp were brought in on this. Seems like three days of harrassment that wasn’t stopped sounds like some degree of negligence on their part.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*