Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

[Trevytrev11]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

The thing is it is a legal non-issue, this should quickly be defeated in summary judgment.

What do you mean? Because she is a cop? What if it wasn't a cop-would that be any different? I'm just not quite clear what you are saying. From your previous post, it looks like you're in the law field, so I'm sure you know what your talking about much more than I do, just looking for clarification-thanks.

[MassNole]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

What do you mean? Because she is a cop? What if it wasn't a cop-would that be any different? I'm just not quite clear what you are saying. From your previous post, it looks like you're in the law field, so I'm sure you know what your talking about much more than I do, just looking for clarification-thanks.

Because she is a cop the liability in this case would be non-existent unless the facts of the case were grossly misrepresented or their was some intentional act on the part of the family.

[bsb13]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

...and I say to myself, what a wonderful world.

[fishepa]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

I can't really say I'm surprised.

[Chaos81]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

Wow, I just read this gem from her...."It's a situation where the Cosmillos have caused these problems, brought them on themselves, then tried to play the victim," Heil said."

Never before have I said this, and never again will I likely say this, I hope this bitch gets offed in the line of duty for that comment alone.

Before you wish death on someone because of something you think they said, at least make sure they actually made the comment.

[Trevytrev11]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

Because she is a cop the liability in this case would be non-existent unless the facts of the case were grossly misrepresented or their was some intentional act on the part of the family.

Gotcha...I wasn't aware such a law existed for police officers. Thanks.

[thmst30]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

The court should not even accept this, and instead force her to pay the family for emotional pain. What a ****ing bitch. I am a volunteer fireman, and this goes against everything rescue workers stand for and represent. If I ever met her in person...., well lets just say I probably wouldn't ever be heard from again here.

[davehughes14]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

What a ****ing bitch.

Exactly

[dkgojackets]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

People like this shouldn't be allowed to live in this country. There should be a law against taking advantage of the judicial system, and being a general douche.

[Knight165]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

Because she is a cop the liability in this case would be non-existent unless the facts of the case were grossly misrepresented or their was some intentional act on the part of the family.

Actually MasssNole, you are wrong in this instance(at least here in NYC) and I'm saying you are wrong because you seem to be stating that "because she is a police officer(I won't even call the worst P.O. a "cop") the liability is non-existant.
If you mean that the events seem to preclude that she has no case...than I would agree.
Just because someone is a civil servant, does not mean that anything that might happen to them in the line of duty can be written off to the job title. Not in the slightest.
Now I happen to agree with you guys in this case...it's totally ludicrous for her to even attempt to extend this families grief.
If this was a case that involved negligence....and especially gross negligence that was ongoing, I would say that any civil servant can expect to demand compensation for any serious injury that would alter their life in a negative way.
I can point to a few cases involving the F.D.N.Y. where people who caused injuries and sadly the deaths of fireman here were charged with crimes(and convicted). These were back in the "crack days" when there were vacants and the dealers would use these buildings to sell and have their "customers" use the drugs and in order to defend their turf they would often cut holes in the floor that only they and those coming into the building regularly would know they were there. During a fire cause by careless use of candles in the vacant(which the building was known to have people in regularly although vacant) Lt. of the F.D.N.Y was killed when he fell through the first floor into the basement where he became trapped and overcome by the fire.
The person responsible was convicted of (I'm going to say negligent homicide, but it was more likely manslaughter) and although the family was given a chance to sue...they declined and had the monies confiscated donated to a drug rehabilitation center.
Obviously this instance has nothing at all to do with the facts in this case, but I just wanted to point out that being a civil servant doesn't mean anything goes in regards to the job.......and I think most of the uniformed(a LARGE majority) simply accepts the fact that you could go to work one day and not come home the same person or worse.....leave for work and simply not come home.
This woman should be ashamed of herself IMO. She'll get her 3/4 disability pension and she should just take it and leave those people alone.

M.K.
Knight165

[Trevytrev11]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

...it's totally ludicrous for her to even attempt to extend this families grief.

Just out of curiosity, would you say the same thing if the other family wasn't facing such grief? In other words, if the child turned out to be fine and didn't suffer at all, would it make a difference?

My point is that the officers injury and the families suffering are completely seperate issues. It would be like someone rear-ending you in a car accident and then dying because they didn't wear a seatbelt. Meanwhile, you're seriously injured. Their injury or in this case death, should have no bearing on your injury settlement. Differernt situations, but I'm just trying to make the point that the fact that the child suffered serious injuries, should have no bearing on the fact that the police officer filed a case....as long as it is a vaild case.

So is this a valid case? The officer slipped on water in the house, that was brought there by the family. The officer was responding to a 9-11 call made by the family. What if was a neighebor responding and not a cop? Would it be a different outcome? Is this any different from a person slipping on a wet spot in a grocery store that wasn't marked? What if instead of slipping in water, he was attacked by a dog that the family failed to lock up due to the severity of the situation or tripped and fell in a pot whole that was covered up or something else?

Again, maybe this particular case is a petty one, but what if she was seriously injured?

It seems most arguments are that the officer of a jerk for asking for money for his injuries because of the suffering of the child and I'm saying that the two are seperate...again, if you were seriously injured in an accident that was someone elses fault and that other person ended up dying, are you still not supposed to collect damages owed to you that were a result from the other persons negligence (intentional or not)?

[jim416]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

This woman should be ashamed of herself IMO. She'll get her 3/4 disability pension and she should just take it and leave those people alone.

Exactly. Another person looking for a "deep pocket", not just cops who do this.

One cop, millions of public servants who would NEVER think of this.

This case is going nowheres except to a workman's comp review board.

[Knight165]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

Just out of curiosity, would you say the same thing if the other family wasn't facing such grief? In other words, if the child turned out to be fine and didn't suffer at all, would it make a difference?

My point is that the officers injury and the families suffering are completely seperate issues. It would be like someone rear-ending you in a car accident and then dying because they didn't wear a seatbelt. Meanwhile, you're seriously injured. Their injury or in this case death, should have no bearing on your injury settlement. Differernt situations, but I'm just trying to make the point that the fact that the child suffered serious injuries, should have no bearing on the fact that the police officer filed a case....as long as it is a vaild case.

So is this a valid case? The officer slipped on water in the house, that was brought there by the family. The officer was responding to a 9-11 call made by the family. What if was a neighebor responding and not a cop? Would it be a different outcome? Is this any different from a person slipping on a wet spot in a grocery store that wasn't marked? What if instead of slipping in water, he was attacked by a dog that the family failed to lock up due to the severity of the situation or tripped and fell in a pot whole that was covered up or something else?

Again, maybe this particular case is a petty one, but what if she was seriously injured?

It seems most arguments are that the officer of a jerk for asking for money for his injuries because of the suffering of the child and I'm saying that the two are seperate...again, if you were seriously injured in an accident that was someone elses fault and that other person ended up dying, are you still not supposed to collect damages owed to you that were a result from the other persons negligence (intentional or not)?

This is just me....but no, the outcome of the child should not bear out the officers actions to persue a lawsuit or not.
Someone said it earlier....you gotta be aware of what is going on. You can't blame everything on someone else.
It was an accident......that is what the disability pension is there for...if she is unable to work any longer because of the injury(and I mean at her chosen profession.....not just sending her out to do any job because she cannot perform police work any longer) she should be compensated through that.
Now, if there was negligence involved...something that is a foreseeable accident and was just ignored.....then I could understand if she was seriously injured.
Here's the deal....everyday I go to work, I know what I might come up against. A good deal of the fires I go to are because of someone else being careless, but not to the point of criminality.........someone having candles lit...smoking in bed....even a family that uses space heaters and overloaded power strips...are a cause of a lot of the jobs I go to. Heck, I spent two months in the N.Y.C. Burn Center because a woman left a kitchen towel on her toaster oven(she told the marshals that's how it started and it eventually went to a third alarm and collapsed on us)....careless? Yep....negligent? I don't think so......and I never even thought of suing(talk about pain and suffering.....getting burn tissue scrubbed off blows!) and neither did the guy who was in front of me and caught the brunt of it. That guy lost the top part of both his ears and some nasty burns down his neck and back. Part of the job....
I hate to be a sexist...but she should just "man up".:wink:


M.K.
Knight165

[jim416]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

[b]I hate to be a sexist...but she should just "man up".[]/b]

Let her file a danged workman's comp claim!!! This is ridiculous.

[Knight165]

Re: Damn, just when you think you heard it all.

[b]I hate to be a sexist...but she should just "man up".[]/b]

Let her file a danged workman's comp claim!!! This is ridiculous.

Jim....I'm not familiar with the workman's compensation route.
We don't have that here in N.Y.(for uniformed service) we have unlimited sick leave(no people..., that does not mean I can call in sick as many times as I want really, it has to do with injuries).
At any rate, I was trying to be a little funny there.

M.K.
Knight165