quote:A Colorado judge ordered two teen-age girls to pay about $900 for the distress a neighbor said they caused by giving her home-made cookies adorned with paper hearts. The pair were ordered to pay $871.70 plus $39 in court costs after neighbor Wanita Renea Young, 49, filed a lawsuit complaining that the unsolicited cookies, left at her house after the girls knocked on her door, had triggered an anxiety attack that sent her to the hospital the next day. Taylor Ostergaard, then 17, and Lindsey Jo Zellitte, 18, paid the judgment on Thursday after a small claims court ruling by La Plata County Court Judge Doug Walker, a court clerk said on Friday. The girls baked cookies as a surprise for several of their rural Colorado neighbors on July 31 and dropped off small batches on their porches, accompanied by red or pink paper hearts and the message: "Have a great night." The Denver Post newspaper reported on Friday that the girls had decided to stay home and bake the cookies rather than go to a dance where there might be cursing and drinking.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They get sued for doing something nice. *Shakes head*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow. What a ... well, I can't say. But you know what I mean.
I hate to think what's going to be left on her doorstep now. But it will probably be on fire and probably contain something suitable for fertilizer.
quote:"The victory wasn't sweet," Young said Thursday afternoon. "I'm not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson."
quote:Young said the girls showed "very poor judgment."
quote:The girls wrote letters of apology to Young, with Taylor saying in part, "I just wanted you to know that someone cared about you and your family."
The families had offered to pay Young's medical bills if she would agree to indemnify the families against future claims. Young wouldn't sign the agreement. She said the families' apologies rang false and weren't delivered in person, so she brought the matter to court.
I have nothing nice to say about this woman.
Dagonee
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
The world has gone rather sad . . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, when I was seven years old, someone left one of those candy hearts on my desk that said "Be Mine." And I spent nearly the next two months obsessing over who it might have been. It never occurred to me that, once I found out, I could have sued. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To be fair, my apologies might have rang false in this situation as well. I'm not so good an actor that I could keep the contempt from my voice or writing tone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I actually wonder what kind of mental illness Ms. Young possesses that would enable anonymous cookie deliveries to put her into the hospital.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Sucks to be them, neh?
The girls could not have shown poor judgement, if there had not been any knowledge to judge upon.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Tom, I was just wondering that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd have taken their case free of charge. I don't know what the rules for negligent infliction of mental distress are in that state, but I'd be surprised if they're supposed to cover this situation.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I wonder what happened to the cookies.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:The Denver Post newspaper reported on Friday that the girls had decided to stay home and bake the cookies rather than go to a dance where there might be cursing and drinking.
This sounds like something from the Brady Bunch movie.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I would not mind if someone left me cookies, as long as they were not filled with chocolate laxatives or poison.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Can some laywers or legal guru's help me understand why the girls are liable for this, if they had no prior knowledge of Mrs. Young's disability, and were acting in their normal behaviour of being good people? I'm curious is all, and would like better understanding.
[ February 05, 2005, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: T_Smith ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
The "lesson" that these girls learned is that no good deed goes unpunished. Those who harm people who were only trying to be nice to them stifle such actions and make the world a worse place.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Ten thirty is late, yes, but any community that has a curfew for minors has one that is at least eleven or later... so judging on that is just an opinion.
Does this mean that every single person with social anxiety disorder can sue every person who makes them nervous or every crowd that they have to speak in front of? I really don't understand this ruling.
Also, I don't understand what cursing has to do with anything...
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I think I'll sue Myr for making me nervous about meeting her in NYC.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can sue the whole world for making me nervous... I'd get a lot of money $_$
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Can some laywers or legal guru's help me understand why the girls are liable for this, if they had no prior knowledge of Mrs. Young's disability, and were acting in their normal behaviour of being good people? I'm curious is all, and would like better understanding.
I'm assuming the judge was using negligent infliction of mental distress, which is a cause of action all over the map.
Here's from a Colorado Supreme Court Case, Towns v. Anderson, 195 Colo. 517 (1978) - (can't link, it's Lexis):
quote:If a defendant's conduct is negligent as creating an unreasonable risk of causing either bodily harm or emotional disturbance to another, and it results in such emotional disturbance alone, without bodily harm or other compensable damage, defendant is not liable for such emotional disturbance. On the other hand, long continued nausea or headaches may amount to physical illness, which is bodily harm; and even long continued mental disturbance, as for example in the case of repeated hysterical attacks, or mental aberration, may be classified by the courts as illness, notwithstanding their mental character.
...
If an actor's conduct is negligent as creating an unreasonable risk of causing bodily harm to another otherwise than by subjecting him to fright, shock, or other similar and immediate emotional disturbance, the fact that such harm results solely from the internal operation of fright or other emotional disturbance does not protect the actor from liability.
I question whether the girls "creat[ed] an unreasonable risk of causing ... emotional disturbance," but causation in this case does seem to follow the Colorado rule.
Dagonee
[ February 05, 2005, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Depends, Syn, would that anxiety cause you to go to the hospital and rack up some med. bills?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
So uhh, any bets this woman is going to get a visit from the ghosts of Valentine's past, present, and future?
[ February 05, 2005, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As to knowing about her disability, I don't know how that applies. There's something called the eggshell plaintiff doctrine, which says someone injured by your carelessness whose injury is worse because of a medical condition (brittle bones, say) can collect for all their damages, not just what a normal plaintiff would collect.
Courts are widely split on how this doctrine applies to eggshell psyches.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In a later case, CSC states as dictum: "We have never recognized a cause of action for emotional distress grounded in negligence without proof that the plaintiff sustained physical injury or was in the 'zone of danger.'"
Does this mean the judge found a zone of danger? I wish this opinion were public.
Dagonee
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Yeah ok, mess up on my part.
So from what I interpret is this.
The knock on the door at that late at night was deemed negligent. That negligence triggered the anxiety attack, which cause Mrs. Young to go to the hospital and gain medical bills.
So essentially the court is legally saying that 10:30 is too late to be knocking on someone's door. Good to know. I wonder what limit they DO have as to what time is ok, and what time is not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm assuming that's the reasoning involved. She did say they "banged," and then ran away. Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
"Zone of Danger" triggers "Highway to the DangerZone" in my brain.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I wonder what the statute of limitations is.
'Cause I once scared a friend so bad with a prank that she cried.
CRIED.
That still makes me laugh. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"You're honor, you don't understand. She's scary. She has SWORDS!"
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
In your case it was intentional.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
We didn't think she'd CRY!
Seriously. It WAS a good prank. A very very old farmhouse out in the Middle Of Nowhere Woods. No lights on, my friend and two others in the living room, just a few candles lighting the large cavernous room.
Three of us sneaking into the cellar and navigating by matchlight, carefully treading up the rickety wooden steps. Then scratching at the back of the basement door, a door that opens right into the dark living room.
Scratch.
Scratch.
Scratch.
One of them says, "Did you hear that?!"
Scratch. Scratch.
Sloooowly start to open the door.
Screams, running, crying, laughing.
We did NOT expect the crying!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It must be a New England thing. Ever since my sister moved to Vermont she's been pranking people like that. One of them involved a hook...
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
We had one guy dress up in a yellow rain slicker, pants and hat. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's scary no matter what the situation.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote: She went to a hospital emergency room the next day, fearing that she had suffered a heart attack, court records said.
If she feared she suffered a heart attack, wouldn't she have had to go to the ER immediately , not the next day?
quote: The judge awarded Young her medical costs, but did not award punitive damages. He said he did not think the girls had acted maliciously but that 10:30 was fairly late at night for them to be out.
So the judge is judging that the girls have to pay because he thinks that 10:30 is late for them to be out, regardless of their actual curfew?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I saw a version of this story in my local paper today.
That'll teach those girls for trying to do something nice. Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: If she feared she suffered a heart attack, wouldn't she have had to go to the ER immediately , not the next day?
I could see lawyers arguing that this very fact makes it impossible for her to prove that the cookies were in fact the cause of her troubles. I really think these girls must have had the worst lawyer on the planet to have the ruling go this way.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Small claims court probably means no lawyers allowed.
If this is an elected position, I don't hold much hope for the judge's second term.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I thought in small claims court only the prosecution couldn't have a lawyer.
Hobbes Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Could the girls appeal?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
An appeal might cost them more in lawyer fees than paying the fee, but I think this decision is so ridiculous that they could get enough donations to cover the costs.
Posted by NinjaBirdman (Member # 7114) on :
Hoooah! Looks like they don't have to pay after all. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
NB, I tried you link several time and it didn;t work.
OK, nevermind..it worked...
quote: My life has been threatened and I'll probably have to move out of town."
Holy melodrama.
[ February 06, 2005, 03:14 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
quote: My life has been threatened and I'll probably have to move out of town
And no doubt you'll be dearly missed.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Just another example of how our society littergates the courts with needless trash.
Perhaps the woman had an phobia connected with Sesame Street. She was paralyzed by a fear that the Cookie Monster was stalking her.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I do see how this woman could become victimized. I actually had a vision of her doorstep covered with cookies every day. I just don't understand how she could not foresee the backlash over this, and how silly it would make her look.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
"Learned a lesson" Yeah, don't give treats to old bats -_- Still, it's nice that they don't have to pay.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Meanwhile, Richard Ostergaard, father of Taylor, got a restraining order against Young's husband, Herb, in county court, claiming he continues to make harassing telephone calls to the Ostergaard residence.
Wow. This is going to be great when Lifetime turns it into a movie.
Dagonee
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
I think this is why I try to get to know the people before I do nice things? no offense to the girls, but I think I remember a similar story when we would do things like this in scouts.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with Rav. Random kindnesses, while a nice notion, can backfire.
Better to start with the more everyday kindness of actually getting to know the neighbor, before surprising her with cookies, I think.
Not that I think she had any business suing them. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And better not to deliver cookies by knocking on someone's door at 10:30 at night and not answering when she asks "who is it?"
That's not kindness, it's rudeness.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The moral of this tale being that it is better to go out cursing and drinking at wild parties than it is to stay home and bake cookies for a neighbor. Especially for underaged girls.
This one stinks enough to merit an appeal, lest the ruling be used as precedent to justify taking similar "good neighbor" cases to trial.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My thought is that after such a blatant over-reaction by the woman, there's no point analyzing the girls behavior. Anonymous gift-giving has a long history, and this woman spit on it.
Dagonee
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Even if I replace the cookies in the story with a bag of dog doo on fire, that old nasty trick, I would still think the woman overreacted.
On the other hand, I would definitely jump if I heard the doorbell ring that late.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Come on, Mrs. Young had an anxiety attack that caused 900 some odd dollars worth of medical bills. True it sucks that the girls were laid with this, but I don't find the ruling unfair, nor do I think Mrs. Young should not have gotten the money. It sucks, and it sucks alot. The only part of Mrs. Young's behavior that could be considered spitting on it, is her reply to their letter, and instead of graciously accepting the money, deciding to take it to court. Which I'm thinking is what you are talking about, Dag.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Certainly true. It was an immense over-reaction. But it was inappropriate because it was an over reaction, not because it was a negative reaction.
I think if I were the judge I would have assigned damages of $5 or something along those lines (assuming I could find a way to do that within the law). Because the girls were (IMO) in the wrong, but suing them was out-of-proportion to the wrong-ness.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I do not think that they owe her the money morally or ethically, and they shouldn't owe her the money legally, either.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Morally, no. Legally, yes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, that's very questionable, although since they have apparantly chosen not to appeal, they do now legally owe her the money. But this is certainly a very strange interpretation of the law, and one that would very possibly not survive an appeal.
[ February 06, 2005, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hmm. Is 10:30 not considered very late where you live? I know that East Coast people tend to be on a later schedule in terms of mealtimes and such (and TV schedules) than the Midwest.
I would never knock on a neighbor’s door past 9:00 at night unless there was some sort of emergency. Unless it was a friend who I knew stayed up late. I can see why she'd be worried/scared.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
See, I've just been thinking that if it HAD been burglars, no one disagree that they owe Mrs. Young money for the medical bills caused by the anxiety.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But the burglars would have been committing a crime. These girls were not committing a crime.
10:30 would be considered late where I'm from, certainly, but not fear inducing unless one of your kids was out and you thought it might be someone bringing bad news about them.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
If they hadn’t left cookies – if they’d knocked on the door and run away – then would it have been a crime? (Not that it affects how I feel about this – I’m just curious)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not sure. I guess it would depend on the jurisdiction.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
quote: In making a claim for damages based on an allegation of another's negligence, the injured party (plaintiff) must prove: a) that the party alleged to be negligent had a duty to the injured party-specifically to the one injured or to the general public, b) that the defendant's action (or failure to act) was negligent-not what a reasonably prudent person would have done, c) that the damages were caused ("proximately caused") by the negligence.
My family was one of those that went out and did the anonymous leaving something on someone's door. We did this at Christmas time to families in our wards. I do consider myself and my family to be a reasonable prudent family. However, you have to assume that the average person does not go around banging on peoples door at 10:30 at night, regardless of intent. I feel for the girls, and I hate to see this happen, but I do see them being legally obligated to pay the money.
[ February 06, 2005, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: T_Smith ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But see, the girls and the family offered to pay before it ever went to court. They offered her a written apology and payment of her medical bills, in return for indemnity against a lawsuit. She refused, insisting on taking it to court instead, where all she got was what they had offered in the first place.
Posted by babager (Member # 6700) on :
I guess I wouldn't make a very good judge. I would just have to tell the lady to get over it and get a life!! (Then I would be the one getting sued for causing emotional distress ) Sounds like the girls can turn around and sue back though. I mean if there is a restraining order against the woman's husband for harrassing phone calls, how is THAT not causing emotional stress?
Oh and Mack... you better hope your friend doesn't get wind of this story.. or we'll have to take up a collection to pay your legel expenses!! Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
While I think it is completely ridiculous that this woman sued, everybody who read my Weird & Creepy thread... What if these girls had knocked on my door at 10:30 the night I got that letter, and not answered when I asked who was there?
I don't think I would have had an anxiety attack and had to go to the hospital, and if I had my insurance would have covered it except for a co-pay. But I would not have been happy about it.
You can't know what's going on in someone's life, which I think is a very good reason not to do something like this to someone you don't already know, and not to do it that late at night.
So I'm with dkw... the girls were rude. And the woman was rude not to graciously accept the apology and get over it. And I hope they all learn something from the resulting bru-ha.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:that the defendant's action (or failure to act) was negligent-not what a reasonably prudent person would have done,
The prudence analysis takes into account whether a reasonable person would think that acting that way might create a risk of the harm that occurred. That's why negligent infliction of emotional distress is limited in most states to distress caused by actions that place the plaintiff or a loved one in actual danger.
Dagonee
Posted by babager (Member # 6700) on :
I don't think the girls were being rude, using poor judgement...maybe...but rude? I wish I had more rude neighbors that left cookies on my door step! Hey.. then I could sue them for ruining my diet!!
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I agree with babager. Rude is not the term to be using. They thought they were doing something nice and used poor judgement when delivering it. Why would you do a good deed and then be rude about it?
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
babager!! But only of they were good cookies!
Hey, my neighbor keeps giving me choclate cookbooks, does that mean she's legally responsible for my big butt?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Delivering cookies is not the problem. Knocking at someone's door at 10:30 at night and then not answering when they ask "who's there?" is rude. The fact that the rudeness was unintentional rather than malicious doens't make it not rude.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: They thought they were doing something nice and used poor judgement when delivering it.
And that, to me, is rude. Being thoughtless is rude. I have no problem saying someone can think they are doing something nice but in actuality it comes out rude because of the way they do it. They thought more about what they wanted -- the cookies to be a surprise -- then about what she wanted -- to know who was outside her door at 10:30 at night. If you're trying to be nice to someone, their needs trump yours.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
The family's offer to pay the woman's medical fee's surely should have been accepted The woman's insistence to take the matter to court was just as rude and incurred futher expenses for the young ladies. This clogs up our judicial system and personally I can't understand why she would be adamant about going to court. This reeks of pettiness and illustrates the ridiculously litigious nature of our society.
Posted by CookieMonster (Member # 7238) on :
quote:Perhaps the woman had an phobia connected with Sesame Street. She was paralyzed by a fear that the Cookie Monster was stalking her.
I haven't been stalking anyone.....I swear!!!! Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Wow... this lady sounds like a real b*@^%.
quote:The families had offered to pay Young's medical bills if she would agree to indemnify the families against future claims. Young wouldn't sign the agreement.
She's just doing it out of spite now... or else she's nuts.... imho. Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Well, Rude is an opinion, so I'm not going to touch that.
But I honestly am having a lot of trouble with the fact that she had NINE HUNDRED dollars in medical bills for an anxiety attack. What could possibly make it that high?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Basically you show up at the Emergency Room and it's gonna cost close to a grand, around here anyway. More if they gave her medication. I was actually surprised how low the medical costs were.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Oh my gosh. I guess insurance makes me ignorant.
I wonder if that trip was really necessary for her...
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
If only I lived in America. I probably could have made a fortune off that drunk woman who wandered into my house at 2:00 am just before christmas looking for booze. (I know she was because when I came downstairs she said "Hey! Do you have any beer?" To be fair she did offer to pay. And she said that I have nice hair). Heck, I prolly could have just shot her and been done with it!
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Bob what if she was bringing you beer?
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I think this woman is nuts, and while it's sort of unfortunate that she's now going to be a real victim of prank calls and doorstep leavings, she brought it on herself. I mean, her husband is calling and harassing these kids? Wtf?
That said, it makes me wonder about what role a person's disabilities should play in society. She apparently thinks that her anxiety disorder makes other people financially responsible for causing her anxiety... hmm. Around where I live, there's a small child with a lethal peanut allergy. The parents want the child to have as normal an upbringing as possible, which means enrolling her in school and sunday school. However, little kids and peanut butter go hand-in-hand. Even if all of the adults in her life go out of their way to avoid using peanut butter or other peanut products in the classroom, the other students all bring peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, chocolate bars with peanuts, have peanut residue on their hands and under their fingernails... For this girl to be safe, it would require a major change in the lifestyles of ALL of the parents and kids around her, a change that I doubt most people are able to make.
But it's not really fair to lock this girl up in a bubble for the rest of her life, either... so what do you do? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Among other things, you make sure that she has an epi-pen with/near her at all times, and adults around her who can use it.
Not sure if there's an analogous precaution in this case. Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I think I was told that this allergy is severe enough that an epi-pen wouldn't necessarily be enough... is that possible?
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
At camp we have a camper who comes every year who has a lethal peanut allergy too. Since this is a diabetes camp, low blood sugars are treated in part with peanut butter for the protein. The sessions this particular camper comes we have to give out cheese instead and wash everything that had come into contact with peanut butter. Since it's a closed environment, we are responsible for her safety, and the point of the camp is to teach how to incorporate healthy living into a normal lifestyle.
In real life, it is not so easy. I guess there are just certain sacrifices that must be made, like not eating with the other children. Or, in this lady's case, shouldn't she have gotten her husband to investigate the knocking knowing that she was prone to extreme anxiety?
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Zeugma - yes, it is possible, scarily enough.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
[Edit: to Zeugma] I wouldn't know. Although ElJay's experience with allergy shots a while back leads me to think it is.
For the two peanut-allergy kids in my youngest's class, it apparently is. But I know there are degrees of allergicness.
[ February 07, 2005, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:shouldn't she have gotten her husband to investigate the knocking knowing that she was prone to extreme anxiety?
Apparantly he's only brave on the phone.
OK, that was very snarky and unsubstantiated. But this whole situation annoys me.
Dagonee
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Mmmph. Hear, hear.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
quote:So uhh, any bets this woman is going to get a visit from the ghosts of Valentine's past, present, and future?
This woman and her husband are obviously bonkers. The girls' leaving cookies was probably the most exciting thing to happen in the last five years. It's a shame the woman had to involve them in her crazy, and it's appalling her husband is harassing them.
[ February 07, 2005, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Wanita Young said, "This has turned into quite a fiasco. It's something that never should have happened and it's just devastating. My phone hasn't stopped ringing. My life has been threatened and I'll probably have to move out of town."
Well, I certainly don't agree with death threats, but I wonder how many times she has gone to the hospital since - because if a plate of cookies is enough to send her there, surely a death threat is too?
I tried to think of this as a parent. What would I want my children to do?
I probably would have told them, after about 9:00, not to knock on anyone's door, but leave the cookies (assuming they were in plastic wrap or something protective) on the doorstep for them to find in the morning.
But the fact that this woman didn't accept a written apology and an offer to pay the medical bills tells me she was after them out of spite, or because she was hoping to get a lot of damages awarded. And the huband bothering one of the girls - that's just ridiculous.
I certainly wouldn't want these people as my neighbors.
edit: husband, not father
[ February 07, 2005, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
How many people, before clicking on this thread, thought it was going to be about a Jack Chick anti-Catholic tract?
:raises hand:
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: Oh my gosh. I guess insurance makes me ignorant.
*grin* I always make a point of reading the benefits statements they send me afterwards. Last time I was at the emergency room, it was right around $950, of which I was responsibile for a $50 copay.
You wouldn't believe what my trip to the allergist cost. Wow. I was blown away when I got the statement... makes me very glad I have private insurance.
Oh, and Bob the Lawyer, yeah, you probably could have shot her if you'd been in the US. But then I bet she wouldn't have complimented your hair.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Ahhh... I haven't been to the ER myself since I was a toddler.
But thinking about it, medical bills are indeed insane.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
My plasmapheresis(blood washing, basically) cost about 6,000 bucks each time, for just the plasma itself. Yikes! If we were uninsured, they probably would not have done the procedure, or else we would be broke.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
See, but I have a friend who went through a really bad aneurysm and almost died, while he was totally uninsured, and the "safety net" completely caught him. He came out of it without crippling medical bills, and he at least felt like he got the same level of care he would have if he was uninsured.
So while I know it doesn't work for everyone, I'm not quite as cynical about our system as I used to be.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
What is this safty net of which you speak? The woman in the hospital with me had an almost-aneurism three days before her insurance kiscked in, and i never got her number and have woried about her ever since.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: How many people, before clicking on this thread, thought it was going to be about a Jack Chick anti-Catholic tract?
:raises hand:
*also raises hand*
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Elizabeth, I'm not sure exactly what services he ended up using, but I'm talking about the government services that are in place to make sure uninsured people get the medical attention they need. Medicaid, maybe? It was several years ago... I'm going to see him next weekend, I'll ask if I remember. But he worked part-time as a clerk at a hardware store at the time, and did some freelance carpentry that I think he may have gotten paid under the table for. And was in a band or two. None of those offered the best benefits packages, to say the least.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, I have to say I don't begrudge paying Medicaid out of my pay after my pregnancy was covered.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Well, that makes me feel better, that she will not be buried financially.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
May not be. I don't think it works for everyone, I've heard horror stories in the opposite direction, too. I think mostly the well insured and the uninsured are okay, and it's the people with crappy insurance or partial insurance who get the shaft. Plus, of course, trying to pay for insurance if you're on the edge.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(In Texas, in most cases if you can't pay your deductible and are low-income enough or your bills are high enough, you qualify for Medicaid to pay your deductible and your insurance to pay the rest.)
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Here's what I don't understand about the whole debacle:
Did the girls actually end up leaving the cookies?
Because one of the articles mentioned Young spending the night at her sister's house, which means she would have had to leave her own house, which means (more than likely) she would have seen the cookies on the doorstep.
Did she ignore them? Think they were poisoned? If she saw them at all, I don't think there were any grounds for her to file a lawsuit. Someone must have seen the cookies at some point, right?
But
If the girls didn't actually end up leaving the cookies (which none of these articles mentioned) then the good deed is null and void.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I kinda figured she didn't leave through the front door. If she had an attached garage she wouldn't have seen them, or if her car was parked somewhere where she left through a back or side door.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I went to the emergency room one time with a small cut on my wrist.
Above the "proscenium" that surrounded the check in station was a VERY BIG SIGN that said that just checking in, with no additional services required, would result in a charge of $950.
I've got to wonder why these girls decided to give this woman cookies in the first place. My guess is that there was this cranky old woman in their neighborhood, and they thought that giving her a gift would soften her up.
Just my guess tho'
And for the record, I don't think ignorance is rude if the intent is to do a good deed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The bill is the only part of the story I have no trouble with. First, as people have pointed out, it's actually normal. Second, the judge would require proof of that. Even this judge.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Glenn, if you read the article, it explains that the girls gave cookes to many of their neighbors, in lieu of going to a party.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I'd read the part about not going to a party. I guess I missed the part about giving them to other neighbors.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yeah Dag, if I'd been the disk jockey that raised the money for the girls, I think I would have been raising it so they could afford to appeal.
Although it sounds like the extra went for a good cause.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Glenn, I didn't mean to sound like the mean teacher. "Well, if you had read the article..." Just so you know.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
No problem.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Not even an honorable mention anywhere in the thread.
::sighs::
I've done it to myself, of course. Still. Sad.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If it counts for anything, Toni, I initially clicked on the thread because I thought someone was going to be talking about you.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Me too.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
And I created the title to lure them in. Just sayin.'
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Doesn't this count? Or am I missing something?
quote: How many people, before clicking on this thread, thought it was going to be about a Jack Chick anti-Catholic tract?
:raises hand:
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What Tom and dkw said!
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:I went to the emergency room one time with a small cut on my wrist.
Above the "proscenium" that surrounded the check in station was a VERY BIG SIGN that said that just checking in, with no additional services required, would result in a charge of $950.
Wow.
My last visit to the emergency room was in 1997, after I nearly drowned while vacationing at Cape Hatteras. IIRC the bill was less than $500. I don't think I needed any medication, though. I don't remember if they did a blood test or not. They kept checking my blood pressure, but I have no idea why.
My FIL had to pay the cost out of pocket, and we reimbursed him after our insurance reimbursed us.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
And the rumor I heard about the cookie thing was that some religious conflict was involved i.e., the paranoid lady doesn't like people of a certain religion, even if they bring cookies.
Anyone know if this is true?
Posted by gossip (Member # 4849) on :
I haven't heard anything.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
You may be onto something. Heard she freaked cuz the cookies reminded her of how she useta love to bake before a couple of kids...
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Well, I'll be a blue-nosed gopher... I completely missed that. I feel better already!
And even more off-topic: I'm strongly considering doing another MST3k Chick Tract. I just need to pick one.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Yozhik, I did not hear that.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
The reporting certainly makes this woman sound nuts. Though as others have hinted, maybe the woman had been stalked in the past (by a regular person making unwanted gestures of affection and not a blue muppet). Maybe she hates Valentines day because some traumatic event is tied to it or she has some other reason not to celebrate it. I mean, we've some clue about her husband, after all. Or maybe she is diabetic or something. But yeah, she should have taken the settlement. If she expects the girls to foresee the possible ramifications of doing good deeds too late at night, she herself should have foreseen the possible ramifications of making neighborly quarrels a matter of public record.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
) Sounds like the girls can turn around and sue back though. I mean if there is a restraining order against the woman's husband for harrassing phone calls, how is THAT not causing emotional stress? ![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
babager!! But only of they were good cookies!![[Wink]](wink.gif)