Lifestyle

TOPICS:

12/8/05

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

259 | 260 | 261

 ... 944

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

_raindog

_raindog

Calgary, AB
September 2004

DEC 04, 2005 09:29 PM

A new law just passed in Alberta allows children who suffer damages in the womb to sue their parents.

Alberta has become the first province in Canada to enact legislation allowing children to sue their mothers for injuries suffered in the womb. But the law applies only to damage suffered in car accidents.

Lisa Rewega was pregnant when she was in a car accident five years ago while on her way to church. "I just felt so great, everything was perfect and I just never made it there. I hit black ice. I was five months pregnant."

Rewega spent eight months in hospital. Her daughter Brooklyn was born severely brain-damaged and blind, with cerebral palsy and epilepsy. She needs expensive, round-the-clock care...

..."Had the father been driving, the suit could have been against the father," said Shannon Haggerty of the Alberta Justice Department. "But since the mother was at fault in that case, there was no ability for the child to go after the mother. So this will allow for the mother to also be part of that scope."

Lawyers for Brooklyn have now filed suit against her mother for damages suffered in the womb. If she wins, the Rewega's insurance company will have to pick up the cost of Brooklyn's care.

AughtNaught

AughtNaught

Phoenix, AZ
January 2005

DEC 04, 2005 09:35 PM

i can see suing for damages if the mother abuses drugs and alcohol during pregnancy, something the mother has direct control over, but not over a car accident. are pregnant women not supposed to drive and/or ride in automobiles while pregnant? what happens if they're on public transit, could they then sue the city as well?

Sen

Sen

USA
January 2004

DEC 04, 2005 09:38 PM

That's what I was thinking. I don't get it. Are pregnant women supposed to stay in their homes for nine months? What if they tripped and injured the fetus? Seems like it would make more sense to be able to sue for the mother is actualy at fault for...

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

DEC 04, 2005 09:40 PM

So this is simply a way to get insurance companies to pony up on the bills for looking after the kid?

I mean, pretty clearly the lawyers wouldn't go after the mother if she was skint. They're going after the mother to get to the insurance company, yes?

Io

Io

USA
November 2005

DEC 04, 2005 09:47 PM

Well, it's about negligence. Just because she felt fine after the accident doesn't mean that she shouldn't have been going to the doctor regularly enough to find out if anything was wrong.

AughtNaught

AughtNaught

Phoenix, AZ
January 2005

DEC 04, 2005 09:52 PM

TheFuckOffKid said:
So this is simply a way to get insurance companies to pony up on the bills for looking after the kid?

I mean, pretty clearly the lawyers wouldn't go after the mother if she was skint. They're going after the mother to get to the insurance company, yes?



that's what it looks like, but i don't see how the mother's insurance company should be required to pay either. i thought health care was provided by the gov't in canada?

Gwendolyn

Gwendolyn

SUICIDEGIRL

Indiana, USA

DEC 04, 2005 09:58 PM

DrunkBastard said:
i can see suing for damages if the mother abuses drugs and alcohol during pregnancy, something the mother has direct control over, but not over a car accident. are pregnant women not supposed to drive and/or ride in automobiles while pregnant? what happens if they're on public transit, could they then sue the city as well?



The point is not to get the mother in trouble, or blame the mother, or keep pregnant women from driving. It's a way to get insurance to pay for the child's constant care.

Gwendolyn

Gwendolyn

SUICIDEGIRL

Indiana, USA

DEC 04, 2005 10:01 PM

Min said:
Well, it's about negligence. Just because she felt fine after the accident doesn't mean that she shouldn't have been going to the doctor regularly enough to find out if anything was wrong.



Uh, did you even read the article? She said she felt fine before the accident. She spent eight months in the hospital afterwards.

catdad

catdad

Portland, OR
August 2002

DEC 04, 2005 10:05 PM

DrunkBastard said:

TheFuckOffKid said:
So this is simply a way to get insurance companies to pony up on the bills for looking after the kid?

I mean, pretty clearly the lawyers wouldn't go after the mother if she was skint. They're going after the mother to get to the insurance company, yes?



that's what it looks like, but i don't see how the mother's insurance company should be required to pay either. i thought health care was provided by the gov't in canada?



This way the cost burden will be shifted from the government to the insurance companies.

Manchester_Black

Manchester_Black

Edmonton, AB
March 2004

DEC 04, 2005 10:17 PM

DrunkBastard said:

TheFuckOffKid said:
So this is simply a way to get insurance companies to pony up on the bills for looking after the kid?

I mean, pretty clearly the lawyers wouldn't go after the mother if she was skint. They're going after the mother to get to the insurance company, yes?



that's what it looks like, but i don't see how the mother's insurance company should be required to pay either. i thought health care was provided by the gov't in canada?



The health car is covered, but prescription medication is not covered 100%, and neither are other costs associated with constant care. Also, if the child needs to go on Assured Income for the severely handicapped, it pays way below the poverty line

dholokov

dholokov

Toronto, ON
April 2003

DEC 04, 2005 10:39 PM

So the idea for the naysayers here is that you should be able to buy car insurance to cover the damages for the automobile-related harm you accidentally inflict on anyone except those you love the most?

alpha_hazard

alpha_hazard

Fort Collins, CO
April 2004

DEC 04, 2005 11:26 PM

DrunkBastard said:
i can see suing for damages if the mother abuses drugs and alcohol during pregnancy, something the mother has direct control over, but not over a car accident. are pregnant women not supposed to drive and/or ride in automobiles while pregnant? what happens if they're on public transit, could they then sue the city as well?



Agreed...also, if the girl needs round the clock care, is she really in a position to be suing someone, or is someone suing on her behalf?

Gwendolyn

Gwendolyn

SUICIDEGIRL

Indiana, USA

DEC 04, 2005 11:53 PM

alpha_hazard said:

DrunkBastard said:
i can see suing for damages if the mother abuses drugs and alcohol during pregnancy, something the mother has direct control over, but not over a car accident. are pregnant women not supposed to drive and/or ride in automobiles while pregnant? what happens if they're on public transit, could they then sue the city as well?



Agreed...also, if the girl needs round the clock care, is she really in a position to be suing someone, or is someone suing on her behalf?



She's five years old, I'm pretty sure she's not suing anyone on her own.

Seriously, did any of you read the article before commenting?

euphorianothing

euphorianothing

Canada
January 2005

DEC 04, 2005 11:56 PM

...insurance costs in alberta are already one of the highest in the country, about time it had a reason to be asides from corporate greed

Somnia

somnia

Victoria, BC
October 2005

DEC 05, 2005 12:36 AM

Gwendolyn said:

alpha_hazard said:

DrunkBastard said:
i can see suing for damages if the mother abuses drugs and alcohol during pregnancy, something the mother has direct control over, but not over a car accident. are pregnant women not supposed to drive and/or ride in automobiles while pregnant? what happens if they're on public transit, could they then sue the city as well?



Agreed...also, if the girl needs round the clock care, is she really in a position to be suing someone, or is someone suing on her behalf?



She's five years old, I'm pretty sure she's not suing anyone on her own.

Seriously, did any of you read the article before commenting?



yeah really.

This law allows mothers to sue themselves on behalf of their children.

The child in this case is not only deaf and disabled, but five years old. The child is not in court suing their own mom. The mom is wanting to shift the burden of payment from herself alone to her insurance company.

If the woman was driving and hit another driver, her insurance would pay out the injured victim. Not the woman herself. In this case it was the unborn fetus injured in the accident. And it has so far been the mother paying out of pocket for the child's round the clock care. Now that she's won the case, the mother's insurance company will be paying the child (meaning: paying the mother)

So no, you could not sue someone who tripped you by accident while you were pregnant., because car insurance does not cover injuries caused by tripping.

And yes, this is a way of getting insurance companies to cover the cost of caring for the child. And the mother would be going after the claim especially if she was skint.

[Edited on Dec 05, 2005 12:36AM]

malkav11

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN
July 2003

DEC 05, 2005 01:46 AM

Ok...explained that way this makes a lot more sense. It's still kind of bizarre on first impression, though.

Forkandles

Forkandles

United Kingdom
August 2003

DEC 05, 2005 02:44 AM

Oh for fuck's sake!!

datsun

datsun

Richmond, CA
October 2004

DEC 05, 2005 03:15 AM

somnia said:

Gwendolyn said:

alpha_hazard said:

DrunkBastard said:
i can see suing for damages if the mother abuses drugs and alcohol during pregnancy, something the mother has direct control over, but not over a car accident. are pregnant women not supposed to drive and/or ride in automobiles while pregnant? what happens if they're on public transit, could they then sue the city as well?



Agreed...also, if the girl needs round the clock care, is she really in a position to be suing someone, or is someone suing on her behalf?



She's five years old, I'm pretty sure she's not suing anyone on her own.

Seriously, did any of you read the article before commenting?



yeah really.

This law allows mothers to sue themselves on behalf of their children.

The child in this case is not only deaf and disabled, but five years old. The child is not in court suing their own mom. The mom is wanting to shift the burden of payment from herself alone to her insurance company.

If the woman was driving and hit another driver, her insurance would pay out the injured victim. Not the woman herself. In this case it was the unborn fetus injured in the accident. And it has so far been the mother paying out of pocket for the child's round the clock care. Now that she's won the case, the mother's insurance company will be paying the child (meaning: paying the mother)

So no, you could not sue someone who tripped you by accident while you were pregnant., because car insurance does not cover injuries caused by tripping.

And yes, this is a way of getting insurance companies to cover the cost of caring for the child. And the mother would be going after the claim especially if she was skint.

[Edited on Dec 05, 2005 12:36AM]


thank you! also, if you are injured in a car accident where you are at fault, if you have full coverage, you can actually sue your own insurance company for damages. you'll probably have your policy canceled eventually, or your rates will go up, but you can do it (at least here in CA - a friend of mine did it when she was almost killed after hitting black ice and going down an embankment).

furnacedoor

furnacedoor

I'm lost
September 2003

DEC 05, 2005 05:13 AM

scratch that.

decided to go back and read all the posts...

[Edited on Dec 05, 2005 5:22AM]

[Edited on Dec 05, 2005 5:26AM]

dem_z

dem_z

United Kingdom
June 2004

DEC 05, 2005 07:01 AM

Gwendolyn said:
Seriously, did any of you read the article before commenting?


Wait, you mean these news-thingers have links?
confused wink

DullLifelessHair

DullLifelessHair

United Kingdom
November 2004

DEC 05, 2005 11:14 AM

That's what headlines to do people. All those capital letters send them into a frenzy, why bother with all the small words?

Anyway, what a crafty law.

LokisChild

LokisChild

USA
March 2005

DEC 05, 2005 12:28 PM

that is crafty...but the part that upsets me is that this constant care isn't already provided by insurances companies, and they need to be sued in order to be made to do their job...
EL SUICIDO LOCO

BellaChiChi

BellaChiChi

Australia
September 2005

DEC 05, 2005 08:49 PM

catdad said:

DrunkBastard said:

TheFuckOffKid said:
So this is simply a way to get insurance companies to pony up on the bills for looking after the kid?

I mean, pretty clearly the lawyers wouldn't go after the mother if she was skint. They're going after the mother to get to the insurance company, yes?



that's what it looks like, but i don't see how the mother's insurance company should be required to pay either. i thought health care was provided by the gov't in canada?



This way the cost burden will be shifted from the government to the insurance companies.



if she wasnt paying for it in the first place what is the point of the claim.. its suss the mother is probably behind the daughter so she can have her medical bills by insurance.

Cecelia

Cecelia

Minneapolis, MN
June 2005

DEC 06, 2005 09:00 PM

LokisChild said:
that is crafty...but the part that upsets me is that this constant care isn't already provided by insurances companies, and they need to be sued in order to be made to do their job...
EL SUICIDO LOCO



I agree.

OctoberSeven

OctoberSeven

Downers Grove, IL
December 2002

DEC 06, 2005 11:41 PM

Playing devil's advocate here:

I saw this posted in another forum -

"the whole premise for abortion is a unborn fetus is not a human being and has no rights. If you make the claim that a child can sue a mother, based on what happend when that child was a fetus with no rights, then you are saying that the unborn fetus has the right that its mother take a degree of care for it in the womb.

Enter the right to life.

If it dosn't have have a right life in the womb, by definition, it has no rights for anything in the womb. Good health included.

So logically, if a child can sue, because it didn't have a healthy life in the womb, you have to conceed that it has a right to life in the womb, thus Abortion must be outlawed, because it would violate the unborn's right a healthy life."




This law could potentially open up a whole nother can of worms.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next