http://nypost.com/2017/09/12/mom-who-saved-kids-from-falling-tree-may-never-walk-again-attorney/

I am curious if you were on the jury would you award her the $200 Million? What would happen next? Do they shut down all the city parks across the nation? Will all city owned property be forced to put up signs stating that you enter at you own risk? Will we be forced to sign waivers before we enter any public owned property? As a taxpayer aren't all of us to some degree the owners of these public properties? I truly feel sorry for this poor woman but in my opinion she chose to be there and the end results were an act of God.

My first thought is that I wouldn't award her that much, although I'd have to know more details, especially her long-term prognosis. $5 million seems to be a closer ballpark figure for most cases like this.

Guessing her attorneys were looking at this case in Chicago before they threw out the $200 million figure:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-darden-ohare-trial-0824-20170823-story.html

I would categorize a bus shelter (man-made) vs. a tree much differently. Her insurance company should sue the park and get as much as possible, but $200M seems like an awful lot. In the Chicago case, good for her.

Shouldn't the tree be confirmed as diseased or some such before a claim of notice is filed?

In general, I oppose any awards beyond the "value of a human life" (and, yes, they can come up with reasonable dollar figures for each and every one of us) with maybe a little extra for pain and suffering. Extremely unlikely I'd ever give anyone over $10M.

The more ridiculous awards are getting into punitive and deterrents, which I think has merit but shouldn't be going to one individual (after the lawyers take ONE THIRD). But then you have the Obama DOJ using those punitive awards as a slush fund.

CenterBHSFan;1871582 wrote:Shouldn't the tree be confirmed as diseased or some such before a claim of notice is filed?

That is the law in Ohio for being liable. Unsure about other states.

Verbal Kint;1871600 wrote:That is the law in Ohio for being liable. Unsure about other states.

I just think that it should be a condition of being able to file a lawsuit such as the one in question. You shouldn't be able to blindly sue a city because nature happened - unless it was a fact prior to the tree falling that it was in danger of doing so, then I think it is reasonable.
On the other hand, any tree can fall at any time for whatever reason. Maybe there should be a slush fund labeled "Mother Nature" so that people could indiscriminately sue it for big money.

CenterBHSFan;1871609 wrote:You shouldn't be able to blindly sue a city because nature happened - unless it was a fact prior to the tree falling that it was in danger of doing so, then I think it is reasonable.

Might this also be warranted if the tree is on private property? If a tree in my yard falls and hurts someone, but there was no good reason to believe that I was being derelict in tending to it, should I be held liable?