Ditto on the school district. They are not traffic safety experts. Additionally,
no students should have been crossing there as that is the boundary. The reasons
the lights are not on is because no kids are supposed to be crossing there. The
school district intentionally has the boundary there so no kids will need to
cross at that point. This girl is special permitting to the school from out of
boundary and her parents had to sign a document taking responsibility for her
transportation when they obtained the special permit. So much for taking that
The school district will be dismissed from the lawsuit. The signs are not
school district property or operated by the school district, they are City,
County, or State property depending on who owns the road. FYI, crossing guards
are also not school district employees, they are hired by the local police
departments or cities.
I am sorry the girl got hurt.But, whatever happened to individual
responsibility? Did these parents who are eagerly suing the taxpayers fail to
teach their daughter one of the most basic lessons "Look both ways before
crossing the street?"We cannot legislate common sense and
prosecute (or sue) anyone for failing to look both ways, but that does not (or
at least should not) make it so easy for people to sue others when the
"victim" failed to exercise due caution. Remember, the
lawyer will get about one third of whatever they might collect.
@Rifleman: If the signs are posted the School Zone speed limit is in effect.
Flashing lights are nice but they are just an addition to help get drivers'
attention, they are not required by law. The driver and his insurance company
should be footing the bill here, not the state/county/school. Having
a cross walk and having flashing lights to warn motorists is all good well and
fine, but that isn't going to MAKE them stop.Pedestrians don't get
it. The street is the motor vehicle's domain. Enter or cross it at your own
risk. Do not assume that just because measures to enhance pedestrian safety have
been taken they will work. Do not assume that oncoming vehicle will slow down or
stop. There is no encounter between a pedestrian and a vehicle that
will turn out good for the pedestrian.
It's no one's fault but the driver's. In a rational world, that would be the
end of the story.
I hope they win 5 million dollars. No excuse for the district no having working
Re: pharmacist | 8:41 p.m. Jan. 12, 2012 "Funny that no mention is
made about sueing the driver"They are going after the deep
pockets. If the lights weren't flashing the driver was under no obligation to
reduce his speed. At the time of the accident police said that the 17-year old
driver may have been talking on a cell phone.
Funny that no mention is made about sueing the driver that actually hit the
girl.Perhaps the driver should also be held accountable.