Comments about ‘Family of girl hit in crosswalk sues state, county, school’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 12 2012 8:11 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
pharmacist
South Jordan, UT

Funny that no mention is made about sueing the driver that actually hit the girl.
Perhaps the driver should also be held accountable.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

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.

Dektol
Powell, OH

I hope they win 5 million dollars. No excuse for the district no having working signs.

Demosthenes
Rexburg, ID

It's no one's fault but the driver's. In a rational world, that would be the end of the story.

DeltaFoxtrot
West Valley, UT

@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.

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

cdmom
Provo, UT

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.

puckey77
Bountiful, UT

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 responsibility.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments