patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Pop! Soda Hits Boy's Head in New Lenox Supermarket, Says Lawsuit

A woman is suing the New Lenox Berkot's after her son allegedly knocked a soda off a display and it hit him in the head.

 

Allegations of an unsafe soda have prompted a woman to sue the New Lenox Berkot's.

The woman, identified in the lawsuit only as Kathy Harmon, claims she was shopping in the 2141 Calistoga Drive supermarket in February 2011 when her son, Daniel Harmon, grabbed a soda from a display.

The lawsuit describes Daniel Harmon as a "minor" but does not provide his age. The attorney for the Harmons, William Rock of Joliet, could not be immediately reached for comment.

After Daniel Harmon grabbed the soda, the lawsuit says, another soda fell from the display and hit him in the head and face.

Daniel Harmon was injured by the dropped drink, the lawsuit said, and he "experienced pain and suffering. He has incurred medical bills. He lost time from his usual occupation and duty and expects to experience the impact of these losses in the future."

All of that hardship is worth between $15,000 and $50,000, the lawsuit says.

The suit does not specify whether the beverage was in a bottle or a can, calling it only a "container of soda." It also does not say what brand or flavor of soda allegedly fell on Daniel Harmon.

Want to know what's going on at the courthouse? Then check out our Facebook page

Related Topics: Berkot's, Child, Court, Head, Lawsuit, and Soda

JP

12:44 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

What an absolute disgusting way to try to get money! Since your kid is clumsy, I guess you can say you're doing a good job at teaching the kid another way to rob a grocery store!

Reply

Terri

12:47 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Sounds like the only payment that should be made would be for any cans that were damaged due to the boy's actions.

Reply
Patch_comments_icon

Ann C. Piasecki

12:59 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Good Afternoon Folks. I just deleted a post because it attacked the lawyer on something that's unproven. Just so you know, Patch can only report on criminal activity per the police reports and court coverage. Thank you for understanding.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Yasmine

10:04 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Pach's entire site is full of unproven allegations- like that Dr. in Frankfort whose reputation is destroyed regardless of courts finding. How did this comment differ?

New Lenox Mom

1:01 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Ann, first did not say it was criminal and second would be happy to send you the link to the picture out there that is definiately him.

Reply

New Lenox Mom

1:01 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Also it did not attack him, just stated a fact.

Reply
Patch_comments_icon

Ann C. Piasecki

1:04 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Hi New Lenox Mom. Perhaps the information might be best forwarded to the police.

Reply

concerned

11:56 am on Friday, February 1, 2013

You can let this attorney(?) know what you think of this case at:
rock@blocklaw.com

Reply

MommyTwoThree

2:35 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Lawyers who take on ridiculous claims like this should be stripped of their license to practice. That would take care of people being sue happy over the most assinine things. The kid should sue his mom for being a loser.

Reply

Katie Tamosiunas

2:48 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Well seeing this just makes me wanna go ahead and sue for the time my 8 month old got her finger stuck in the cart.... I mean REALLY PEOPLE!!!! Maybe that mother should have been sued by Berkots for keeping an eye on her child. Too bad that's not possible !

Reply

Tompo8190

3:17 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

The last time I went to Berkots my daughter put a quarter in the gumball machine and nothing came out. I think I'll sue them for my pain and suffering of having to listen to her cry about it all the way home. What is happening to this country??

Reply

air1979

4:29 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Parents, watch your kids or don't bring them with! I have and 8 yr old and she TOUCHES nothing at the store IF she is even with me. What a disgrace! I hope a judge laughs at her!

Reply

Nature Lover

4:53 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

I slipped and fell while shopping in a grocery store when I was 7-1/2 months pregnant. (There was water on the floor.) I don't know what was bruised more, my hip or my ego. You know what I did? I got off the floor and started laughing. Seems to me, if people would laugh more, the world would be a happier place.

Reply

Briguy

5:37 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Its a case of stupid is stupid does! Really. Come on!

Reply

Karen

5:40 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Wow! "Man up" Daniel. Get back to your usual daily activities (probably sitting on moms couch drinking cans of soda) Accidents happen in life, this is why we purchase insurance. This is obvious that mommy's boy was bruised and mommy could use a bit more money. Shame on them! P.S. Water is a healthier option.

Reply

Fatty Arbuckle's Champaign Bottle

7:40 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

she has no idea the amount of teasing she has brought to this kid. shame on her.

Reply
Comment_arrow

lala

7:53 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013

I agree. I was also wondering why the Patch felt the need to post the name of a minor.

Walter Mitty

8:04 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

I think a lot of the reaction is directed in the wrong place. There will always be frivolous lawsuits. However, why does The Patch even think this is news worthy. In not sure how this major scoop was missed by the major networks and the Trib and the Sub Times. Maybe if this kind of drivel doesn't get reported these types of lawsuits might decrease by a small amount.

Reply
Patch_comments_icon

Ann C. Piasecki

8:27 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Hello. I deleted a post due to vulgarity. Patch can't allow on the site.

Reply

Ed

8:30 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Pathetic suit. This happened 2 years ago, and the "minor" has an occupation. Makes you wonder how old the minor is that he can't take a soda "falling" on him. And if he is an older minor, the can couldn't fall that far.

Reply
Patch_comments_icon

Ann C. Piasecki

10:21 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Hi Folks, The point of the story is the lawsuit. Let's keep to the topic.

Reply
Comment_arrow

fonzie

1:00 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013

Don't mention the lawyer because Patch is scared of a lawsuit. They don't offer the same courtesy to non-attorneys. Even though the attorney- Willie Rock has his name in the article, Patch doesn't want you to comment about his perversions.

Rob Benetti

10:26 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

1. Patch - You reported that you do not know what type of container it is yet you post an image of a can? In doing so, you insinuate that it was a can that fell. You should not have posted any images. Bad journalism.

2. None of you know the facts of the case yet you all choose to pass judgement.
-- What if the display was set up in a way that was hazardous? What if the law suit results in the store changing its practices to ensure that no one else gets injured?
-- What if the minor was injured? You have no facts to suggest otherwise yet you all feel the need to jump all over the mother.

3. This is a good example of the "mob mentality" associated with most if not all web based "news" zines. Ex: The attorney's personal life has no bearing on this case. Why some of you like to make these things personal is beyond me but again, it happens all of the time on sites like this.

I too think that there are too many frivolous lawsuits brought each year but I personally have not read anything on this site and in this article with reference to this case to lead me to believe that this case does not have merit. If someone wants to share some real facts that might shed more light on this case, well then I'll be happy to take a look. In the meantime, I'll hold judgement on this case.

Reply

Rob Benetti

10:40 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Novel thought when posting an article: How about trying to contact both parties for comment prior to posting?

Absent facts, how is this type of article even allowed on the Patch? What exactly is the point of the article? I don't see one. Does it inform or educate or notify the masses of anything of value? Nope.

A disservice has been done to all of the parties as a result of this post:
-- The mother has been attacked.
-- The minor has been judged.
-- The attorney has been disparaged.
-- Berkots, well they have actually benefited by this post. They have been made out to be the good guys and victims when there are no facts to support that.

I would like the author to express their intent in posting this article.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Miss Jean

11:48 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

I'm glad the Patch posted this article. You may not see any value in it, but that doesn't mean that others might. Because of this article, I was informed of some things going on in the neighborhood, which is why I read the Patch. I find this more interesting then the fact that some actresses dress showed her thighs at some awards show, and I've seen that reported on more times than I can count.

Keep up the good work Patch!

Comment_arrow

So There

8:06 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013

Take some law classes did you Rob?

Comment_arrow

Rob Benetti

8:23 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013

No, I have not taken law classes but I was struck in the head by 60 pounds of concrete that fell from a building that was a hazard in a high traffic area several years ago. My first four ribs were sheared off my spine and I was legally disabled for quite a while. I live with severe pain that reminds me daily how lucky I am to be alive. I know that my injury resulted in that dangerous building being fixed quite quickly. I also know how BS lawsuits tie up the court system as it took over 6 years for me to get my first court date.

Having said that, I still believe that it's best to have all of the facts before judging individuals or situations. It's one of the foundations of a so called advanced society.

Reality Bytes!

11:51 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Good grief Ann, these are adults reading these posts... You are olicing this thing like you own the patch...

Reply
Patch_comments_icon

Ann C. Piasecki

11:58 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Hi Folks. The problem is that this conversation has turned vulgar. Patch doesn't allow it.

Reply

Pony Boy

6:24 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013

The lawsuit is vulgar, the reporting is vulgar....only Miss Jean is riveted and informed..

Reply

MommyTwoThree

7:01 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013

@Rob Bennetti, here are the facts: A single soda fell on a minor in a grocery store and the mother is suing. Nothing else matters, regardless if the display was "hazardous" or the kid was actually injured (doubtful) as you suggest. Accidents will happen. That doesn't mean you sue because you see dollar signs. Would she sue if that same soda fell on her son at a friend's house? It's a joke lawsuit from a joke of an attorney. Let's not try to make it any more than that with your what if this leads the store to use best practices comment. This is a free country. The Patch has a right to write about this story and the readers have a right to comment as they see fit. Perhaps next time any loser who decides it might be a good idea to do the same thing might think otherwise or endure the wrath of intelligent, practical comments posted by Patch readers.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Rob Benetti

11:58 am on Friday, February 1, 2013

You are right, accidents will happen but it is the stores responsibility to do all it can to minimize the potential for them to happen. I am not going to guess who is at fault but it is not of the question to think that a display may have been set up in a way that increased the chances for triggering an accident. If they are found to be at fault, they should be held liable for injuries.

Comparing this to one soda falling at a friends house is not even close to what we know to be true here.

So lets get this straight, if you were in a store and a display caused you to be injured, you would simply let it go? Not comparing the following example to this situation because I do not know the extent of the injuries but what if it was your child who was injured, say lost an eye because a soda fell from a badly conceived/hazardous display, would you feel the same?

Comment_arrow

MommyTwoThree

12:40 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013

How is comparing this to a single soda falling at a friend's house not the same? That is exactly what happened. Perhaps the friend placed her soda can in the pantry too close to the one her kid went to grab and it fell causing years of irreparable physical and emotional scarring. Shouldn't she also sue her friend?? Who is to blame in that case? Nobody because she won't make a dime??

From what this lawsuit claims, a SINGLE soda fell on a minor as a result of the minor's actions. We are not talking about a huge display tumbling down burying the kid alive as he was skipping along minding his own business We are talking about a kid who went to grab a soda and another one fell of the display.

To answer your question, if I were at a store and an entire DISPLAY fell apart causing myself or my child to be injured, of course I would not walk away. Now if my kid decided it would be a good idea to tackle the display thus causing it to fall down, then that is not the store's fault at all.

But you are getting way off track of this particular case. ONE SINGLE soda fell of the display as a result of the kid reaching to grab one himself. Why are you comparing this to a hazardous display causing someones eye to pop out? If I didn't know any better I would think you were affiliated with this joke of an attorney actually taking on this nonsense claim.

Comment_arrow

Rob Benetti

1:42 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013

M23,

1. The only thing I am supporting with my comments is due process. I have not showed any bias toward either party nor have I chosen sides. I am not affiliated with any of the parties involved in any way, shape or form. I was merely stating that without real facts, it may be too early for me to pass judgement.

2. I agree that we are all responsible for our actions and parents are responsible for the actions of their minors. If the child was at fault the case will be dismissed early on in the process.

3. What I do not like about our court system is that a frivolous case can be brought, forcing the other party to lawyer up and incur crazy expenses to defend themselves with no repercussions to the party bringing suit. If they were forced to pay the legal fees and court costs if they lost, then we wouldn't see nearly as many cases without merit being brought forward. (I believe this to be true)

Comment_arrow

Rob Benetti

1:42 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013

I also believe that frivolous cases are brought with damages resulting in an amount like this, 10K to under six digits, in the hopes that the there will be a quick settlement/paycheck because it is sometimes cheaper to do so than mount a defense. Attorneys love these cases because they take a minimal amount of work. They never plan to go to trial because if they do go further and the party bringing the suit cannot pay for depositions and expert testimony, the client will drop the case and then go back to hiding under the rock they crawled out from. The attorneys will continue to accept these cases until there is a change in the system.

This is where the system needs to change. We do need reform and in my opinion, that would make a good article. "Tort Reform!"

I think that article would have made more sense than one calling out one party prior to there being real facts to consider.

Your argument is that the facts are that a minor grabbed for a soda, another fell and hit him causing injuries. You are wrong, there is more to the case and those facts will become public record when the process takes the next step (if it does). I believe the party bringing the suit still needs to pass the first test with a judge. At that time, the real facts will be shared. Until that point, I believe that passing judgement is not fair to due process, which again, is one of the mainstays of our democracy.

Comment_arrow

MommyTwoThree

2:22 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013

If you are not affiliated with this case in any way, then how do you know that there is more to this story with your comment "You are wrong, there is more to the case and those facts will become public record when the process takes the next step (if it does).

You are completely contradicting yourself with almost every sentence you write. You aren't a fan of frivolous cases, yet there may be more to this story and lets not pass judgment. You agree that people should be responsible for their own actions, yet you think that there may be a case here from a kid grabbing a soda container from a grocery store, resulting in another one falling. Which is it?

I don't care if there is any more to this case beyond this "minor" with an occupation grabbing for a soda thus resulting in another one falling. That should be the end of it for both you and I if you say people should take responsibility for their own actions.

I am going off of what the Patch has quoted the lawsuit as stating: " he experienced pain and suffering. He has incurred medical bills. He lost time from his usual occupation and duty and expects to experience the impact of these losses in the future."

From a soda?? Give me a break! Enough said. I am done with this story. I hope the judge tears both this family and the attorney apart for wasting everyone's time.

Have a great day!

dave bird

7:41 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013

oh i'am so sorry i insulted the lawyer and his head in my comment yesterday.what is this kid going to do when he grows up and has a warm beer can spray him in the face.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Rob Benetti

8:25 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013

I hope this kid grows up to respect due process and not judge others without any facts.

Amanda Bowl

8:08 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013

No matter what anyone says, society is really screwed up!

Reply

Christine

8:26 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013

OMG....for real! And to feel sorry for the mom and the obviously "older" child please and they will be the first to complain that thier insurance rates are too high or that the groceries cost to much. Its due stupid lawsuits of people trying to make a buck that the cost of so many things go up. Get real people, get a job and stop trying to find ways to get rich quick! The store does not even put up the pop displays - the beverage company does!

Reply

lala

8:26 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013

Sounds like the soda bottle hit Kathy Harmon in the head.

Reply

New Lenox Mom

8:56 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013

@Rob, the lawsuit is public record that includes the "minor's" name. Public lawsuits against a local business should be reported on. the public has the right to voice their OPINIONS, good or bad. I would think Ms. Harmon should expect that her actions could result in people not having a very good opinion of her. Now it is just my guess, but had this been a serious accident/injury we would have heard about this two years ago when it happened. Anyone can go over to the courthouse and pull up the actual suit, which it appears that Ann has done for this story. Time will tell whether this is one of those many frivolous suits as it appears to be, or something more serious. Since this happened almost 2 years ago and the statue of limitations is about to expire, it appears that she found a lawyer willing to file this in an attempt to make a few bucks! As for the lawyer, anyone who needs to text out pictures of his privates is not someone to be taken seriously. Apparently at least one of the women he sent the text to did not appreciate it and based on the comments posted with the picture it is something he has done before. Certainly not someone I would want representing me personally nor, if I was the owners of this firm, is he someone I would want representing my firm.

Reply

James

1:09 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013

Sounds like one for Judge Judy; the forum for morons. Lets see now, pain and suffering??? "My child will never ever be able to look at or go near another soda pop can again." That might actually be a good thing.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Jim P

11:56 am on Friday, February 1, 2013

Why are you attacking the pop can? It was just being there minding it's own business. It sure did not fall on its own. Who will represent the pop can?

Comment_arrow

Bob Laird

2:00 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013

Jim, the ACLU has already stepped in on the cans behalf. (American Can Lawyers Union)

sweet heart

11:58 am on Friday, February 1, 2013

I,had can"s fall on before what the big deal! Any way to maker her richer and rich
so she can stash the cash ib the bank.

Reply

Beth

11:58 am on Friday, February 1, 2013

America has gone from "The land of opportunity" to the "Land of opportunists"
PUT THAT ON A BUMPER STICKER!

Reply

Rob Benetti

1:52 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013

If each one of you/us who are appalled by the frivolous cases clogging our court system took the time to write your/our reps instead of posting on this site, we might actually be able to help make change.

Maybe The Patch should lead this charge? Maybe a real article about the issue with detailed analysis and interviews with attorneys, judges and elected reps would be a good start?

Reply

Beth

3:09 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013

Desperate times call for desperate measures--this is pretty desperate!

Reply

Dan Borowski

8:52 am on Sunday, February 3, 2013

Don't judge until you know all the facts!

Reply

Anthony Andreano

5:42 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013

I think I'll sue each person who posted here for the intentional infliction of emotional distressed caused in reading this.

Reply
Patch_comments_icon

Ann C. Piasecki

2:15 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Hi Folks; Patch can't allow personal attacks in the comments. I just deleted one for that reason.
Thank you,

Reply

Leave a comment