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
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.
so she can stash the cash ib the bank.
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?
PUT THAT ON A BUMPER STICKER!
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.
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)
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.
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?
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!
Thank you,