<p>I’m sure everyone saw this story (or some version of it), since it’s a week old or so:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2691638,00.html[/url]”>http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2691638,00.html</a></p>
<p>How would you explain that to your kid?? Just makes me want to shake my head, but it’s not that unbelievable…</p>
<p>I think the girls did not think through everything as they planned what they thought was a neighborly gesture, but the neighbor and the judge exercized poor judgment. The neighbor decided to sue instead of accepting the families’ apologies (didn’t seem sufficiently groveling?) and the judge essentially punished the girls for being out late (but with parents’ permission).
Makes me want to shake my head, too.</p>
<p>It pains me that some people are so litigious and so afraid of the world that they would sue over a cookie surprise. Refusing to accept payment for medical expenses offered by the girls’ families in lieu of a court suit tells me there’s a bit of gold-digging going on here, and I despise that. I would tell my kids that you can’t read other people’s minds, nor can you count on them to have common sense (although we see that around us every day, it won’t be news to them).</p>
<p>The girls showed good judgement by only stopping at homes where there were lights on, but probably should have identified themselves when asked, rather than scurrying away. I was gratified, though, that the judge awarded the woman only medical costs. Maybe with the bad publicity she’ll realize in time that she was a jerk about the whole thing.</p>
<p>I guess I would tell my kids, that yes in fact with her “issues” the woman who received the cookies and then sued, really did need them. The girls went out of their way to be kind and to let others know that they were being thought of, even if the receiver had done nothing to warrant a gift. So yes it is sad, very sad for the woman who sued, can you imagine what her neighbors think especially since they too were receipents of the cookies. That they had to write letters to the court sayig how much they appreciated them.</p>
<p>She really really needed those cookies.</p>
<p>Kat</p>
<p>Sorry, but that woman is the biggest ***** I’ve ever heard of. If I was one of the people in the neighborhood, I would never talk to her gain.</p>
<p>How about that she wanted them to apologize in person?!!</p>
<p>Like you’d ever knock on that door again!</p>
<p>No good deed goes unpunished…</p>
<p>My kids and I have left “thank you” cookies on front porches of the houses in our town where people put up really incredible Christmas lights… So far we’ve not been sued…</p>
<p>I can only shake my head. I don’t think the cookie klatch was a good idea given the way things go these days, unless you know the recipients of the cookies. I have lived in many neighborhoods where you would not be wise to eat any homemade goodies or any food prepared by some of the neighbors. You just don’t know what could be in them. However, to sue those girls is outrageous. And the judge should have his head examined. I don’t think there is any legal issue involved here, is what bothers me. You have the right to knock on anyone’s door at anytime, I would think.</p>
<p>The terrified lady could find NO other way to waste the taxpayers $$$ ???</p>
<p>If she didn’t like the apology offered - she could have requested that the girls make a personal appearance (with parents in tow of course) and be done with it - lesson would have been learned - cripe the family offered to pay medical expenses ??? which were most likely covered under insurance??? - i think that was a BIT MUCH!!! And the legal system should have thrown this one out - rediculous!!!</p>
<p>This lady was way off the mark and should now be avoided at all cost - haha -should she not like the way you quirk at her and take you to court again.</p>
<p>Those poor girls.</p>
<p>The woman who sued is a nut case - and the judge is bordering nut case just for entertaining that ridiculous claim!</p>
<p>Can I sue these telemarketers who call me? They really disturb my peace and I may require a trip to the caribbean to relax after another “Are you a homeowner?” call. Who is this judge? I want my trip!!!</p>
<p>I am NOT defending the suit or the lady suing. I have been flamed too much lately as it is- so I am a little reluctant to post anything but the weather report these days. But in the interest of fairplay you should realize that this
may explain the attitude of the Plaintiff a little better. </p>
<p>The “if” in line one is what got them.That same “if” rang throughout the “indemnification agreement” (which BTW , I am sure was a “release of all claims” as well as an “indemnification agreement” ).</p>
<p>In most such agreements language is used which could and often does confuse the issue if not properly explained by an attorney with experience in litigation. I am fairly sure the “indemnification agreement” spoke of means that the girls had counsel. Not everyone has an “indemnification” agreement laying around the house in anticipation of a claim. The Plaintiff may not have had an attorney and could have been acting alone.</p>
<p>The party paying money “expressly denies fault of any kind whatsoever” and says that “they are offering money only to buy their peace and to avoid the costs of litigation”. Many Plaintiffs also object to having their Claims “whether known or unknown” forever barred and to being told they are responsible for any claim brought by “another” against the girls , and further to being told if such claim is brought that they will "indemnify and hold harmless " the girls from “any and all costs resulting from such claims, including attorneys fees , and all reasonable costs of court”. </p>
<p>My analysis? The girls’ dad lawyered up early (as any reasonably intelligent person would. LOL.)
and the legalese was poorly explained to the Plaintiff who felt insulted that they were making her sign something before paying the bill and that the document “expressly denied” liability. I can hear her saying -“don’t sound like no 'pology to me. Sounds like they are denying they did anything wrong” . It happens . A lot. As always, JMO. I repeat- I am NOT taking the side of the lady suing. Just thought I might shed some light.</p>
<p>So there were medical bills? Is that what the suing was about?</p>
<p>Did you guys hear what happened afterwards? The home was bombarded with prank phone calls and girl scout cookies from the neighboorhood.</p>
<p>Things are turning out nicely for the girls. </p>
<p>Although they were ordered to pay approx. $900 in medical bills for the neighbor ( She was so frightened by the “pounding on her door and shadowy figures outside her house” that she spent the night at her sister’s house. The next morning she was still shaking and had an upset stomach and felt that perhaps she was having a heart attack. It was determined she was having a severe anxiety attack. The result, a $900 emergency room bill.) a Denver area radio station raised $4000 to pay the costs of the suit. The balance of the money is being donated to the Never Forgotten Fund (a scholarship established in memory of the students killed at Columbine HS).</p>
<p>Additionally, the Otis Spunkmeyer baking company is naming a cookie in the girls’ honor and naming it"The Kindness Cookie". Each girl will also receive a countertop oven and a year’s supply of cookie dough.</p>
<p>The girls have been invited to appear on various TV talk shows, but declined because the families were concerned that their neighbor would be held up to further ridicule. </p>
<p>I found this concern for their neighbor touching and their attitude gracious in light of what they had been through. A class act by the families.</p>
<p>(cur: just railing about the original situation still, not railing at you…)</p>
<p>*“don’t sound like no 'pology to me. Sounds like they are denying they did anything wrong” *
That’s probably because they are denying that they did anything “wrong”. Their apology was most likely for scaring her when they sneaked away to make the cookie delivery a surprise. It’s not their fault she’s a paranoid hypochondriac looking to blame others for her shortcomings, and they should not have to apologize for that.</p>
<p>PS: cur, you know I am not flaming you, I am grumbling further about the lack of willingness to take personal responsibility in this country. Someone left cookies on her doorstep and she gets so worked up about it that she drives to the hospital (which was probably unnecessary in the first place) so there must be someone to BLAME for that, of course someone must pay because she’s an idiot, no way would she be responsible for her own phobias. Sheesh. </p>
<p>Your analysis may be correct, cur. (Or it may be that the writer inserted the “indemnify” verbiage, it may not have been part of the original scenario…)</p>
<p>Very classy response all around, CopterMom, thanks for providing that information.</p>
<p>I shall stop contributing ridicule to be heaped on their neighbor now. My bad, I should be ashamed… and I almost edited that previous comment of mine to amend and wipe out the evidence, but I decided to take personal responsibility and learn from my mean ways instead. :)</p>
<p>Another touch of class, mootmom.</p>
<p>Mootmom, I think your take on this is correct. I would never support anyone talking the position plaintiff took in this suit, I just thought I would offer a possible suggestion of how it ended up in the courtroom. Thank you for reading and understanding. I appreciate it.</p>
<p>Here is the follow-up to that story.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2715867,00.html[/url]”>http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2715867,00.html</a></p>
<p>“All this over cookies”…</p>
<p>Well maybe the woman was menopausal and in a nervous state. And ‘pounding’ on the door? What is meant by that word? Something about the way this is being reported makes me wonder if there was more to it? …don’t know?</p>