Indexes
November 2nd, 2009
November 6th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
November 4th, 2009
November 3rd, 2009
November 2nd, 2009
October 31st, 2009
October 30th, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Bible is entwined with American civic life (135)
- Gated communities in Lodi (112)
- I predict: A conservative tide will rise in 2010 (99)
- The Treaty of Tripoli hoax (82)
- David Diskin is first to give an invocation under new city of Lodi policy (59)
- Here's what my father knew about the assassination of JFK (55)
- Universal health care solves big problems (37)
- Words from our forefathers (26)
- With resolve and imagination, Downtown Lodi can surge once again (24)
- 27-year-old man shot to death Saturday night in front of Acampo home (18)
ADVERTISEMENT
Lodi Unified School District’s defibrillators: They aren’t worth the liability
Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:36 AM PDT
On March 2, I received an unsolicited e-mail from R.J. Waldsmith. Waldsmith is the attorney who represented Adam Kloose in his lawsuit against Lodi Unified School District for supposed negligence in not sufficiently maintaining a defibrillator, after Kloose collapsed in 2005 during a game of dodgeball.
Most Lodi News-Sentinel readers know that Kloose has to some extent recovered and is now attending college.
In Waldsmith’s terse and angry e-mail, he proceeded to pretty much blame this humble writer for Kloose’s ability to “only” extract $400,000 from LUSD for the alleged non-maintenance of the AED. I wrote a column in January 2007 that Waldsmith apparently believes played more than a small role in his and Kloose’s decision to settle for what many believe to be a sum that barely covered legal fees. While I don’t know for certain the role that the column played in the their decision to settle, one does not have to be a high-powered San Francisco personal injury lawyer to put two and two together and come to a logical conclusion.
In that column, as most have probably surmised by now, I questioned the appropriateness of suing for damages that probably would have been sustained even under optimum circumstances. I mean, I’m no doctor, but I find it hard to believe that healthy 17- or 18-year-olds just suffer cardiac arrest spontaneously without some very serious pre-existing conditions. Kloose, it appears, could have just as easily suffered cardiac arrest at home mowing the lawn or washing the car.
Let’s face it: In this litigious era, lawsuits — frivolous and otherwise — are as common as the day is long. An instrument like an AED is a very technical and delicate piece of machinery. They must be administered by trained personnel. Should the schools then be mandated to have at least one or two fully certified persons on the grounds at all times? Should we go a step further and make every teacher be a certified paramedic as well? Just think how many lives that could save.
It is my belief that defibrillators are used so infrequently that they can just sit in their containers for years on end and not be used. And, if and when they are ever used, it is apparent that there is no end to the loopholes in existing law that can be exploited to litigate even when things go according to plan.
And there should be no doubt that a good lawyer can find a way around Good Samaritan laws.
While in a perfect world there would be a defibrillator in every house, office, plane, train and automobile — and a fully licensed and trained technician alongside it — the real world is not perfect by a long shot. The real world is chock full of potential hazards and limited budgets. Expecting the government to provide a solution to every imaginable problem that one may experience is not only one reason why the state of California is drowning in debt, it is simply impossible.
Believe me, I have nothing but empathy for the Kloose family. No 17-year-old boy should have to go through a near-death experience such as the one he had on that fateful day in the Lodi High gymnasium.
But I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Bad things happen to good people every day. It’s sad, it’s unfortunate and some would even call it cold-hearted and cruel, but the days of the state being able to afford to protect everybody from everything, I’m afraid, are over.
The potential liability that LUSD assumes by having AEDs on school campuses is unfortunately a risk that is, in my opinion, not cost-effective because of the likes of Mr. Waldsmith.
J. Kurt Roberts can be reached at jkurtroberts@sbcglobal.net or at 365-0389.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Robb wrote on Apr 22, 2009 11:49 AM:
Lodian wrote on Apr 21, 2009 11:57 PM:
Robb wrote on Apr 21, 2009 1:41 PM:
" negligence is nothing more than a loophole that millions of MY taxpaying dollars run through as some sleeze-ball lawyer lines his pockets.. " "
Jerry wrote on Apr 21, 2009 6:59 AM:
Negligence is a cause of action that must PROVE (among other things) that the Defendants: Had a duty to the plaintiff; breached that duty; knew or should have known the breach would result in damage; and, in fact, damage did occur.
If there is no negligence there is no filing. Because the District is routinely found to be negligent they must defend the action against them, pay their attorney's and then pay for the defendant's attorneys and cost when they lose. Your money goes to paying high priced administrators who are negligent, period.
If we want to save money on law suits then our District should follow the law. Trust me, Districts just about everywhere get sued here or there...but nothing like L.U.S.D. (they are found to be negligent over and over again). "
blossom wrote on Apr 17, 2009 1:43 PM:
blossom wrote on Apr 17, 2009 1:43 PM:
There is DEFINATELY so butt sanding that needs to be done! "
Jerry wrote on Apr 17, 2009 12:14 PM:
I found some time to play. You first Scrutiny, let me answer your last question first: "Im I losing my edge"...no, I so sharp I live at the edge of town. :) As far as finding a someone to represent in a legal action...hey, why don't I represent you.
I think we'd have a great shot at a cause of action known as "Failure to Educate." Send me a list of your alma maters and I will give em' the bad news.
RU4REAL...you say: "The Board is smarter than I give them credit for"... hey, they'd have to be. I give them all the credit they deserve, none! Further, I respectfully disagree with your assumption that "they don't have to be kicked in the teeth twice to get the message." Those gasbags have learned nothing.
The Board and their top administrators have repeately made the same mistakes over and over again. They are arrogant, dismissive, hubristic, insolent and generally speaking, supercilious.
It's arrogance and an inability to understand that are they're just servants of the people that get them sued. "
Robb wrote on Apr 17, 2009 11:39 AM:
Scrutiny wrote on Apr 16, 2009 9:20 PM:
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 16, 2009 1:57 PM:
I'll guarantee your sources are 100 percent incorrect, and that the existing defibs, like every other safety system within the district, are now being checked religiously. The district doesn't have to be kicked in the teeth twice to get the message. They're a little bit smarter than you give them credit for. Maybe you should get new RELIABLE sources, and kick the donkeys that are currently on your payroll off, to rape and pillage elsewhere. "
Jerry wrote on Apr 16, 2009 9:45 AM:
LNS...how about fact checking my sources that say "absolutely nothing has been done" to test this equipment on a regular basis? "
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 16, 2009 9:41 AM:
Jerry wrote on Apr 16, 2009 9:40 AM:
Or in this case, stupid is as negligence does. This isn't a failure of bateries this is a failure of leadership. What does it take to check these vital life saving machines? My assumption is, not much. While our top administrators were e-mailing each other or counting their money (correction our money) basic systems to protect children go unattended. So, what have they done between the time the last $400,000 was paid out for negligence and now? Answer: Nothing, absolutely nothing. What do you think the next set of lawyers are going to say about the "knew or should have known" elements of the cause of a legal action called "negligence"?
Honestly, its these kinds of things that really frighten me. What else is going to go "real wrong" "real soon" because "stupid does" appears to be the leading orthodoxy at stupid-central (AKA crook-central, the Chrystal Palace, Headquarters, Oz, the place where elephants go to die).
Again, again, again, it's not what we pay these kleptocrats its what they cost us. Millions! "
Lodian wrote on Apr 16, 2009 9:38 AM:
Jerry wrote on Apr 16, 2009 9:21 AM:
To keep our children safe, in an era of cheap, easy to use life saving technology, all reasonable means must be considered. It is not unreasonable to expect that a number of employees on "every" campus know both how to use life saving techology and to expect that technology to be usable. Both the operator and the machine need to be at-the-ready as life threating emergencies are rarely conveniently scheduled. For reasons only known to the District one of those two vital components was disabled, as in the batteries were bad.
Hence, the cry goes out that the District is negligent for not making sure the batteries were fresh and the machine was in operating condition.
Did the District have a duty to make sure there life saving technology works? Yes. All the elements of negligence are have been met: Duty; Breach; causality; Damage. Again, big, dumb, arrogant and rich is the plaintiff's bar wet-dream. Had that kid died, the payout would have been in the millions. "
t jefferson wrote on Apr 16, 2009 6:21 AM:
Lodian wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:19 PM:
" ding, ding, ding, we have a winner, ignorant it is..... "
Yep, there are still plenty of things in this big ol' world that I am ignorant about, but I can assure you that I will continue to educate myself.
That's more than I can say for you as it seems you are closed minded and simply done trying to learn a thing. "
Lodian wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:11 PM:
I agree with that, but I still don't think the district should bail on having these defibrillators on site. Why is it such a challenge to keep a defibrillator in good working order? Is there other safety equipment not being taken care of as well? I sure hope all the LUSD safety equipment will work when needed. "
Lodian wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:04 PM:
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 15, 2009 6:20 PM:
I don't know you, and we haven't exchanged blog entries before, but while I agree with your opinion of responsibility over the defib incident, I have to say that I don't agree with the position you put Lodian in. It was kinda like "do you cheat on your wife or just go out with other women?" Fair is fair. I just call them as I see them. "
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 15, 2009 4:22 PM:
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 15, 2009 4:06 PM:
t jefferson wrote on Apr 15, 2009 2:06 PM:
Lodian wrote on Apr 15, 2009 1:28 PM:
T jefferson wrote on Apr 15, 2009 12:37 PM:
Lodian wrote on Apr 15, 2009 12:00 PM:
Lodian wrote on Apr 15, 2009 8:57 AM:
t jefferson wrote on Apr 15, 2009 5:53 AM:
Gator wrote on Apr 14, 2009 6:59 PM:
Lodian wrote on Apr 14, 2009 1:43 PM:
LOL! I can agree on that one. "
Gator wrote on Apr 14, 2009 11:29 AM:
a concept your closed mind can understand. Because of the remark about
Idaho from an a person who is so full of himself to Jefferson I felt it was a
good move to jerk his chain, it was.. The expected response was spot on!!
As I have said I have a vested interest in Lodi and till that changes you will
see me here from time to timelodian I believe if you read the Apr 12, 2009 1:17 PM: you will see it as a constructive criticism, nothing more than common sense, something most anyone could grasp, eh Amigo!! "
Lodian wrote on Apr 14, 2009 9:21 AM:
t jefferson wrote on Apr 14, 2009 7:34 AM:
Gator wrote on Apr 14, 2009 7:29 AM:
Jerry wrote on Apr 14, 2009 7:11 AM:
El Rushbo wrote on Apr 13, 2009 7:01 PM:
t jefferson wrote on Apr 13, 2009 5:54 PM:
Lodian, Leonard is dimwit who comes here to spout his nonsense because he can get no traction where he now is. I for one appreciate Gators comments. More common nonsensical than most here. "
Gator wrote on Apr 13, 2009 5:50 PM:
by the blogs. Disdain for Lodi no. Just some of the ridicules goings on and the anti business climate. I would love to see Lodi prosper not die on the vine like it isDo you
copy??? Love to see it prosper!!! And I have a problem with LUSD, reason I have Grand
Children going there and the place is a mess from top to bottom. Also I have a great deal
of disgust for the direction California turned.. My great Grand Parents settled in Ferndale
California before there was a town called Ferndale. I spent a big part of my life in Northern California. I could live in California, No where south of Ukiah to the west and
no where south of Redding in the centralI would love to see Lodi become all it could
be but with the anti business climate and LUSD that is not to attractive to business. So
that is my opinion, if you dont agree I have a right to them that is your problem not mine!! "
Lodian wrote on Apr 13, 2009 4:29 PM:
Lodian wrote on Apr 13, 2009 4:14 PM:
Sorry, I must have hit a nerve. "
Lodian wrote on Apr 13, 2009 4:13 PM:
Gator, the difference between you and Leonard is your obvious deep disdain for Lodi. I just think that if you can't stand Lodi that much then why stop by a Lodi blog. I suspect you just like to put down our area and enjoy boasting that you live in a better city/state (your opinion). Sorry, Gator, but that's just bad form.
If all is so wonderful for you in Nampa, Idaho then I don't think you would be so incredibly anxious to put down the city of Lodi all the time and bash the good people in our state. "
Lodian wrote on Apr 13, 2009 4:03 PM:
" Lodian, same thing that draws Leonard!! "
Gator: Leonard was asked repeatedly by many bloggers to make sure and stop by the blogs even after he left Lodi a little while ago. What's the draw for you to keep stopping by? "
Gator wrote on Apr 13, 2009 4:03 PM:
Also I said I would like to see Lodi get out of doldrums and get some business going
there as its wilting on the vine and if it keeps it up it will be just another Valley town
like Orland and Willows.. That good enough for you. "
Gator wrote on Apr 13, 2009 3:54 PM:
Gator wrote on Apr 13, 2009 3:52 PM:
Authoritarian blather slide if not for your snarky remark about Idaho. That is to disparage a place you know nothing about brought on the remarkThe biggest troublemaker you'll probably ever have to deal with watches you shave his face in the mirror every morning.
As they say here in Idaho, It don't take no genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep !! "
Lodian wrote on Apr 13, 2009 2:06 PM:
Jerry wrote on Apr 13, 2009 12:18 PM:
Then after all that boasting, crowing, bragging, prating and puffing you say:
"I am full of myself"...
I am no psychologist, however, you sound conflicted, self-conscious and may have some unresolved anger issues. You also sound a bit lonely, rejected and sad. Gator, are you smellin' what I'm steppin' in here?
These things said, let's stay with words and thoughts related to the story at-issue shall we? If you don't like California don't move back, don't visit and don't blog into newspapers located in small California towns. Isn't there anyone you can annoy in potato-ville?
Sorry, can't play any longer...lunch time. However, please remember, even among us poor uneducated dummies many of us can figure out who you are by what you write, yes? "
Lodian wrote on Apr 13, 2009 12:03 PM:
Gator wrote on Apr 13, 2009 8:08 AM:
this I would say my IQ tops yours, I have made more money than you and as I go through
life much more satisfied and comfortable than you. I live in a state that is more friendly
than yours, where people go out of their way to lend a hand. Have a nice day Amigo!!! "
Jerry wrote on Apr 13, 2009 6:51 AM:
No sir, you will fund my lawsuits! Each and everytime a government agency who has a "duty" to our citizenry fails to act pursuant to a foreseeable risk and a damage occurs that's reasonable connection by and between that failure to act and "that damage." The government will get sued. And, they will lose. As I have said before, this District is the plaintiff's bar wet-dream. They are big, stupid and have lots of money (yours and mine)...they have made themselves targets by trying to remain willingly ignorant.
And, as I have explained to you before. In California the law is well settled in this area: There is no duty to rescue one private citizen by another private citizen absent a duty to do otherwise. If you see someone choking to death in a restaurant in which you are having your dinner, you are in no legal peril if you just sit there and watch them turn blue and suffocate. "Pass the bread dear."
You've heard it. "But for the grace of God go I"...How do YOU look in blue? "
Jerry wrote on Apr 13, 2009 6:35 AM:
It suffices to say, schools are "the" most highly populated pieces of real estate (per square foot) anywhere in Lodi. The State, the District, the Schools and there agents and employees have "the" most important jobs on the planet....to safeguard our children's safety.
To pull any life saving technology from this area and population because it is "inconvenient" to service (or understand how to use)is beyond stupid, it's criminal. What's next fire alarms?
As far as your personal attack on my intelligence... I am not going to honor your windbaggery by saying much, it doesn't merit much. However, did you know that when you left California for Idaho you raised the median I.Q. in both states at the same time? "
Gator wrote on Apr 12, 2009 7:10 PM:
But they are in the minority. There are huge amount of Californians living
Here, my self includedThere is no amount of money that would ever entice me to move back!!! So Im here in Idaho to stay,,, "
t jefferson wrote on Apr 12, 2009 7:02 PM:
As far as your bet, you would lose.... "
Mainframe wrote on Apr 12, 2009 5:21 PM:
Mainframe wrote on Apr 12, 2009 5:10 PM:
Gator wrote on Apr 12, 2009 1:17 PM:
Lost S***If I read the original correctly 2 people preformed CPR, the machine failed
CPR continued till LFD arrived and used their De-fib. The young man survived, the out
Of hospital survival rate for cardiac arrest is 5% wheres the beef, he is alive and going to College!! Looks like an ambulance chaser got to LUSD, some how it figures. LUSD the Gang who couldnt shoot straight!! Now then You have a couple of defibrillators, First aid Kits, Fire Extinguishers and in some cases Fire hose School or not, all are required to be Inspected regularly, as with Fire Extinguishers, monthly and serviced annually. Im sure With out a doubt some one could be put in charge to monitor said equipment. As for the De-fibs Check once a month, test once a quarter, replace batteries as need!! Coaches Should be up on current CPR and should be updated annually, its called welcome to the real world "
t jefferson wrote on Apr 12, 2009 10:16 AM:
Here let me show you.
Lee, what you see in JB is the result of a long line of Eugenics experiments conducted by the progressives in this country. Instead of the expected outcome though, the result was the same as you get in some of the royal lines in Europe and the isolated valleys of the Appalachian mnts. Some call it inbreeding others call it stupidity. I just call it Liberalism.
See how easy that is JB? Lesson over.... "
jbhiker wrote on Apr 12, 2009 9:17 AM:
Cogito wrote on Apr 12, 2009 9:12 AM:
t jefferson wrote on Apr 12, 2009 7:23 AM:
Lee, quiet now, adults are talking. It is called a thread (string of multiple posts, read them all) and it contains a lot of hints and allegations from other areas. You need to be somewhat educated to understand. "
Lee wrote on Apr 12, 2009 1:28 AM:
" jb, wtf are you talking about? Is the drool escaping you cake hole again? Your last comment make no sense so I won't even respond. You live in your Nanny state socialist distopia and I will try to make it in what is left of free America..."
What? You must be typing too fast or something. Your post hardly makes any sense. "
Jerry wrote on Apr 11, 2009 8:31 PM:
Have you ever considered relocating to Idaho. I think you'd fit right in. "
t jefferson wrote on Apr 11, 2009 6:24 PM:
Jerry, I find your comment amazing, you worry about the 25% who don't graduate, why severely limit those who can succeed by spending so much on those that can't or won't? Dumbing down to the lowest common denominator has done far more harm than good. Take unions for instance, what has there effect been? They play to the lowest common denominator and have bankrupted every industry they have controlled for more than 50 years. Government is next on the list.... "
jbhiker wrote on Apr 11, 2009 3:42 PM:
Jerry wrote on Apr 11, 2009 2:36 PM:
I can assure you I am a strong minded person who has seen the problem close up and personal. I know children with a mom or dad in jail, the other parent out of work (usually on drugs or drinking too much). The family doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of ...tell me, how can the government hurt a child living in these conditions. On the other hand, you know, I know, everyone knows...nothing takes the place of a good and loving family culture.
However, for some, there is just no realistic probability that loving functional family will ever exist. In these rare cases, the community, the churches, and yes the government must take a more active and responsible role. "
Jerry wrote on Apr 11, 2009 2:27 PM:
Our society has a stake in these children. It is in the best interests of all of us to ensure that they get educated and become productive members of society. What we are doing now is not working.
If your child was placed in swimming lessons for 12 years, 7 hours per day and 25% of the class still could not swim at the end of the 12th year, would you call it a successful program?
25% do not graduate each year; 25% are thrown away like used tissue paper; 25% drown. That is unacceptable. "
T jefferson wrote on Apr 11, 2009 2:27 PM:
Jerry wrote on Apr 11, 2009 2:18 PM:
Yes, there are private schools and some are home-schooled. That said, as parents or as teachers we must keep children out of harms way. The first job of every parent is the first job of every school: Keep children safe and secure. Job two is educationing them.
When you deliver your child to school in one piece he/she better be in one piece when you pick them up. Schools are required to supervise, they have a duty to keep children safe and secure in their person and parents have a right to expect that someone is watching the store.
Yeh, I get it. Most schools try desparately to remove themselves from responsibility and liability, however, try as they will, they are still on the hook to ensure child health, safety and welfare.
I know this comment will make many of you unhappy, however, I think the government should do more not less in this regard. Why? Because a good percentage of the parents are not responsible. Between drugs, alcohol, violence and poverty more school may some kids only chance. "
T jefferson wrote on Apr 11, 2009 2:17 PM:
jbhiker wrote on Apr 11, 2009 11:43 AM:
t jefferson wrote on Apr 11, 2009 8:59 AM:
t jefferson wrote on Apr 11, 2009 8:58 AM:
Jerry wrote on Apr 11, 2009 8:46 AM:
Reasonable and honorable men can disagree, however, here's the problem with your argument.
The law mandates that we give up our rights as parents [to and for] the care and custody of our own children 7-hours a day, 185 days a year. It's the law.
The Schools take our place as parents for the time they have care and custody of our children (In Loco Parentis). The duty of the school is to provide a safe environment for our children to be taught and to learn, period. This one is not optional.
Too many times, the Schools drop the ball. They are unwilling or are unable to dispense their obvious duties pursuant to a foreseeable harm or risk legal peril. Although negligence lawsuits are neither remarkable or exclusive to L.U.S.D., it appears that Lodi Unifed seems have more than its share.
With over 200,000 lawyers in this state wouldn't it be prudent to take reasonable steps to make sure that our safety technologies are in good working order all times? The question is can we find a way to fix stupid? "
Jerry wrote on Apr 11, 2009 8:30 AM:
One last point, using Mr. Robert's logic we should also do away with each and every safety device or new technology used on school campuses so we can avoid law suits. However, there is probably a lawyer "somewhere" who is smart enough to sue the district on the theory that "but for" these easy to use, durable, reliable devices this child would not have been injured. The lawyer would say: The District's only motivation in not purchasing and using these devices was to avoid their "DUTY" and lessen their liability.
Mr. Roberts there is a duty to rescue because it is reasonably foreseeable that a child may have a cardio event that can be easily rehabilitated by new technology. Why is it so difficult to have any number of people on campus who have the skills and ability to prevent foreseeable harm. Children choke, drown, bleed and burn. That doesn't mean we are not prepared to stop it.
L.U.S.D. has been named in 34 other lawsuits for negligence. Why? "
t jefferson wrote on Apr 11, 2009 8:22 AM:
t jefferson wrote on Apr 11, 2009 8:17 AM:
Jerry wrote on Apr 11, 2009 8:13 AM:
Legally speaking the Good Samaritan Laws have little to do with what goes on at school during a school day. In the State of California there is no "duty to rescue"... meaning you can be a Medical Doctor and watch someone choking to death on their steak and not and continue sipping your wine.
However, the distinction needs to be drawn from the purpose of the Good Samaritan Laws and the laws (statute and judge made) that control the acta, actions, commissions and ommissions of teachers and administrators at school.
The key work here is "duty." The question is: "Does the District and therefore the School have a duty to rescue or can they just ignore a clear and present danger to a child like the aforementioned M.D. example"? The answer I hope everone has tumbled to by now is "yes"...the District, the School and its agents and employees have a duty to intervene in our children's behalf to keep them safe while they are in their care and custody (7-hours a day 185-days a year).
Your article Mr. Roberts should be called the high cost of stupidity. "
jbhiker wrote on Apr 11, 2009 7:52 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.