Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

No one would be shocked if Lodi Unified School District pulls plug on defibrillators

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:00 pm

Lodi Unified officials will soon decide whether to keep automated external defibrillators on its school campuses in light of a recently settled lawsuit.

In February, Lodi Unified paid $400,000 to settle the lawsuit filed by a former student who was resuscitated after suffering cardiac arrest during physical education class.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 20 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 20 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription at this time and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 209-369-2761. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

56 comments:

  • posted at 1:30 pm on Sat, Mar 28, 2009.

    Posts:

    Jerry,As MomofTwo stated, both Clements and Turner Schools have been on the chopping block for years, due to the cost of operation vs. the number of students attending. The Board has always chosen to keep both facilities in operation due to the passionate pleas of the parents. There comes a time, however, when fiscal responsibility demands the hard decisions be made. This, obviously, is such a time, and the board did what it had to do.Regarding the corruption claim, I would suggest you have either a very good lawyer, or enough hard evidence to back up such a charge. If I know you, you have absolutely no facts to support your allegations.

     
  • posted at 9:23 am on Fri, Mar 27, 2009.

    Posts:

    JerryLUSD actually dediced to close Turner School due to the Well Water Issue that would have costed the District 140,000 to repair. LUSD would have saved 50,000 A YEAR by closing Clements Elementary.

     
  • posted at 12:36 pm on Thu, Mar 26, 2009.

    Posts:

    Jerry,Please do yourself, and the rest of us, a favor, and seek professional help.

     
  • posted at 8:54 am on Wed, Mar 25, 2009.

    Posts:

    More answers for RU4REALYour brand of sensitivity training aways involves only two groups of people: Whites who are insensitive and people of color who are the victims of that insensitivity, yes?So, the Board (by way of Odie Douglas) hires the Pacific Group so that our white teachers can get in touch with their inner-biggot right? Odie calls this process "courageous conversations" A process where whites can confess their racist agendas and proclivities. Do you think Odie had any other groups in mind? Please educate me if you think we are all that stupid.As I have said before, the teachers were outraged by Pacific's approach and by the fees they garnered for insulting everyone's intelligence.Now, please tell me where the sensitivity training came into the picture when the L.U.S.D. Board closed down Turner School; a school that is dominated by mexican children. And, why did the Board close down Turner school? Answer: Because the District could realize a $50,000 per year savings? That's about half the cost of the the top administrator's cell phone bills. Is the Board corrupt and incompetent? Yep.

     
  • posted at 8:30 am on Wed, Mar 25, 2009.

    Posts:

    RU4REAL...How do you pick up a turd by the clean end?Continuing from my blog below: You asked (rhetorically or otherwise..hard to tell)...Does having too many lawsuits make the Board incompetent? No, I'd say not in and of itself. However, what makes the Board incompetent is corruption. Yes, I believe the Board (or at least one member of the Board) is corrupt. What do I mean by corrupt? I mean they have undisclosed conflicts of interest where money is transfered (in one way or another) from L.U.S.D's bank account to a bank account "they" the Board member controls. Further, I believe in this case the payee (directly or indirectly) the Board member is benefiting. Yep. Sinks.What do you call sensitivity training? The Pacific Group was paid over $200,000 by the corrupt and incompetent Board to hold seminars for white teachers so they could get in touch with their inner-bigots. The teachers were (understandably) outraged. It was a waste of time, energy and money. More on sensitivity training above.

     
  • posted at 8:15 am on Wed, Mar 25, 2009.

    Posts:

    To: RU4RealLet's cut to the chase. You seem to be of the opinion that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. Whereas, I do not.First, there was no public record of the top administrator's salaries until I called LNS on it. Up to that time, they had been reporting that these people were making somewhere between this and that; in other words they were giving brackets not exacting numbers. Yes, you are right, the millions of dollars I claim the District pays in legal costs is in the millions. Yes, it is vague. That's why I have asked over-and-over again for LNS to do some "real" investigative reporting and find out exactly how many lawsuits the District has been named a defendant in and how much is it costing to defend and indemnify these claims. All LNS need do is have Jennifer interview Mr. Barge and ask him: How many law suits is the District currently defending? How much does the Board's Errors and Ommissions cost? What has the District paid out in claims?

     
  • posted at 2:44 am on Wed, Mar 25, 2009.

    Posts:

    Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.The salary numbers you're throwing out are all public record. The millions of dollars you claim the district pays in legal costs is somewhat vague, don't you think? Yes, the District does have large legal fees, as does every other government agency. The problem is, since the District rarely has cause to sue anyone else, it's always kinda lopsided! Does that make the board incompetent? Don't think so. If they are, you elected them. If you don't think they do their homework, then obviously we didn't do ours either. By the way, speaking of not doing your homework, the district was regularly conducting "sensitivity" training long before Odie got there. We had them every couple of years for as long as I can remember. Every heard of continuing education, Jerry? This training is designed to always keep the mistakes of the past from being forgotten. Guess you forgot!

     
  • posted at 7:06 am on Tue, Mar 24, 2009.

    Posts:

    Answering RU4REAL and challenging L.N.S.Why doesn't the Lodi News-Sentinel report on the Mesfund fiasco? This suit is on-point to the District's inability to supervise the on-site administrators and will again cost us hundreds-of-thousands....and others like it... "millions."Can't we put our money to better use than to pay attorneys a ton of money to defend these negligent acts. This District pays out millions of dollars each and every year in defense, indemnification and plaintiff pay-outs because the Board is arrogant, dismissive and completely insensitive and tell our "top administrators" to just ignore these people..."they will go away sooner than later."Yet, the plaintiff's and their attorneys never do. These people are angry because the District will not respond to real problems and they do the only thing they can to get some attention...they sue.If there were nothing to the lawsuits filed against the District then there wouldn't be so many and the District might win a case once in a while. The fact is, most cases filed have merit, must be defended and usually are paid out quietly while "we the people" are all busy looking for pencils and paper.

     
  • posted at 6:54 am on Tue, Mar 24, 2009.

    Posts:

    Hey, RU4REALDo you work for the kelptocrats? You sure sound like it. Here's some facts that are worth chewing on: The Lodi Unified School Board hired Odie Douglas; Mr. Douglas has a long and storied history with a group called S.E.E.D's. Odie Douglas hired with the Board's encouragement (or at the Board's direction) the Pacific Group. The Pacific Group was paid over $200,000 to help our teachers get in touch with their inner-bigots. The Board eliminated Science Camp and then intiated Senior Projects. The Board pays the Superintendent $230,000 per year plus a $700 a month car allowance; they pay Odie Douglas $168,500 plus, plus plus. How many pencils can you buy with a million bucks?Because the Board is reckless, lazy and arrogant and because the Board has abdicated their reponsibilities to their hand picked know nothings we find ourselves paying out millions of dollars in legal fees to lawyers and paying off the plaintiff's bar because our Top Administrators are negligent and routinely breach their fiducary responsibilities on a daily basis. THE BOARD NEEDS TO GO IN 2010,PERIOD.

     
  • posted at 4:59 am on Tue, Mar 24, 2009.

    Posts:

    Groovy Dude: I know we've seen that Walmart has some aggressive lawyers on staff. I guess they have to with the way the corporation handles itself.

     
  • posted at 3:48 pm on Mon, Mar 23, 2009.

    Posts:

    While you are there also ask how many lawsuits WalMart has had.I'd bet WalMart has more than L.U.S.D.

     
  • posted at 1:28 pm on Mon, Mar 23, 2009.

    Posts:

    Jerry,You never passed reading and comprehension, did you? I'd like you to point out the blog entry under which I asked Jennifer to do a full investigation into the legal, as you claim. As usual, you're again making accusations without substance or fact. It seems that you're very good at stirring the pot, but have no idea what ingredients you put in. Facts, Jerry. It's something I keep asking you for and you keep skirting the issue with hearsay and tap dance. Got any FACTS, Jerry? BS isn't admissible in court.

     
  • posted at 10:34 am on Mon, Mar 23, 2009.

    Posts:

    Recall all members of the Board (all 7) in 2010; if we can't get all 11,000 signatures let's make sure at least the four that are standing re-election get the boot. None of these guys have a dog in this fight; nobody has a kid that's within a lightyear of the District. I can't find one top administrator who lives in Lodi or has a child in our District...why's that?Enron, Citibank, AIG... L.U.S.D. is it me or does L.U.S.D. and their arrogant administrators seem to fit right in to A.I.Greed? When the Nichols-Washer says its between more teachers or more pencils do you get a funny feeling in your gut you're gettin worked? Let's clean out crook-central next year and get our district back. When smart guys like RU4REAL can't come up with something better than what (it has) maybe there's something wrong with these kleptocrats, yes? Sorry RU...this can't be for real. You're waiving around an empty bag...nobody's buying it.

     
  • posted at 10:19 am on Mon, Mar 23, 2009.

    Posts:

    Jennifer: RU4REAL et. al would like you to do a complete and comprehensive investigation into Lodi Unified School District's legal problems. Some people want to know to know if L.U.S.D. represents just an average defendant who seems to get sued everytime they turn around or is it something more?My guess, with the "high quality" of administrators we employ (the one's who appear to be so arrogant and dismissive) that our chance to get sued is a bit higher than most, however, I am more than willing to let the pros like you tell us that.Jennifer, just go to the Courthouse (San Joaquin County) and ask the gal in records to show you how many cases L.U.S.D. has been named in as defendants. Oh, I was wrong, it is not a mere 38 it is more like 46 and counting.At any rate, we all want to know how many and how much. How much does it cost to defend these suits? How much does it cost when L.U.S.D. looses?Again, my guess is millions of dollars go out every year to defense, insurance and indemnification. Pretty please.

     
  • posted at 9:48 am on Mon, Mar 23, 2009.

    Posts:

    I guess if Kloose didn't sue we wouldn't know what we know today. We know the LUSD did not maintain emergency equipment meant to save lives in an emergency. There's really no excuse.

     
  • posted at 5:00 pm on Sun, Mar 22, 2009.

    Posts:

    This is very sad! I am for Mr. Kloose, but you lived to tell your story, and prevent future damage. Do not sue, that only makes matters worse. I have seen it many times: car wreck, neck hurts: SUE SUE SUE. No, I do not know all of the facts of this case, AND I might be wrong, but he is alive today. RIGHT?

     
  • posted at 2:43 pm on Sun, Mar 22, 2009.

    Posts:

    Jerry,Sorry, never heard of the 2009 Lawyer Full Employment act. Perhaps you can provide as much specifics about this as you have about your other accusations. Didn't think we'd get into name calling here, but so be it. I'm glad you can "nearly" speak for 200 plus teachers. That's very impressive. I noticed that you conveniently didn't request that Jennifer investigate other California school districts and public agencies at the same time and provide the statistics to allow an "informed" conclusion. How goal serving! How about we deal with facts, Jerry, and not inflammatory speculation. I've asked you for facts in the past, Jerry, to back up your claims, and all I get is your suspicions. I might as well be reading the National Enquirer.

     
  • posted at 5:55 pm on Sat, Mar 21, 2009.

    Posts:

    Jennifer (Education beat Lodi News)There seems to be a question about what Lodi Unified School District pays out each year in defense and indemnification for lawsuits. Could you investigate what the District paid out last year (and so far this year) in lawyer's fees and payouts to defendants.I am nearly certain that the 200 plus teachers who just got fired would like to know if they lost their jobs because the District finds itself on the wrong side of so many lawsuits "but for" their negligence and/or stupidity.Please. Inquiring minds want to know.By the way, where can we find these legal fiascos in the budget? This is a toss-up question...does anyone know? Can someone ask Mr. Barge or is that a secret also?

     
  • posted at 5:43 pm on Sat, Mar 21, 2009.

    Posts:

    RU4REALAs I suspected, you are a paid apologist for the District's kleptocrats. Are you kidding, this District (L.U.S.D.) represents the 2009 Lawyers Full Employment Act. Every time attorneys hear the words Lodi Unified they know they have got a defendant who is arrogant,stupid and rich. L.U.S.D. has made itself a professional defendant because of their incompetent and corrupt Board and the kleptocrat adminstrative following.In point of fact, L.U.S.D. pays out millions in defense, indemnification and errors and ommissions insurance every year. Why? Because they make so many errors and ommissions. How many teachers could we rehire if we didn't have these knuckle heads running this $275,000,000 enterprise.No my friend, Lodi Unified School District gets sued (and sued successfully) because they are negligent and consistantly breach their fiducary duty to their teachers and students. The defibrillator fiasco is just one of 38 examples where the District's administration couldn't manage or supervise the basics. This suit costs 400K in settlement; how much did it cost to defend the case before they had to pay up? Another 200K? Can we get LNS to find out?

     
  • posted at 11:32 am on Sat, Mar 21, 2009.

    Posts:

    Hey, Jerry,While you're throwing out statistics, how about including comparable statistics from other Districts and public agencies. You forgot to mention that public agencies are a prime target of frivolous lawsuits, particularly those initiated under the "American's with Disabilities Act". There are professional "litigants" out there who target public agencies due to their "deep pockets". Yes, Lodi Unified has it's share of lawsuits, but so does every public agency. Many of these lawsuits are baseless, and initiated in hopes of settlement, because it's often in the agencies best interest to settle, due to the high cost of legal defense. If you're going to tell a story, tell the whole story, not just want you want to be heard to serve your cause.

     
  • posted at 9:15 am on Fri, Mar 20, 2009.

    Posts:

    Seriously... if the LUSD can't keep batteries charged on a safety device then what else might they be incapable of maintaining? What else might we uncover? What other safety issues are being neglected? How about we cut back on some of the LUSD cell phones... maybe by half? And use that money to keep our safety equipment in good working order. Really, this isn't that hard.

     
  • posted at 7:55 am on Fri, Mar 20, 2009.

    Posts:

    The elements of a cause of action for negligence are: 1. A legal duty; 2. A breach of that duty; 3. A reasonable close causal connection between the breach and the plaintiff's resulting injury; and, 4. Actual loss or damage to the plaintiff. See People v. Young 20 Cal. 2d 832, 129 P.2d 353 (1942)As they say, if the shoe fits put it on.These shoes have been a tight fit for L.U.S.D. Most of the 38 lawsuits the District has been named in (San Joaquin alone) have been brought in actions alleging Negligence.Also, as one would suspect, the District engages in conduct that is seen as "unlawful" and therefore spends more time than they should with State and Federal agencies of one type or another.Again, how many teacher's jobs could be saved if our administrators did their jobs correctly? Big, stupid, and plenty of money is an attractive target for the plaintiff's bar. This story isn't about one lawsuit or one error in judgment. It's about a district who ignors their responsibilities and the law.

     
  • posted at 7:39 am on Fri, Mar 20, 2009.

    Posts:

    More...Spending the public's money must be rational, reasonable and tranparent. How much does it cost 'the tax payers' to hire and retain L.U.S.D's administrators? Has anyone done an investigation of the 38 lawsuits that have named L.U.S.D. as a defendant yet?How many teacher jobs could be saved with the millions L.U.S.D. pays to their lawyers (and plaintiffs) when it is found, over-and-over again that the District has been negligent or has breached their fiducary duty to students, parents and teachers. L.U.S.D. getting sued for bone-headed mistakes (that were foreseeable and could have been easily avoided)is not a remarkable event. We not only pay through the nose for our administrators salaries and perks we pay again when these (know nothing, do nothing) fatcats can not or will not live up to the standard of care expected by society.I challenge the Lodi News-Sentinel to do some investigative journalism and find out what it costs the District in lawyers, malpractice insurance and big payoffs to plaintiffs in dozens of new legal actions each year. I will bet ya' the number is in the millions.

     
  • posted at 7:26 am on Fri, Mar 20, 2009.

    Posts:

    Let me offer an alternative theory of reality. Let's face it (As I mentioned in another blog) Lodi Unified School District is a lawyer's wet-dream. L.U.S.D. is big, as dumb as a bag of hammers and has very deep pockets. Where are all the high priced administrators when you need one? Can't someone make sure that the flippin defibrillators work properly? I am nearly certain, the District was counter-sued by the maker of the defibrillator because they "probably want to be indemnified" for the District's stupidity and gross negligence, yes?Schools are not good sumaritans, they are agents, guardians and trustees of our children's safety and well-being. The State mandates that all parents release the custody of their children to these guardians each and every school day. Remember in loco parentis? The District and the Schools have an affirmative duty to keep our children safe while at school, period.This is just one more example of our District's policy of LEAVE NO BAD ADMINISTRATOR BEHIND. Supes 230K, Assoc. Supes 165K...negligence you can count on: Priceless, and a big payday for lawyers.

     
  • posted at 6:39 am on Fri, Mar 20, 2009.

    Posts:

    "Majority does not equal right?" No. But it does equal democracy. Apparently, left wing loons have forgotten abut that - unless of course, it is in their interest.

     
  • posted at 1:37 am on Fri, Mar 20, 2009.

    Posts:

    Lodian,So then what's right is determined by the minority? Humm....I think that concept isn't playing well in many third world countries.

     
  • posted at 5:08 pm on Thu, Mar 19, 2009.

    Posts:

    Majority does not equal right.

     
  • posted at 5:05 pm on Thu, Mar 19, 2009.

    Posts:

    RU4REAL: It's never time to give up on the right thing to do. We the people have that right. Sometimes good triumphs over evil and right wins over wrong, no matter how good the lawyer may be.

     
  • posted at 1:39 pm on Thu, Mar 19, 2009.

    Posts:

    Lodian,By the way, thank you for the engaging dialog.

     
  • posted at 1:30 pm on Thu, Mar 19, 2009.

    Posts:

    Lodian,Lawyers will always find a way to sue. The principal of "Majority Rules" has been consitently made mute, by lawyers who side with those who feel the constitution is being violated. A good example would be half of the ballots that Californian's have had the opportunity to vote on in the past 20 years. While the majority declares it's position, lawyers, hired by special interest groups, file suit in an attempt to find the measure "unconstitutional". I would submit that what is "constitutional" is what the majority rules, with the exception "state vs. state" issues decided on a national platform. That will always be biased towards the states with the highest populations.Willing to give up the right thing to do? I wouldn't be writing this if that were true.

     
  • posted at 12:30 pm on Thu, Mar 19, 2009.

    Posts:

    RU4REAL wrote on Mar 19, 2009 4:28 PM:" shockedinlodi,Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the specifics of laws governing the use of AED's. I wish I were, but then I'd probably be a lawyer, and that wouldn't be cool.If the case was "settled", that would indicate it did not go to court. Very often a government agency will settle out of court due to the propensity of juries to side with the "little guy" against a "deep pockets" defendant. "Or did the district lawyers realize the district was at fault and could not win this lawsuit?

     
  • posted at 12:28 pm on Thu, Mar 19, 2009.

    Posts:

    RU4REAL: It appears that you are willing to give up what may be the right thing to do because a lawyer may find a way to sue.

     
  • posted at 11:28 am on Thu, Mar 19, 2009.

    Posts:

    shockedinlodi,Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the specifics of laws governing the use of AED's. I wish I were, but then I'd probably be a lawyer, and that wouldn't be cool.If the case was "settled", that would indicate it did not go to court. Very often a government agency will settle out of court due to the propensity of juries to side with the "little guy" against a "deep pockets" defendant.

     
  • posted at 11:17 am on Thu, Mar 19, 2009.

    Posts:

    Lodian,It appears you are suggesting that we void the provisions contained within the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and ignore all previous rulings of the Supreme Court. It is, for better or for worse, lawyers that argue the legitimacy of the laws contained within both documents. Since the rulings of the Supreme Court are unappealable, I'll skip that one. I'm certainly not a proponent of lawyers, but the purpose of their occupation is no less valuable than any other. If life was perfect, we wouldn't even need lawyers, nor doctors, nor legislators, nor contracts, etc.

     
  • posted at 10:02 am on Thu, Mar 19, 2009.

    Posts:

    RU4REAL: How do you figure?

     
  • posted at 8:54 am on Thu, Mar 19, 2009.

    Posts:

    Lodian,It appears you're unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution.

     
  • posted at 8:13 am on Thu, Mar 19, 2009.

    Posts:

    dyan: You are just allowing such lawyers to dictate what you should and should not do, your freedom. How about we stop doing that?

     
  • posted at 3:56 am on Thu, Mar 19, 2009.

    Posts:

    Get rid of the things. In our society, it's much cheaper to let people die. Next time you see one, thank a trial lawyer for his or her "humanity."

     
  • posted at 7:53 pm on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    The district should keep these defibrillators and make sure they are in good working order. It should be no different than maintaining fire extinguishers, alarms, overhead sprinklers and all the other emergency/safety equipment.

     
  • posted at 2:20 pm on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    Pop up spam ads on LNS articles will NOT get me to buy them. Its a sad thing with advertisers will do anything to push their ad in our face! If I wanted anything to do with Western Union, I would look for them on the web, not on a LNS article.

     
  • posted at 1:32 pm on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    RU4REAL - I guess I have the same questions."renders emergency care as long as the AED is properly maintained, including checking it for readiness at least every 30 days" Is this a known fact? Jeez this seems a little harsh to be written into law. You are just asking people to be sued. Did this go to court? Or was it settled out of court. I can't believe that anyone would find the LUSD liable for trying to help. I feel like I do not have all the facts. If it was settled out of court for $400,000, I would say the childs family did not feel like they had a case. It seems that anyone who would file a lawsuit would want more money.

     
  • posted at 12:14 pm on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    and you idiots wonder why Lodi Unified doesn't have any money????

     
  • posted at 12:08 pm on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    Many years ago, the Good Samaritan Act was passed to relieve healthcare professionals of responsibility when arriving upon an accident scene and rendering the appropriate first aid to sustain life, to the best of their abilities, until the responsible emergency services providers can respond. How is this instance any different? If an RN happened to have a defibulator in her trunk, and failed to inspect it on a regular basis, would you expect her to be liable if she attempted to use it on someone who would otherwise have died anyway if she hadn't arrived and tried? How ridiculous. So, if a defibrillator hadn't been present at all, the District wouldn't be liable? Chuck those suckers. I hope the lawyer is the first one who needs one.

     
  • posted at 7:30 am on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Mar 18, 2009 11:35 AM: " Barge said there are "between 4 and 7" AED's in the district. If LUSD doesn't even know how many they have, how can they be expected to maintain them? We're not talking hundreds of devices here. LUSD is cheap and lazy and deserved to be sued. "I agree with you here, except for the being sued comment.

     
  • posted at 6:35 am on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    Barge said there are "between 4 and 7" AED's in the district. If LUSD doesn't even know how many they have, how can they be expected to maintain them? We're not talking hundreds of devices here. LUSD is cheap and lazy and deserved to be sued.

     
  • posted at 4:43 am on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    I totally agree with Cogito.How sad that they may remove something that may save lives in the future because of this lawsuit. Sickening!

     
  • posted at 4:26 am on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    This whole situation is reminicent of the beginning of the "The Incredibles" where hereos can no longer do their jobs because they get sued for it. I laughed and thought that scene was funny. How sad it is that the family was greedy instead of grateful that this device was even on campus? Yes, the device didn't work, but the outcome of the situation would have been no different had there not been a defibrilator on campus. Would they have sued the teachers administering CPR for "not doing it right" if the defibrilator had not been on campus? Who wants to risk saving a life when all it gets you is legal trouble?

     
  • posted at 4:09 am on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    If the lawyers want to sue, fine, let them sue. Then every place that has these AED's should just get rid of them. The only place for these AED's are hospitals, fire stations,and ambulances. The lawyers and that family really did think this out. Why not just sue the hospital for not having a hospital built next to the school. Or better yet, have a hospital at every street corner. The problem with all this is GREED.

     
  • posted at 4:06 am on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    Would have the Good Samaritan act have saved the school district from the lawsuit? Or since it was the batteries that were dead would it have not? I think it is weird that California is just passing a Good Samaritan act, since most states have had this for years. How much are batteries for these devices? Are they expensive? If the board takes them away can the school district sell the devices on ebay? It seems they were expensive so no reason to collect dust. Does the school district sell items they do not use?

     
  • posted at 3:15 am on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    Do the RIGHT thing Adam Kloose:Give that money to the people who saved your life! Without them you would NOT be alive today to cash that check!

     
  • posted at 3:14 am on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    Welcome to the US, circa 2009, brought to you by the trial lawyers and their bought and paid for political party the democrats. Remove the AEDs now. The school district can not afford to be generous when the sharks are circling in the water.

     
  • posted at 2:54 am on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    If someone dies from not having defibrillators, the family should sue Kloose and his Lawyer. THAT would be justice.

     
  • posted at 2:22 am on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    Heaven forbid they need to be used but I'd rather accept the liability and have a life saving device availible. The District made the decision to settle the lawsuit because they failed to properly maintain the devices. Seems like a simple maintenance change would remove future liability. Hope Barge never has to rely on the availibility of such a device.

     
  • posted at 1:54 am on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    take the water out of the swimming pool some one mighted peed in in. dont be stupid. these items are there to help in saving lives.

     
  • posted at 12:31 am on Wed, Mar 18, 2009.

    Posts:

    I don't blame them at all, that is gratitude for you. Save someone's life and get sued. Yes get rid of the fire extinguishers too, you never know and it may not work properly. Someone will sue you. What a sick world we live in when we have to be faced with decisions like this because of one person who is money happy and sues.

     
  • posted at 10:57 pm on Tue, Mar 17, 2009.

    Posts:

    Waldsmith said, "Had Lodi Unified School District simply complied with the minimum maintenance requirements of the one AED at Lodi High School ... the district would have been immune from liability. The device also would have been operable, which is the ultimate goal."I agree. Might the district also consider getting rid of such things as fire extinguishers or fire alarms simply because they need to make sure they are in good working order? Geez, do what you're supposed to do and there will not be a problem.

     
Readers Choice Awards 2014

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists