Snowmobiler seeks $50,000 from East G...

Snowmobiler seeks $50,000 from East Grand Forks for 'negligence'

There are 30 comments on the story from Apr 2, 2009, titled Snowmobiler seeks $50,000 from East Grand Forks for 'negligence'. In it, reports that:

One of the two men who drove snowmobiles over the dam on the Red River north of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks has filed a claim for $50,000 with the city of East Grand Forks for what his attorney says are injuries due to the city's negligence.

Join the discussion below, or

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Saint Paul, MN

#1 Apr 2, 2009
This guy is trying for a free payday. Scre w him and his kind. I wish nothing but awful things happen to him.

La Crosse, WI

#2 Apr 2, 2009
You have to love it. Do something stupid and then try and get rewarded for it. What happend to people being responsible for their own actions? I hope that they charged him for littering and anything else they can possibly throw at him...
MW from Up North

Rochester, MN

#3 Apr 2, 2009
Huh? Doesn't the person controlling the motorized vehicle ever have any responsibility? OMG, it's always someone elses fault. Leave the snowmobile in the shed if you don't know how / where to ride!!
Natasha Badanoff

Minneapolis, MN

#4 Apr 2, 2009
These jack azzs and the lawyer should consider this the price they pay the school of hard knocks for stupidity. WTF are they thinking?????
Motley Larry

Mount Dora, FL

#5 Apr 2, 2009
It's hard to accommodate every idiot.

Saint Paul, MN

#6 Apr 2, 2009
Of course he does not want to try the case in the newspaper. He's an idiot and he knows it!

Bartlesville, OK

#7 Apr 2, 2009
How do you not see a dam at noon? Perhaps plantiff should not be allowed to operate snowmobiles.

Saint Paul, MN

#8 Apr 2, 2009
If you are this dumb maybe you just park your sled in the garage or sell it. It's clear you don't have the common sense to ride it. Exactly how many signs should be erected for the stupid? Should start to post signs on telephone poles? I'm thinking it might hurt if I run into one but haven't seen posted, just not sure.

“Puppet At State Fair”

Since: Mar 09

Nowthen, MN

#9 Apr 2, 2009
Attorney Bina is going to regret ever taking this case, although I bet the city will pay some "go away" money anyhow.

I want to know who the brilliant city council member was who thought putting up signs would increase the city's liability exposure?
The Hard Truth

Oxford, UK

#10 Apr 2, 2009
Is Robert Bina the biggest dipsh*t around, or what? I guess the ambulances weren't running so he didn't have any to chase to look for clients. Myabe he could sue the city of EGF for not having enough people in need of his services? Or, even better, maybe he could sue himself for malpractice or incompetence.
The Cold Hard Truth

Fargo, ND

#11 Apr 2, 2009
I hope this is a jury trial, I cannot imagine a jury in Grand Forks giving this idiot a red cent. I wish that with these lawsuits it was loser pays for the entire lawsuit.

Saint Paul, MN

#12 Apr 2, 2009
Give them both honorary Darwin Awards and call it done.

Morons. Like the guy who high-marked his way into an avalanche two years in a row out west. In the exact same spot! Unfortunately for the gene pool, he is still around to try for a hat trick.
Bud in St Paul

Minneapolis, MN

#13 Apr 2, 2009
This is an April fools joke right? This guy so stupid he drives over a dam and some how he thinks it’s the city’s fault. He needs to take responsibility for his own actions. It's to bad nature didn’t finish him off when she had the chance it was a prefect opportunity to weed out this weak minded fool.

Saint Paul, MN

#14 Apr 2, 2009
THE Radest Rethuglican wrote:
Attorney Bina is going to regret ever taking this case, although I bet the city will pay some "go away" money anyhow.
I want to know who the brilliant city council member was who thought putting up signs would increase the city's liability exposure?
This is why he is suing! Don't you see it? The signs were REMOVED March 7 (I think) to protect them from damage, so the city is liable (because they were NOT there) for not warning him before he went over the dam. They are not liable because the dam is there, they are liable because they took down the signs. I am guessing that is what the city council member was considering, at least.

There is now way he should win, but even if he loses, the city will still be stuck with the legal cost to defend itself. This is EXACTLY why there should be federal law that requires the payment of the legal costs to the person / entity that is sued if the person suing loses. And it should be directly from lawyer to lawyer, and it cannot be passed on to the claimant. This would take money out of the lawyers' pockets that bring these stupid lawsuits, hoping one in ten pays off.

“it takes a lot to laugh...”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#15 Apr 2, 2009
Then he should sued the manufacturer of the snowmobile becasue they did not specifically state that you should not drive your vehicle over a damn. Then he should sue the national weather service for not providing him with an up to date weather forecast before he went riding. Then last but not least, sue his parents for not practicing birth control! This is the classic go away money lawsuit. Why can't this guy be like the other idiots who hit the lakes when there is an inch of ice on the water?
Natasha Badanoff

Minneapolis, MN

#16 Apr 2, 2009
Can the city sue him and his rat bag atty for damage to the dam? May be charge him for environmental damage, the time the officer took to help.

I hope these butt heads use bc, because they need to stay out of the gene pool, waaaaaay to much pollution as it is.


Since: Mar 09

Born in East LA

#18 Apr 2, 2009
seeking give it a rest,you were the goof ball on the sled,next he'll say I didn,t know there was a dam

United States

#19 Apr 2, 2009
The democrats and their lawyer backers are busy changing laws to make it easier to sue. Lawsuits like this are the result.
mn newsjunkie

Mankato, MN

#20 Apr 2, 2009
Sound like a slam dunk case of stupidity to me! Maybe this guy will use the money to get a brain transplant? I'm really sick of hearing the stories of idiots suing for damages and injuries they received as a direct result of their own stupidity and arrogance! I mean, come on, riding over a dam at the beginning of spring when the ice is bound to be thin, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there always running water around a dam, even in winter? The amount of sheer audicity people have simply amazes me! I agree, any expenses incurred from the rescue, removal of sleds from the water, etc. should come out of these 2 idiots pockets! I wonder if the guy that rescued one of the boneheads could sue for putting his own life at risk to save his sorry behind. I'm just sayin...
The Independent Voter

Hopkins, MN

#21 Apr 2, 2009
Good thing for Bruce the city can't counter sue for being stupid.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Snowmobiling Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Teenagers Disappear While Snowmobiling (Mar '08) Jun '16 Shellysmom 112
News Cycling makes the grade at Tourism Northern Ont... (Dec '15) Dec '15 Polly 1
News Snow safety focus of task force (Jan '15) Jan '15 markey da masshole 2
News WGRZ News - A Family's Devastation (Mar '08) Dec '14 Cici75 55
News Charges possible in moose encounter (Apr '14) Apr '14 sled dog 1
News Three people die in weekend snowmobiling accide... (Feb '06) Mar '14 Anonymous 13
News Idaho man dies in snowmobile accident (Feb '12) Feb '13 YelIowback Crack 24
More from around the web