Suit prompts Boyce to close sledding hill
This hill in Boyce Park is now peppered with "no sledding" signs. Generations of winter fun are done at Boyce Park.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
#1 Jan 31, 2009
This story is in regards to the same sledding hill that is posted under the Allegheny County section here:
Due to the overwhelming response, the webmaster asks that this Topix forum be used for comments vice sending them directly to him at http://www.SledRiding.com . Thank you.
#2 Jan 31, 2009
That's just great. Some idiot isn't using caution, has an accident, and sues everyone in the county, and the hill is closed, spoiling it for everyone else. Nice job.
#3 Feb 3, 2009
Hopefully this lawsuit will get tossed. What is the park supposed to do? Stand around with hair dryers making sure the hay bales don't freeze? Surely outdoor sports carry with them an inherent danger that's understood by rational humans. We shouldn't have to sign a contract in order to do an outside activity. I was snowshoeing in Boyce the other day. If I would happen to fall, I guess I'll sue too--the snow was more slippery than usual snow. I'm sorry if I cause "No Snowshoeing" signs, but this really should be taken care of. I'm sorry you had an accident; nobody wishes someone else harm. But, do you have to make a buck at the expense of thousands upon thousands upon thousands who use that hill to get out and have some winter fun? Come on.
#4 Dec 7, 2010
The lawsuit was not thrown out & this woman won an insane amount of money.
#5 Dec 8, 2010
Stacey Rae Kelly Jarosz v.
Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act—Real Estate Exception
In a challenge to a non-jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff who was injured while sled riding at a county park, the court held
that the county was properly held liable for negligence. a hay bale barrier at the base of the sledding hill constituted negligence.James, J., November 23, 2009—Plaintiff, Stacey Rae Kelly Jarosz, commenced this civil action against Defendant, Allegheny County,based upon a sled riding accident which occurred on February 11, 2007.The parties stipulated that the Plaintiff sustained a fractured back, legs and ankles when she rode her sled down the hill and
impacted the frozen hay bales. They further stipulated that her damages exceeded $500,000.00.
This case was tried on September 14, 2009, and this Court awarded Plaintiff $500,000.00. On September 28, 2009, Defendant
filed a Motion for Post-Trial Relief challenging this court’s non-jury verdict. Defendant claims that this court failed to appropriately
interpret the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act when it found that the real estate exception applied and imposed liability
on the Defendant.
Local government agencies are generally immune from tort liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. 42 Pa.
C.S.A.§8541. However, there are limited exceptions to this immunity if:(1) damages would be otherwise recoverable under common
law or statute,(2) injury was caused by the negligent act of the local agency or employee acting within the scope of his official
duties and (3) the negligent act of the local agency falls within one of eight enumerated categories. Defendant’s affirmative action in placing the hay bale barrier to make the real estate safe for
sled riders caused Plaintiff’s injuries.
#6 Dec 23, 2010
i can't believe a judge gave it to her.this is ridiculous.the community needs to sue this girl for interfering with our lives and pursuits of happiness
#7 Jan 8, 2011
This settlement is indicative of all that is wrong in our country. Clearly, the hay bales were placed as a generally accepted protective measure against death. Did Stacey check the bales to asess the risk she was placing herself in? Did she conduct reasonable levels of contingency planning before accelerating down the hill? Can we hold anyone responsible for their own ignorance in this country or are we doomed to go down the tubes ensuring no individual getts their feelings hurt for being told, "you unfortunately made an eror in judgement or failed to prepare properly for your fun and thus the universe itself has declared the penalty".
If the woman wants to collect the $500K, perhaps she should be subject to an uncontrolled ride that ends under a tire instead of in a snow bale. Her lack of personal accountability is the root cause. The lack of courage on the part of a judge is contributory negligence. Now citizens will pay twice, once in that they cannot sled there, where I sledded many times in the 70's and 80's. Also, we foot the bill for her lack of preparation and reaction in taxes.
Get off the sled before it hits or suffer the consequences! We wonder why the current youth just sit in the family room playing video games.
#8 Jan 8, 2011
She knew it was very slippery when she went down the first time and she went down a second time and got injured. I heard she had a baby a year ago, if she was injured enough to receive such a settlement, her body couldn't be too damaged if she carried & gave birth to a child. It sickens me, that my children will never enjoy my traditions, I hope she is pround of herself for being so greedy & ruining fun for everyone!
#9 Jul 7, 2013
you sure know a lot about me, maybe get a life and stop stalking . Ps I'm proud no one else will get hurt.
#10 Jan 16, 2014
You don't care about any one else. This was a money grab and your lawyer convinced you that somehow you are not responsible for your own actions. I assume you are an adult, although it seems you haven't grown up enough to understand that YOU are negligent if you don't assess your surroundings and understand potential hazards. Yes, I am confirming all of those thoughts you have late at night about how you are contributing to the problem with your self serving actions. You are that ONE person who has ruined generations of tradition for countless families. YOU did that, not the guy who put the hay bales at the bottom of the hill. You don't even have to ask the question, I'll give you the answer anyway........ It's your own fault, I hope someday you learn to take responsibility for your own actions, like the rest of us adults. Thanks.
#11 Feb 18, 2014
I don't know you, but I do you enough about your character to make this assumption. You do not take responsibility for your own actions or negligence. Sadly you are not alone, if not you then someone would have eventually sued in order to save themselves from their own stupidity. Maybe you were meant to save the future sledders from such peril, but not by causing Allegheny county tax payers to foot your bills for your own poor choices. If you want to hide behind a false claim that you are protecting future sledders, don't. Your intent was money.
Add your comments below
|Dog sled tour operator defends industry in wake... (Dec '16)||Dec '16||DOG is GOOD||1|
|Boob Sledding Through the Arctic (Feb '13)||Apr '13||michellepain||47|
|Storm packs 1-2 punch of snow, slush (Feb '08)||Feb '11||America Gentleman...||7|
|Letters to santa (Jan '11)||Jan '11||cartier||5|
|Bay Shore to host a winter festival (Dec '08)||Dec '10||We r all Immigrants||25|
|Local woman gets the key to her dream (Dec '07)||Nov '10||Angela Levy||5|
|No pain, no gain for father son sledders (Mar '10)||Mar '10||North America||1|
Find what you want!
Search Sledding Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC