M.C. Confusing wrote:
stuff wrote:That's makes 0 sense. You contend that pedestrians need to take out insurance policies to protect themselves from negligent drivers? Assuming the negligent driver was insured and the students parents didn't sue the school district, why would the school's insurance pay for anything? I suppose it could be used to supplement the parents possibly deficient insurance but the same would be true if a wide receiver went over the middle and landed wrong on his neck. Anyway your post is confusing.
But the parents likely DID sue the school district. That ALWAYS seems to happen. It happened in one school district here a few years ago. They had an open campus policy and a girl coming back to school from lunch where she left got into an accident and the parents sued the school as well as the other driver in the accident. And they won. And now the district is closed campus.
I understand that but the post I was responding to said that the parents sued the crap out of the driver but the school insurance probably paid for it anyway. I am sure the family sued the driver, that makes sense and they are justified in doing so. I can also see the school insurance picking up the slack where her personal insurance let off and that is why school athletic departments are insured, but I don't see where the posters outrage is coming from. Should the parents have let it go? Why the heck wouldn't they sue a driver for hitting their pedestrian daughter? Should the school athletic department insurance not have helped cover costs for an athletic related injury? That is what the insurance is for. Would the poster have been outraged if the school insurance paid for an injury that a football payer incurred during a game? I guess I just don't really get it.
As far as this whole, run on campus only thing goes, I will only feel bad for the Hawaians if they fight tooth and nail and its still upheld. Ask the school board if they plan on cutting football considering is inherent dangers and higher serious injury rates?