Don’t People Think? Andrea Eichhorn isn’t Necessarily Mean
October 10th, 2007
I haven’t investigated further than reading this article about Sgt Andrea Eichorn to glean more details about the case, but I feel a need to comment about the conclusions everyone’s jumped to.
The article is entitled “Cop who fell on the job sues family of baby who almost drowned”
On it’s own, not too prejudicial…
“The boy’s grandparents, named in the suit, are mystified and angry.”
Of course they are. Isn’t anyone who’s sued? Furthermore, I presume that they haven’t thought through why…
The user comments to the article are, from the sample I saw, exclusively venomous, maligning Eichorn and her entire department.
They think that suing the family is mean and ruthlessly greedy.
Folks, she’s suing the family in order to be compensated for the injury that she suffered which will have lasting damage. She’s doing it because the government for which she works does not adequately compensate her for the damage sustained by her body in the line of duty if it doesn’t make her unable to perform work. She’s suing the family, but she’s not expecting them to pay. She’s not playing a personal blame game, it’s a legal one. She’s suing the household because that’s how you get homeowner’s insurance to pay. She’s not attacking them, she’s using legal means to get compensated. She’s not doing this to injure the family.
So please… let’s not get over emotional and abandon logic. And would all the venom be there if it were the same situation, but a drug overdose by a 19-year-old delinquent?
Entry Filed under: People Suck
10 Comments Add your own
1. Rodney Turner | October 12th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Hey NevDull your an idiot. So basically what your saying is, if an individual who’s responsibility is to serve the community gets hurt and the department that they work for does not compensate them then they should sue the homeowner for money owed. What about the responsibility of the individual who is working in a dangerous occupation to take care of themselves, ie short term/ long term liability. Most individuals I know, who work as public safety officers, understand the risks involved and are not going to sue a family regardless of the circumstances. Thank god you are not in this or any other occupation were the public relies on to safe there life. Have fun being the liberal that you are and I hope Sgt. Andrea Eichhorn never responds to your house when you are in an emergency situation or you might be sued as well.
2. Art LeBrun | October 15th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I shudder ti think if all the past and present military people sued
the US government for injurres and lost wages. Think of a class
action lawsuit if the survivors from WWII, Korea and Vietnam
sued for lost wages much as some people did in 9/11.
On the topic here where is Eichhorn’s personal responsibility
for looking where she is walking in unfamilar surroundings?
Sounds as stupid as driving into fog and crashing into a stopped
car and suing that driver.
3. pressmyluck | November 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 am
Logic? Isn’t it logical that there would be puddles of water on the floor when the toddler was brought in from the pool to the house for CPR?
4. Samantha | December 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Being a police officer, you should know that injury is a risk of your profession. If she didn’t have situational awareness to look before she walked in, then that is her own fault. Oh, poor her she can’t pay off all her bills…so hey let’s sue the family who nearly lost their child and then blame it on the parents…yeah that sounds so much like she is only trying to pay off her bills, that’s the way to go. There are other options than suing that family. Risk is a part of her job, she shouldn’t be allowed to sue the victim. That’s being really selfish, it’s not like the parents don’t have bills of their own, they now have to care for this little boy who lives in a nursing home at the same time live with the guilt that it’s their fault he is the way he is. Like I said there are other ways of going about that, I bet she could of had a chance of getting help before she decided that she wanted to sue. Now, no one has any sympathy for her.
5. Samantha | December 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
So, if it were you that were in the place of that family, you would think that it was ok that she was suing you? You would say hey, she’s not a bad person at all, she just wants her bills paid?
6. Jason | December 5th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
She has Workman’s Comp. She is a GOVERNMENT employee. Are you aware of the amount of benefits they recieve? Also, being a police officer she would be irresponsible to not have a supplemental insurance policy that would cover an out-of-work situation (AFLAC has an outstanding program). All the officers I know have them. So instead she decides to milk an already bad situation for a few dollars she most likely does not need. She is irresponsible and heartless. “So please… let’s not get over emotional and abandon logic” you say. OK, lets abandon common sense, rationality and embrace ignorance and insensitivity. Typical liberal blather that is ruining our great nation.
7. You-are-dumb | December 5th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
How I ended up here was by mistake. She’s greedy - but you are a moron. Also, glad that you were able to establish the family had liability insurance. Because a family should anticiapte a greedy witch entering their house but the greedy witch is forgiven for not having suplemental insurance.
8. Prechha Narongthai | December 11th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
What about the responsibility of the individual who is working in a dangerous occupation to take care of themselves, ie short term/ long term liability. Most individuals I know, who work as public safety officers.
9. NevDull | December 11th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
My point was never that she was right. It was more that she’s not necessarily the venomous evildoer everyone paints her as.
Her case may be without merit, but “how can she sue the family who’s already going through so much?” is so incredibly influenced by the fact that the family has a brain-damaged baby *and* the perception that if you sue someone, that you must hate them or want to do them harm.
There’s a huge difference between being ridiculed, even, and being demonized.
She may be stupid. She may be wrong. She may not have done the things that she should have, like get supplemental insurance. Maybe she shouldn’t have even chosen to do a dangerous job if she was unwilling to have consequences. I am not defending her.
I’m merely pointing out that the anger in much of what I’d seen written about the case was about how she was terrorizing a family who had been victimized already. I was also stating that there are reasons besides being evil or “get rich quick” which would cause someone to sue. I’m distressed at how many people lock into a mindset early on which doesn’t allow for alternate explanations.
Hell, I didn’t even say that she wasn’t mean. The title of the post included “Andrea Eichhorn isn’t necessarily mean”. She might be. I don’t know her, nor do many of the people who have read this post. Maybe she’s an evil witch. But maybe she’s not.
10. Steve | February 26th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Whenever someone takes a job it is the individual’s responsibility to analyze the risk-reward ratio of the specific job they’re taking. This job is in law enforcement - it’s dangerous by its very nature - looking into injury compensation should be a major factor in accepting a position. If the compensation for an serious on-the-job injury is really as bad as you suggest (I noticed the convienent lack of details in that portion of your blog) then she should not have taken the job. Law enforcement agencies have no incentive to increase benefits if the people they are employing are saying with their actions that those benefits are adequate.
You also neglected to state why the officer failed to acquire her own private insurance considering that her employer’s is so notoriously bad.
I find it ridiculous that you dismiss the significance of this by saying that the insurance companies will pay for it. It’s as if you believe insurance companies have highly-sophisticated printers that print money that they can just hand out like candy to anyone who sues. The money for these settlements come from people like you and me.
Congrats for encouraging people to become victims. It used to be that people were only scared to defend themselves because the criminal would sue. Now they have to worry about the cops suing too!
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed