Bring Your Daughter to Work Litigation

On “bring your daughter to work” day at Zorco Corporation not only did Sandy Serinka bring her ten year old daughter Sarah to work, but KCN installed Zorco’s new computer system. After installation, when Sandy attempted to adjust the monitor connected to her new computer, she inadvertently knocked the monitor off the desk and onto the floor. The screen shattered with a piece of the glass striking Sarah’s right big toe. To make a long story short, Sarah’s toe needed four stitches to stop the bleeding and Sandy has blamed the installer of the system for placing the monitor in a dangerous position near the back edge of her desk. The damages to this point have been minimal as Sandy drove Sarah to their HMO and paid the $20 for an office visit. Yet, the Serinka family has sued KCN for the following:

            Likely plastic surgery                                     $       3,000

            Emotional distress to Sarah                                 500,000

            Emotional distress to Sandy                           1,200,000

                        Total                                                   $1,703,000

KCN believes that this case, with the possible exception of the plastic surgery (for which the HMO won’t pay), is frivolous. The company has no insurance to cover this sort of liability. If this case goes to court, KCN is likely to incur $20,000 of court costs in addition to any settlement. As a result, KCN’s lawyers suggested settling for a “nuisance value” of $10,000. Sarah’s family rejected this offer out of hand and asked for $200,000 to settle this out of court. KCN has decided, at least at this point, to refuse any further settlement offer.

In their lawyer’s letter to you KCN’s lawyers indicated that they believe that KCN has “just and meritorious defense available” to fight this case. Furthermore, KCN’s legal counsel for the case indicated that while she agrees that this case is largely frivolous, litigation involving a young child is somewhat of a “crap shoot” and that making a definite prediction on the outcome of the case is impossible. The lawyer also stated that while cases such as this hardly ever result in significant liability, she does recall reading in the paper about a large fast food restaurant that lost several million dollars more than even asked to a woman who chose to drink hot coffee in a moving car and spilled it. While she can’t dismiss such an occurrence here (receiving more than even asked), she does think that the likelihood of it is remote. What entry or disclosure, if any, is necessary in this circumstance?