Buchers Sue West Bend Hotel

Wendy and I were there when this happened.

Claiming their daughter severely burned her hands on a lobby fireplace, former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher and his wife, Jessica McBride, have filed a lawsuit against a West Bend hotel and its insurance company.

  McBride is a frequent columnist for the Daily News.

  The couple is seeking unspecified monetary damages in the suit filed against the Clairemont Inn and West Bend Mutual Insurance Co.

  McBride was giving a campaign speech to a group at the hotel on Feb. 26, 2006 when the incident occurred, according to the suit filed in Washington County Circuit Court. Bucher was running as a Republican candidate for state attorney general.

  Former Bucher associate Jennifer Dorow was watching the 10-month-old toddler, when the toddler put her hands on the glass front of a fireplace.

  Dorow was later added to the lawsuit by Clairemont’s insurer as a third defendant. Both Bucher and McBride said they did not blame Dorow, and said she should not have been included in the lawsuit.

  “It happened in the wink of an eye,” Bucher said.

  The lawsuit maintains that the Clairemont Inn ownership was negligent in “failing to install and maintain a protective device in proximity to the front of (the) fireplace to prevent individuals from coming in contact with the dangerously heated pane of glass over the opening of the active burning gas fire; and in failing to construct, repair or maintain said defendant’s premises as safe as the nature of said defendant’s business would reasonably permit.”

It really stinks that their child burned her hands, but I don’t think the hotel is to blame.  It’s a fireplace.  There isn’t any way to keep it from being hot other than turning it off.  This was a tragic accident.  Nothing more. 

1. agree.  I know there was a time before we as a society got this way.  When did we decide that an accident equaled a payday?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 0821 hrs




2. What ever happened to personal responsibility and watching your kids?  It’s a fireplace for crying-out-loud!  What did Bucher expect?  Sounds like he’s taught his daughter the lesson: “oops = payday”.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 0830 hrs




3. Agreed.

   The hotel’s insurance company will settle to avoid legal costs. This gives parents some peace of mind in that it is proof they did nothing wrong and the big bad hotel was wrong.

   We all know better.

   I like Paul and Jessica and pray their child recovers.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 0842 hrs




4. I’m glad you highlighted this story.  I was rather stunned after I read it.

   I thought Paul Bucher and Jessica McBride were old fashioned, personal responsibility conservatives.  They sound like liberal tort lawyers. 

   You can’t take a toddler to a public hotel with a roaring fireplace and let the child run around and touch the glass on a fireplace.  What do Bucher and McBride think….every hotel should get rid of their fireplaces and install the Miracle Heater “Amish Mantle”?  What’s next, a lawsuit against Marriott for having swinging doors on the restrooms in case a toddler gets struck by one?

   I hope this case gets dismissed quickly with lawsuit costs being imposed on the Buchers.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 0845 hrs




5. “I thought Paul Bucher and Jessica McBride were old fashioned, personal responsibility conservatives.  They sound like liberal tort lawyers.”

   Item # 8-million or so on the list of evidence that “liberals” and “conservatives” (as those terms are popularly used today) are identical.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 0941 hrs




6. What the kid needs is a guardian ad litem to sue mommy for her injuries (assuming that it was mommy who was on guard duty when the accident occurred).  The proximate cause of the kid’s injuries was “mommy malpractice.”  Kids don’t know what “hot” is until they experience it.  It’s the caregiver’s job to protect the kid from harm, not the hotel’s. 

   Tough lesson for the kid to learn but ultimately it’s the caregiver’s fault.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 0942 hrs




7. I completely agree with SteveAustin.  This is a frivolous lawsuit.  Yes, a child got injured, very sad.  However, the world is full of dangers and that’s why you supervise.  If the toddler had walked out the front door and hit by a car, is the hotel responsible for that?

   Perhaps a babysitter at home would’ve been better than trusting another lawyer to watch your child?

   Note to hotels/convention centers:  No more events for lawyers- you’re just asking for trouble!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 0946 hrs




8. Good grief.  This is example number eleventybillion why we have way too many lawyers in this country.

   And shame on Bucher/McBride.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 0946 hrs




9. My gas fireplace has a screen over the glass.

   They apparently do not have that on the hotel’s fireplace, but maybe they were supposed to and it was removed for some reason.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 1001 hrs




10. Apparently personal responsibility only applies when its another person, and someone else’s responsibility.  Best of luck to the little girl, but SHAME on the Buchers.

    Posted by Nick on November 26, 2008 at 1003 hrs




11. This is what is wrong with America. I agree with Steve. The lawsuit should be dismissed and the Buchers should have to pay all court costs.

    This suit would not be filed if we had the British system where the loser pays the court costs.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 1005 hrs




12. Looking at the case on ccap, United health care is listed as a defendant.

    I had a friend who was injured on her mother’s property.  She had to sue her mother because her insurance denied the claim and basically forced her to make a claim against her mother’s insurance.  This may be the case here.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 1023 hrs




13. The lawsuit wouldn’t have been necessary if the hotel had a barrier in place to keep all of its guests at a reasonable distance from an invisible hazard.  Isn’t it great that we, as Americans, have acess to courts to redress grievances and correct hazards?

    Be proud.  The system is looking out for the little guy.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 1027 hrs




14. If it was up to guys like you, grumps, we’d all be walking around in helmets. 

    The actual net result of ridiculous lawsuits like this is motels just won’t have fireplaces anymore.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 1057 hrs




15. I had a friend who was injured on her mother’s property.  She had to sue her mother because her insurance denied the claim and basically forced her to make a claim against her mother’s insurance.  This may be the case here.

    Yeah, definitely could be more to the story than we know here.

    Prima facie, I thought this was bullshit and demonstrates everything that is wrong with people (suing over everything)

    I’ll now reserve judgement, but if this is just the Buchers suing for ‘pain and suffering’ or punitive damages its crap.

    The lawsuit wouldn’t have been necessary if the hotel had a barrier in place to keep all of its guests at a reasonable distance from an invisible hazard.

    I disagree with you grumps.  Many times the issues in these cases revolve around reasonable care and what a reasonable person would do.

    A reasonable person knows not to touch a hot stove.  A child does not.  A reasonable person knows you don’t run out into the street without looking.  A child does not.

    Have you ever been to a restaurant with a candle on the table?  If a child picks up the candle and pours hot wax on their hands and gets 3rd degree burns is that not something a reasonable person would know not to do, but a child would not?

    So there’s a lot we don’t know here.  Maybe the Buchers daughter was the 15th person burned by that fireplace last year?  If so, that demonstrates negligence.  Maybe the fireplace has been like that for 10 years and NO ONE has ever been burned by it.  That demonstrates fault by the Buchers for not watching their daughter or the daughter for simply acting in a way that a reasonable person wouldn’t.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 1106 hrs




16. Rick is probably right. Insurance companies don’t like paying anything. Especially if they think someone else should pay. Could very well be the Bucher’s insurance company doesn’t feel it has the responsibility to pay the costs for their daughter’s bills considering the circumstances of the injury. So, they go after the hotel’s insurance. Could be they’re looking to simply cover the expenses.

    But, if this is more than that, then put me in line to give them a smack.

    Posted by jimi on November 26, 2008 at 1158 hrs




17. When the unsupervised toddler drowns in the hotel pool, is that the hotel’s fault?  Must every hotel now hire lifeguards, making hotels more expensive for the rest of us?

    This is poor child supervision and lack of personal responsibility in a world with dangers.  We cannot childproof the world, nor should we.  We all enjoy pools and fireplaces.

    Another thought- will this end the potential political careers of all involved in conservative Waukesha County?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 1335 hrs




18. The lawsuit was probably started by the lawyers ... they take the child to the hospital, and their health insurance provider immediately cranks up the legal machine to avoid paying the whole bill for the child’s medical treatment.

    This kind of crap only happens when judges fail to properly identify frivolous lawsuits and punish the perpetrators.

    Posted by Kristopher on November 26, 2008 at 1402 hrs




19. What’s a lawyer to do.  His child was injured.  He couldn’t go back to work and tell his peers it was her fault.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 1651 hrs




20. Nice tort reform.  Way to show personal responsibility.  Hypocrites.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 1656 hrs




21. The Bucher/McBride apologists can put down the crack pipes.  They hired a well-known Waukesha County lawyer to bring the lawsuit against the hotel.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 2040 hrs




22. Here is the link to the story on MJS.  At first I also considered the possibility that United Health was requiring the Bucher’s to sue the hotel to pay for medical bills.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/34829029.html

    But after reading that link you see that Paul and Jesse are suing for “emotional distress”

    I’ve been emotionally distressed more times than I can count over things that have happened to my kids as they explore the world around them.  But I never thought of suing for it.  Come to think of it, maybe I can ramp up a lawsuit against that Cedarburg ice arena from the time one of my kids broke a wrist while ice skating there.  They kept that damn ice too slippery!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 2159 hrs




23. “They were the most severe, disgusting burns I’ve ever seen in my life,” he said, describing how painful they were to his daughter.

    Oh stuff the hyperbole Paul… what a bitch…

    Bucher said that though he wasn’t certain of the arrangements - the campaign assigned traveling companions to both Bucher and his wife for such events - Dorow and another person were “keeping an eye” on his daughter while McBride spoke.

    Um… No… Apparently they weren’t.

    Screw Bucher… If I was the hotel I’d file a counter-suit for the cost of cleaning the burned skin off of the glass when their unsupervised 10 month old stuck her hands on the glass.

    Someone ought to make a complaint against the Buchers for failure to provide for the safety of their child.  I think Child Protective Services should get involved.  Frivolous.. Hell yeah, 2 can play this game!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2008 at 2319 hrs




24. Well, as I said, if it wasn’t the case of the insurance company going after the other insurance company . . . put me in line to smack them.

    I will say this, as a last defense . . . if the hotel was to have something in place as a safety measure and didn’t, then I can understand. But, this strikes me as wanting to fence in every inch of river because a child fell in . . . once . . . while unattended.

    It’s odd they don’t hold, at least to some degree, Dorow responsible. Obviously, she didn’t “keep on eye” on their daughter quite well enough. I know things with toddlers can happen in an instance. That’s why I was always near my daughter as she learned to walk and learn about risks. I’m not surprised Dorow came up in the case.

    Still, I’m willing to wait to hear from the Buchers. One part of the suit is about compensation. The “emotional distress” part could be about recouping suit costs.

    Someone hold my place in line.

    Posted by jimi on November 26, 2008 at 2319 hrs




25. Is Jessica going to start bashing “helicopter parents” again any time soon?

    Posted by Brew City Brawler on November 27, 2008 at 0002 hrs




26. The pockets just got deeper since Pick and Save purchased the hotel.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 27, 2008 at 0150 hrs




27. Wally- so when a conservative tries to see all sides of a story (Which I would do for all cases) they are smoking a crack pipe.

    I reserved judgement until I saw the second story.  My opinion has changed.

    It sounds to me like they should be suing the person who was watching their daughter.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 27, 2008 at 0903 hrs




28. Rick—The CCAP entry for this case provides all the info needed to figure out that they’re trying to cash in on their own stupidity.  As Jessica would type:  “Whallah!”  I’m sorry that the child was a victim of “mommy malpractice.”  Again, it should be the kid suing her mother.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 27, 2008 at 2212 hrs




29. Whether or not the hotel was required to have some namby pamby liberal nanny state protections in place to avoid this kind of mishap, it’s a total and complete reversal of both of their stated ideologies to avail themselves of a tort system they’ve not only criticized, but mocked and derided.  But that’s the way it always seems to go with these people.  Personal responsibility for everyone but themselves.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 28, 2008 at 1253 hrs




30. Pretty disappointing…the whole concept of “emotional distress” being something you can sue for needs to be scrapped.  Shame on the Bucher’s.  The fault here lies entirely with them, and the people they had watching thier child.  You can’t take your eyes off a kid that age….

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 28, 2008 at 1534 hrs




31. I fell on the ice at work and snapped my ankle in two. In addition to the ankle I suffered a blood clot in each lung, and a staff infection that required 24/7 antibiotic feed by an infusion pump housed in a backback I had to carry around for 6 weeks. Fortunately for me, workman’s comp covered everything.

    It was a freak accident. Never once did I consider suing anyone. The ice in the lot was from early morning fog that had condensed. I knew it was there and was trying to be careful. Things just happen sometimes.

    No parent wants to see their toddler go through that kind of pain. I’m trying to give the Bucher’s some benefit of doubt, but it pretty difficult.

    Shame on them.

    Posted by jimi on November 28, 2008 at 1624 hrs




32. Jimi, I think the law does not allow you to sue when it is a workman comp claim….... but I could be wrong.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 28, 2008 at 2037 hrs




33. I think it should come down as the Clairment having some liability but not 100%. If you’re going to allow children in your establishment you must be aware of potential dangers to them. That isn’t conservative vs. libereal, that is common sense.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2008 at 0951 hrs




34. “I had a friend who was injured on her mother’s property.  She had to sue her mother because her insurance denied the claim and basically forced her to make a claim against her mother’s insurance.  This may be the case here.”

    Not in Wisconsin.  You can sue the insurance company directly here.  It’s statutory.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2008 at 1149 hrs




35. Jimi,
    Kurt is right.  You would have been prevented from suing your employer by the exclusive remedy provision of the work comp laws.  But good for you for not wanting to try.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2008 at 1151 hrs




36. It’s easy to pat yourself on the back for not suing when you not only didn’t have that option, but there was no need because you received money via mandatory worker’s comp insurance laws.  Those laws are a namby pamby liberal nanny state product, and they’re the constant target of conservative ire.

    If you really wanted to be a personal responsibility conservative you should have refused worker’s comp, not sued anybody, and just toughed it out with your broken ankles and blood clots.  Practice what you preach or stop preaching.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2008 at 1221 hrs




37. I’ve actually been defending the Bucher’s to some degree. But, I’ve found many who tell other not to preach, preach themselves about preaching and often don’t read what someone writes.

    Whatever. So, I guess we should all refuse any insurance compensation for anything. Vehicle accidents, surgeries, damage to our houses from snow or rain. Even though we pay in to those policies? Huh. I didn’t get that notice about conservatism.

    While, I understand I couldn’t have sued my workplace as they provided the worker’s comp., our building is leased and under the supervision of an association. My understanding is I could have gone after them, or after the landscape company responsible for keeping our lot clean. Admittedly, I don’t know . . . and don’t care. It was an accident and I was fairly compensated with insurance I help pay for.

    Posted by jimi on December 02, 2008 at 1248 hrs




38. If you have a private, voluntary contractual relationship with an insurance company, then by all means, make a claim. 

    But workers comp insurance is mandated by the government.  It’s a regulation of the workplace.  It interferes with the free market.  It’s a nanny-state safety net.  Those things don’t bother me, so I would feel no shame in making a worker’s comp claim.  But for a “conservative” to do the same seems hypocritical at the very least. 

    I’m not seriously suggesting that you should have just curled up and died after your injury rather than sue or take worker’s comp when you obviously couldn’t work.  Just pointing out that all the personal responsibility rhetoric surrounding the “conservative” movement is nonsense double-talk designed to make people feel good about themselves, and denigrate “the other”, but it’s never actually put into practice.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2008 at 1326 hrs




39. If you really wanted to be a personal responsibility conservative you should have refused worker’s comp, not sued anybody, and just toughed it out with your broken ankles and blood clots.  Practice what you preach or stop preaching

    I see the point you are trying to make Jason, I think you’re only looking at part of the situation.

    Regardless of the fact that workmans comp is required, companies paid for it for the benefit of their employees.  Jimi went to work for that company knowing they had workmans comp and as such if something happened on the job, he would be compensated for it.  Being a true conservative doesn’t mean you are against workers being compensated for their injuries on the job and it doesn’t mean you are against insurance.  It means you are against the government mandating it.  Because the company PAID for workmans comp, they have every right to expect to get what they paid for. (and in this case its paying Jimi’s injury)  If workmans comp was not required, that does not mean companies would not have it. It just means they’d have it by choice, not mandate, and as such, as a free market works, Jimi could decide to work someplace where the owners CHOSE of their own free will to provide that coverage or not.  There is no hypocrisy there.

    When the government stops mandating workmans comp and it becomes volutary and Jimi CHOOSES to go work for a company that doesn’t offer it (presumably because they offered a better compensation package than the ones that do) THEN it would be hypocritical to demand someone else (other than his own insurance) pay for his injury IF it was no one elses fault and just a “freak accident”

    I have no problem with the Buchers using their own insurance and filing a claim with their own insurance for their daughters medical costs.  Thats what they paid for.

    I do have a problem with the Buchers claiming fault on behalf of the hotel when their 10 month old daughter who “just learned to walk” was so unsupervised that she put her hands on to a glass covering a fire.

    I’ll restate that there may be other factors here.  FOR example, if 15 people have been burned by that fireplace in the past year, I think thats pretty indicative that the hotel was negligent.  If their daughter is the only one ever to be burned by it, I think thats pretty indicative that a REASONABLE person knows not to touch glass that covers a FIRE! and there is no fault of the hotel.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2008 at 1459 hrs




40. I know what you’re saying, xx, and I’m just playing devil’s advocate to some degree.  But my ultimate point is that the rhetoric employed by a lot of the big talkers on the right is not realistic, or even feasible, and they don’t practice what they preach when it comes down to brass tacks. 

    There’s always some rationalization for why they’ll take a government handout, but poor children in the hood shouldn’t get one.  There’s always an excuse for filing an arguably frivilous lawsuit, but they want to take entire causes of action away from others, or arbitrarily cap their damages.  And there’s always acceptance of those programs and safety nets that benefit them, while they attack those intended for other people.

    Hipocracy is far from the exclusive territory of the right, but when it comes to cases like this it’s just too glaring to ignore.  The culture war in general is just a media created distraction, so it shouldn’t be suprised that it doesn’t have any real world relevance.  There are bigots on the left and the right, just like there are people taking handouts on the right and the left.  Doesn’t matter which color or label they identify with, because at the end of the day, people are people, and we all generally do the same things when put in the same situations.  The Buchers are exhibit A.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2008 at 1542 hrs




41. Not only are you preaching, but your applying a pretty broad brush with your characterizations and definitive terms as “always”. As such, you come off sounding like the rest of the nuts on the left.

    Posted by jimi on December 02, 2008 at 1642 hrs




42. There’s always some rationalization for why they’ll take a government handout, but poor children in the hood shouldn’t get one. 

    And sometimes those rationalizations may be valid. 

    Its hard to generalize.

    There’s always an excuse for filing an arguably frivilous lawsuit, but they want to take entire causes of action away from others, or arbitrarily cap their damages.  And there’s always acceptance of those programs and safety nets that benefit them, while they attack those intended for other people.

    Liberals talking about freedom and railing wire-tapping but they want me to register every gun I own.

    Republicans talking about free markets but supporting bailouts.

    Well, I won’t disagree the world is full of hypocrites.  Surely in the area of politics and public policy, hypocrisy seems to be frequent and glaring.  I just don’t see Jimi’s example as anything close to it.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2008 at 1704 hrs




43. Oh I’m preachy.  Just ask anybody who has to spend time around me.  But I’m also consistent, and that’s where I think a lot of personal responsibility people run into trouble. 

    And that’s how we got on this topic - tort reformers availing themselves of the tort system when the opportunity arises.  I don’t mean to single you out, because I don’t think what you did is remotely on the same level as the Buchers, but since you brought it up, it is similar in general to free market critics of workplace regulations who avail themselves of the benefits of those regulations when the opportunity arises.

    I think the stated ideologies of hardline, self-identified liberals and conseratives are both untenable, and equally likely to be ignored when they don’t suit the individual’s immediate needs or wants, so I try to remind people not to take the silly rhetoric of either team too seriously.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2008 at 1716 hrs