- 4 -
Conrail counterclaimed against Theresa, and she then
counterclaimed against Conrail. Spurring the litigation from
Clyde and Theresa’s perspective were several problems that they
faced. First, they needed enough money to meet their moral (and
statutory) duty to provide for the ordinary expenses of their
minor children.3 Clyde had been specially recognized by the
Probate Court as Kimberly’s guardian for “custody and
maintenance,” and so had a specific duty in that capacity to
provide suitable maintenance for her care.4 According to the
entirely credible testimony of Theresa Hicks, Kimberly’s physical
injuries had not damaged her mind, and as she grew to school age
she was able, within the limits of her paralysis, to be as lively
a little girl as her friends. The estimates of her expected
lifespan after the accident varied widely, but one prepared by an
insurance company at the request of the Hickses’ lawyer suggested
it was quite likely that she would live into adulthood. This
meant that Clyde’s guardianship (and its related duties) would
also likely last until she reached the age of majority.
This raised a second problem. Kimberly obviously faced
heavy medical expenses. At the time of the accident, the Hickses
3 Section 3103.03(A) of the Ohio Code states: “The
biological or adoptive parent of a minor child must support the
parent’s minor children out of the parent’s property or by the
parent’s labor.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. sec. 3103.03(A) (Anderson
2003).
4 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. sec. 2111.13(A) (2007).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007