Recordpub.com - Wrongful death suit re-filed Mantua case alleges negligence in death of Al Lerner's granddaughter

By Marci Piltz

Record-Courier staff writer

A wrongful death suit filed two years ago and withdrawn earlier this year stemming from the 2006 drowning death of a 6-year-old girl in Mantua has been re-filed in Portage County Common Pleas Court.

James McGonagle, who has been appointed administrator of the estate for Emma Beck, granddaughter of the late Al Lerner, re-filed the suit June 20 and is seeking a jury trial in the case as well as more than $25,000 in damages.

Emma had been at the Mantua home of her mother and stepfather, Nancy and Elliot Fisher, when the July 9, 2006 drowning occurred. According to the original suit filed in 2006, Nancy Fisher had denied Emma's father, William Beck, access to Emma that day by saying they had a family function to attend.

Instead, the suit said, Fisher took Emma for a ride around the property in an adult-sized go-cart, then let the girl drive the cart by herself unsupervised. While driving, Emma drove off the side of a bridge over a creek on the property and became submerged upside down in the creek, causing her death.

In January, that case was withdrawn from the courts so amendments could be made, including the change of William Beck as the plaintiff and administrator of the estate to McMonagle, who the court named as administrator.

The newly filed suit alleges Emma's death was a result of negligence by not only Nancy Fisher but also by the girl's tutor and babysitter, Michael White, who also was on the property at the time of the accident.

White is named as a defendant in the suit along with Nancy and Elliot Fisher and a company Nancy Fisher owns, Sugarbush Farm LLC, which is connected to the Mantua property.

In addition to alleging wrongful death, the suit also alleges that evidence from the case -- specifically the go-cart -- was disposed of after the court ordered it be held for evidence.

E-mail: mpiltz@recordpub.com

Phone: (330) 296-9657

35.	Posted by s.swenson July 5, 2008
	I still say that had this happened when the father had the girl for weekend visitation the mother would be raving mad, and would sue or pursue criminal charges and rightfully so. Black and white, it was an accident but it also occurred due to negligence. I supervised my 6 year old niece and nephew this afternoon on a power wheels vehicle and it exhausted me chasing them up and down the driveway. The 6 year old I wouldn't have trusted on the long driveway without myself or someone else there. Mom made a huge mistake and I'm sure she is suffering enormous pain that this lawsuit will not help. I just can't imagine if the roles were reversed she'd be sitting back going "well it was an accident!" Although she could as I don't know her or anyone of these people involved but I'm sure if this happened on Dad's watch she'd be screaming about him not being responsible, not being a protective enough adult and father and it could go on and on. It was no better than giving the keys to a car to a l2 year old and then saying it was an accident. Had this incident happened at a neighbors the parents would be prosecuting and suing the neighbors but they are to be absolved because it was them that was responsible.?? I dunno, I'm on both sides of the fence as my heart aches for both parents. No winners and a bunch of what if's.......I hope they can all find some sort of closure and move on.

34.	Posted by gucci July 5, 2008
	mommyofmany The 25M will just be for the actual loss claim. They left the pain and suffering claim open for the jury to decide that portion. That's an old legal trick to make the plaintiff not look greedy to a potential jury in the originl tort claim. What a bunch of "conspiracy theory" garbage about the county not filing charges because the mother is rich. If they would of I am sure your claim would be that they filed charges because it was high profile and the prosecutor wanted the media spotlight. Obviously your in depth investigation has discovered criminal intent. I am sure you have interviewed the witnesses, reviewed the EMS and coroner and forensic reports, etc..If you are so sure that she is a criminal, go down to the portage county clerk of courts and file the charges and swear out a warrant your self. Any citizen in Ohio can file felony charges!! Oh, sorry you probably just got all your information from this post.. Could it possibly be that there was absolutely no criminal intent and this was all a horrible accident?? People like you are why everyone sues for everything nowadays.

31.	Posted by kmmr July 3, 2008
	She was negligent in watching her young daughter and needs to be held accountable. If she were your "average" person there would be no question about it but because of who she is the matter gets pushed aside. I hope the Dad gets his way in court because, plain and simple, she was careless and because of that look at the pain and agony she is putting everyone through, including herself. I'm sure she feels horrible but now it's time to step up to the plate and take responsibility for her actions.

30.	Posted by laurae July 3, 2008
	Apparently, we're all Moms. We all do agree on it being a horrible situation. Gucci--I AM a city-slicker, just not alot of $$$. NO - The mother doesn't need to be hanged or pitch-forked, I don't know if country people do that sort of thing. BUT- I do agree about one thing -- How can anyone, let alone a father, put a price tag on his own child's head. Civil suits are meant for people like O.J. The Dad is Off The Mark if he thinks $$$ is going to make anyone "feel better". Donate it to a charity??? Who wants his BLOOD MONEY! He's a JERK! I don't know what the correct answer is here---maybe there just isn't any. I just know that if this child was in the care of anyone besides a parent, the person would probably have been arrested.

28.	Posted by s.swenson July 3, 2008
	I'm not trying to stick it to them but as a parent if someone was negligent in the responsibility why are they immune? Like you said if she didn't have a pot to p in, well maybe if she didn't criminal charges would have been filed. Divorced adds to the turmoil. If a child is with one divorced parent and that parent allows them to ride a 4 wheeler without a helmet and an accident happens, what then? If a parent is drinking and driving and has an accident and harms a child what then? How is the line drawn? I don't particulary favor the dad for doing this but I'm not against it either. If I was in his shoes and it was my child I don't think a lawsuit would ease the pain, but by law he's allowed to exercise that right. The court documents do say that money will be set aside for a charity, so be it. Accidents happen, that's why they are accidents but how do we differentiate for responsibility? I've seen in the news every summer of children being left in hot cars, by accident of course. Some parents have been charged and others haven't been. The court of public opinion thinks the parent suffers enough by the death of the child. I personally know of a father who allowed his son to ride an atv without a helmet, the child hit a tree and has had many many medical issues since then. Of course the father now isn't involved because the child requires 24 hour care. This fathers actions gave the mother a life sentence of caring for this child. Of course it was an accident. That mother sued the father, I believe rightfully so. The mother said, I wish they could order him to take care of our child but you can't enforce parenting. This is such a fuzzy issue, and there is no right or wrong, but under the law he has that right. We don't know his financial position, I know none of these people involved. He may not need the money and may be doing this for his own heeling, in an odd way that the law enables him to do. No winners here, that is obvious. As far as the go-kart the lawsuit says she was in defiance of keeping the go-kart and it appeared to me that it was agreed that it would not be disposed of, it wasn't from the paper that I saw that. At least we can agree to disagree, but thanks for thinking I'm pretty solid most times. Some of this issues aren't as black and white as we'd like them to be in a perfect world.

27.	Posted by gucci July 2, 2008
	Ohio gal. Usually your posts are pretty solid. However, Can't agree with you less on this one. If she wasn't a Lerner and didnt have a pot to pi$$ in or a window to throw it out of, do you think there would be a lawsuit? AND if the dad wins it, what do you think he will gain besides money? I read common sense in your other other posts that leads me to believe you cannot really be that naive that you really think the dad will create some kind of foundation with any potential monetary award....Please! I really agree with the statement of him suing her is flat out bad Kharma. That was thier daughter together. Do you think for a minute she would want her parents to do this to each other? I do agree with you on one thing: NO WINNERS...So why fight at all? I think all parties would better serve the honor and memory of thier daughter by leaving each other alone to try to cope emotionally as best they can if they cannot find the togetherness to do it togather. This lawsuit crap can only be for revenge or for financial gain. It is clear there is no criminal intent. As for the go-kart, you hear only one side of the story. The story spun from this paper and the readers saying they know what happened in these posts. Fact is no one knows but those who were there. A lawsuit, it serves no other good purpose but to hurt in this case. They both have a long road of trying to put some of the peices of thier lives back together. They both will likely never be the same. I am leaving my pitchfork in the barn and while I am not a very religious person, I will hope for some sort of peace for them both. You and others can stick it to them. I won't.