If the judge had ruled the opposite way, granted a motion to dismiss, it would have been saying "Under no circumstances can a four-year-old ever be cognitive enough to recognize consequences of their actions."
# Does not understand ethical behavior or moral standards especially when doing things that have not been given rules
This is for age six. A four year old child would have to be insanely precocious to actually understand right/wrong. The age of reason isn't even until seven or eight.
Ethical behavior and moral standards are more sophisticated than knowing that someone gets hurt when you run your bike into them.
I don't think you understand exactly what that sentence means. A six year old doesn't understand why hurting people is bad. They simply do not know right from wrong except from trial and error (and being told). And they can't really reason from the specific to the general.
However, it is important to understand that there is wide variation in terms of what is considered "normal," driven by a wide variety of genetic, cognitive, physical, family, cultural, nutritional, educational, and environmental factors. Many children will reach some or most of these milestones at different times from the norm.
Different kids develop at different rates. While it might not fit the big part of the bell curve, it's possible that an individual four-year-old would be cognitive enough to recognize potential consequences of their actions.
If the judge had ruled the opposite way, granted a motion to dismiss, it would have been saying "Under no circumstances can a four-year-old ever be cognitive enough to recognize potential consequences of their actions."
If the judge had ruled the opposite way, granted a motion to dismiss, it would have been saying "Under no circumstances can a four-year-old ever be cognitive enough to recognize consequences of their actions."
# Does not understand ethical behavior or moral standards especially when doing things that have not been given rules
This is for age six. A four year old child would have to be insanely precocious to actually understand right/wrong. The age of reason isn't even until seven or eight.
Ethical behavior and moral standards are more sophisticated than knowing that someone gets hurt when you run your bike into them.
I don't think you understand exactly what that sentence means. A six year old doesn't understand why hurting people is bad. They simply do not know right from wrong except from trial and error (and being told). And they can't really reason from the specific to the general.
If the law is inaccurate, it'll get brought up in appeal if it gets that far - I seriously doubt it will. Or the state legislature can update it.
If a 4-year old accidentally broke my hip, I'd probably expect the parents to pay up. I don't know whether I'd sue the kid, but it isn't outside the realm of what I'd consider.
The estate suing makes it weird. How much cash is on the line?
enc0re on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
If the judge had ruled the opposite way, granted a motion to dismiss, it would have been saying "Under no circumstances can a four-year-old ever be cognitive enough to recognize consequences of their actions."
# Does not understand ethical behavior or moral standards especially when doing things that have not been given rules
This is for age six. A four year old child would have to be insanely precocious to actually understand right/wrong. The age of reason isn't even until seven or eight.
Ethical behavior and moral standards are more sophisticated than knowing that someone gets hurt when you run your bike into them.
I don't think you understand exactly what that sentence means. A six year old doesn't understand why hurting people is bad. They simply do not know right from wrong except from trial and error (and being told). And they can't really reason from the specific to the general.
If the law is inaccurate, it'll get brought up in appeal if it gets that far - I seriously doubt it will. Or the state legislature can update it.
Perhaps, but you're being pretty optimistic. I don't doubt that the law will eventually change, but it's not like we're talking about supernew science. We've known for some time know that children under age 8 are basically incapable of committing crimes.
Julius on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited November 2010
Often an estate is obligated to pursue every possible asset to pay off debts the dead person had. If the woman didn't have medical insurance then they'd be required to follow the suit up to try and pay the bills.
If the judge had ruled the opposite way, granted a motion to dismiss, it would have been saying "Under no circumstances can a four-year-old ever be cognitive enough to recognize consequences of their actions."
# Does not understand ethical behavior or moral standards especially when doing things that have not been given rules
This is for age six. A four year old child would have to be insanely precocious to actually understand right/wrong. The age of reason isn't even until seven or eight.
Ethical behavior and moral standards are more sophisticated than knowing that someone gets hurt when you run your bike into them.
I don't think you understand exactly what that sentence means. A six year old doesn't understand why hurting people is bad. They simply do not know right from wrong except from trial and error (and being told). And they can't really reason from the specific to the general.
If the law is inaccurate, it'll get brought up in appeal if it gets that far - I seriously doubt it will. Or the state legislature can update it.
Perhaps, but you're being pretty optimistic. I don't doubt that the law will eventually change, but it's not like we're talking about supernew science. We've known for some time know that children under age 8 are basically incapable of committing crimes.
I'm not sure what the alternatives are - if this was California I'm sure you could get a referendum passed, they love that.
pretty sure an American is the originator of the phrase "shit happens" and yet
Latin nerd alert!
The likely reason that the phrase "shit happens" originiated in America, or at least in English is because it is a play on a rough translation of the latin translation of the word "accident" which is "it happens" (probably not exactly, but I'm not about to bust out the conjugations for accidere.)
Ethical behavior and moral standards are more sophisticated than knowing that someone gets hurt when you run your bike into them.
Knowing that wouldn't matter unless the child knew it was wrong. If the purpose is to discourage people from doing it, punishing the child for something it doesn't know is wrong nor knows will cause it to be disciplined will do jack. If the purpose is to encourage parents to be more careful, that would be a reason for negligence on the part of the parents.
Ethical behavior and moral standards are more sophisticated than knowing that someone gets hurt when you run your bike into them.
Knowing that wouldn't matter unless the child knew it was wrong. If the purpose is to discourage people from doing it, punishing the child for something it doesn't know is wrong nor knows will cause it to be disciplined will do jack. If the purpose is to encourage parents to be more careful, that would be a reason for negligence on the part of the parents.
What if the law is written where you have to sue the child for the parents to be held accountable?
Ethical behavior and moral standards are more sophisticated than knowing that someone gets hurt when you run your bike into them.
Knowing that wouldn't matter unless the child knew it was wrong. If the purpose is to discourage people from doing it, punishing the child for something it doesn't know is wrong nor knows will cause it to be disciplined will do jack. If the purpose is to encourage parents to be more careful, that would be a reason for negligence on the part of the parents.
That is what confuses me about the case. What kind of roundabout way of suing people for negligence is this?
It's not like they're actually hoping to collect assets from the kid.
Ethical behavior and moral standards are more sophisticated than knowing that someone gets hurt when you run your bike into them.
Knowing that wouldn't matter unless the child knew it was wrong. If the purpose is to discourage people from doing it, punishing the child for something it doesn't know is wrong nor knows will cause it to be disciplined will do jack. If the purpose is to encourage parents to be more careful, that would be a reason for negligence on the part of the parents.
That is what confuses me about the case. What kind of roundabout way of suing people for negligence is this?
It's not like they're actually hoping to collect assets from the kid.
I am also having a good laugh at Yar's belief that insurance companies just roll over and pay 'the max' at the merest hint of a lawsuit. I wish! My job would be a lot easier.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I am too lazy to sign up for a free account to read the article again, but the last few pages of this thread are really confusing me. Am I completely misremembering the part of the article where both kids and both sets of parents are in fact being sued and the judge threw out the case against one of the kids but not the other? And both kids were four but one was barely four and the other was almost five?
That doesn't seem like much of a bright line to me. But maybe I am just completely mis-remembering the article.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
The ruling by the judge, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, did not find that the girl was liable, but merely permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward.
(Rachel and Jacob Kohn [the other child] did not seek to dismiss the case against them.)
The lawsuit won’t be about taking away the kid’s future Tooth Fairy money or training wheels, it will be about the homeowners’ insurance policy and the extent to which it covers the mother who was watching the child and/or the child.
But at the same time. If someone costs me medical bills, they should have to pay for them, not me. So, if that person is 4, then better crack open the piggy bank.
Disrupter on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
The ruling by the judge, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, did not find that the girl was liable, but merely permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward.
(Rachel and Jacob Kohn [the other child] did not seek to dismiss the case against them.)
Something is quite odd here.
Think it's just that the other defendants didn't file motions to dismiss for whatever reason.
But at the same time. If someone costs me medical bills, they should have to pay for them, not me. So, if that person is 4, then better crack open the piggy bank.
and I get my money.
you got one week, or me and a couple of my boys are gonna come a knockin' with baseball bats
Posts
How do you post in a thread about negligence while recommending 4 year olds ride their bikes in the street without your brain hemorrhaging?
I don't think you understand exactly what that sentence means. A six year old doesn't understand why hurting people is bad. They simply do not know right from wrong except from trial and error (and being told). And they can't really reason from the specific to the general.
I would seriously have no problem with that.
The estate suing makes it weird. How much cash is on the line?
Perhaps, but you're being pretty optimistic. I don't doubt that the law will eventually change, but it's not like we're talking about supernew science. We've known for some time know that children under age 8 are basically incapable of committing crimes.
touché
What if the law is written where you have to sue the child for the parents to be held accountable?
That is what confuses me about the case. What kind of roundabout way of suing people for negligence is this?
It's not like they're actually hoping to collect assets from the kid.
Welcome to the wonderful world of insurance!
I think that it would be nice if people understood what's going on in this case before getting all OMG SUING A LITTEL CHILD11!!!!
Longer legal explanation here. Also, a reminder that "crimes" and "torts" are separate things.
I am also having a good laugh at Yar's belief that insurance companies just roll over and pay 'the max' at the merest hint of a lawsuit. I wish! My job would be a lot easier.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
That doesn't seem like much of a bright line to me. But maybe I am just completely mis-remembering the article.
And again, this will not ruin her life:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
But at the same time. If someone costs me medical bills, they should have to pay for them, not me. So, if that person is 4, then better crack open the piggy bank.
Think it's just that the other defendants didn't file motions to dismiss for whatever reason.
and I get my money.
you got one week, or me and a couple of my boys are gonna come a knockin' with baseball bats