If you look at it without this specific example in mind, it's a sound principle that in an accident where someone was acting negligently, the victim should not be the one to end up paying for their injury. Even in cases where there's no negligence but someone is still at fault, it's not fair for the victim to pay for it. It's a decent principle and not really a controversial one.
What makes it weird with this case is that we don't find the girl negligent because she's so young as to be incapable of such a thing, but that shouldn't magically make it so the victim/victim's family who had to no doubt pay money for this accident at some point while she was alive goes uncompensated. This is a little bit of a grey area, but the girl's parents should almost certainly be liable here.
I'm not sure that you can hold someone at fault for something without also asserting that they were either negligent or acting with intent. At least, I've never known that to be the case with any litigation I've been involved in.
I actually can't really see how that would work, conceptually.
"it's not fair that the victim should have to pay even in cases where there is no negligence" is an uncontroversial position because it's sympathetic, but the realities of it are incredibly controversial once you start using that as a basis for finding out who should pay.
Seems like there's an age minimum for the possibility of negligence, and the girl was over it, so it's possible for her to be found negligent. Highly unlikely, but if you have the minimum, no point in disregarding it just because it's a close call.
It's just a denial of a motion to dismiss, looks like; the girl still could win on summary judgment, and there's no way a jury would find a 4-year-old liable.
After a brief summary, the judge should in turn be able to call the old lady a psychotic douchenozzle for wasting his/her time.
The article says she died a few months later from unrelated causes.
At that age, the unrelated causes were very likely triggered by fracturing her hip.
What?
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited October 2010
I'm not sure of how the system views it, but I wouldn't think that negligence or intent is required for someone to be ethically obligated to pay someone for damages. Say I borrow my friend's lawnmower. I'm mowing my lawn, and unbeknownst to me, there is a big fucking rock in my yard, hidden by grass. I run over it, the mower blade gets jacked up, mower is kaput.
It's not really my fault, I didn't do anything unreasonable, but I'd still argue that fixing or replacing the mower is my responsibility, because I was the one using it for my own benefit.
Sometimes, bad shit happens. And there is almost always a "someone responsible" who should be considered financially liable for it. Sometimes it's the person suffering the damages, sometimes it's some careless fucko, and sometimes it's a well-meaning person who just got unlucky. But if something needs to be paid for, it should be paid for by the person most responsible for it, regardless of whether that person was being stupid or was just a victim of circumstance.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm not sure of how the system views it, but I wouldn't think that negligence or intent is required for someone to be ethically obligated to pay someone for damages. Say I borrow my friend's lawnmower. I'm mowing my lawn, and unbeknownst to me, there is a big fucking rock in my yard, hidden by grass. I run over it, the mower blade gets jacked up, mower is kaput.
It's not really my fault, I didn't do anything unreasonable, but I'd still argue that fixing or replacing the mower is my responsibility, because I was the one using it for my own benefit.
Sometimes, bad shit happens. And there is almost always a "someone responsible" who should be considered financially liable for it. Sometimes it's the person suffering the damages, sometimes it's some careless fucko, and sometimes it's a well-meaning person who just got unlucky. But if something needs to be paid for, it should be paid for by the person most responsible for it, regardless of whether that person was being stupid or was just a victim of circumstance.
I really doubt that the legal system would view that as negligence. The more likely interpretation would be that, since you borrowed the lawnmower, it is understood that you will return it in a similar condition. How it was damaged is more or less irrelevant.
It's more of a debt than anything else. You borrow a lawnmower, so you owe your neighbour one working lawnmower or its equivalent.
Unintentional torts are widely brought in the U.S. Roughly, there are two kinds: negligence, which means you weren't careful enough; and strict liability, which can be brought even when you were as careful as possible. The latter gives rise to so many product liability suits here.
If you look at it without this specific example in mind, it's a sound principle that in an accident where someone was acting negligently, the victim should not be the one to end up paying for their injury. Even in cases where there's no negligence but someone is still at fault, it's not fair for the victim to pay for it. It's a decent principle and not really a controversial one.
What makes it weird with this case is that we don't find the girl negligent because she's so young as to be incapable of such a thing, but that shouldn't magically make it so the victim/victim's family who had to no doubt pay money for this accident at some point while she was alive goes uncompensated. This is a little bit of a grey area, but the girl's parents should almost certainly be liable here.
I'm not sure that you can hold someone at fault for something without also asserting that they were either negligent or acting with intent. At least, I've never known that to be the case with any litigation I've been involved in.
I actually can't really see how that would work, conceptually.
The thing that makes this case funky is that the girl would easily be considered as acting negligently if she were say...20 years older. Her age sort of erases her own negligence, but it's incredibly strange that somehow the cost of the accident is then shifted to the victim.
That doesn't seem right to me. If you have a dog that does something to cause costly damage while you're watching it, you're going to pay for it even if the dog can't be deemed negligent. I don't see the difference with someone watching a child that is too young to be negligent under the law.
I am going to have to side with the old lady's estate here. If someones 4 year old racing bikes with her friend takes off my side view mirror then of course I would expect her parent to pay. The parent does not get to say "Well I was supervising the race, watched the entire thing happen, did nothing to stop her and her friend from speeding down the street in fact was actively encouraging it, but hey I am not liable because I did not take the mirror off."
Someones precious snowflake caused this woman a busted hip which required surgery to fix. While we can argue about a pain and suffering amount, at the very least however I fail to see why this woman's estate should have to pay for it. Now if her insurance fully covered it, if she in fact had insurance, then at best she is looking at "pain and suffering" but that is a nebulous issue. However the insurance company could always sue to try and recoup their losses.
However the idea that "Oh shes 4, she can fuck up people and/or property all she likes and god forbid you try and hold her/her parents responsible" just seems a tad crazy to me.
But, Baby..You gotta stop actin all shitbat crazy. If you can't do this for me, for yourself..
Then I'm just gonna go lay up with that sane chick with the cute accent next door.
What sane judge can OK a negligence lawsuit againts a 4 year old.
Are they going to seize her training wheels? Garnish her weekly candy allowance?
They're going to withhold her bicycle license for 2 years, also she will be required to pay the estate $10,000 in the form of Hershey's Bars, Tootsie Pops, Juice Boxes and PB&J sammiches.
Seriously though, shit does happen. It was an accident.
I would definitely say it's the parent's responsibility. To not be responsible the parent would have to be neglecting the child by leaving her unsupervised.
Of course, this may also be true of the old lady's estate; if you have a brittle little old lady rolling around why is nobody watching out for her?
If you look at it without this specific example in mind, it's a sound principle that in an accident where someone was acting negligently, the victim should not be the one to end up paying for their injury. Even in cases where there's no negligence but someone is still at fault, it's not fair for the victim to pay for it. It's a decent principle and not really a controversial one.
What makes it weird with this case is that we don't find the girl negligent because she's so young as to be incapable of such a thing, but that shouldn't magically make it so the victim/victim's family who had to no doubt pay money for this accident at some point while she was alive goes uncompensated. This is a little bit of a grey area, but the girl's parents should almost certainly be liable here.
I'm not sure that you can hold someone at fault for something without also asserting that they were either negligent or acting with intent. At least, I've never known that to be the case with any litigation I've been involved in.
I actually can't really see how that would work, conceptually.
The thing that makes this case funky is that the girl would easily be considered as acting negligently if she were say...20 years older. Her age sort of erases her own negligence, but it's incredibly strange that somehow the cost of the accident is then shifted to the victim.
That doesn't seem right to me. If you have a dog that does something to cause costly damage while you're watching it, you're going to pay for it even if the dog can't be deemed negligent. I don't see the difference with someone watching a child that is too young to be negligent under the law.
In the UK, the owner of an animal is only liable for damage it causes by statute, and even then only for a limited number of reasons (which are interpreted as strict liability). For instance if a bolting horse runs onto a fast road and causes a car accident, the owner of the horse is not liable for the damage to the vehicles.
Similarly I can see situations where a child could be doing something it seems reasonable to permit a child to do, and nevertheless as a result of that an accident happened and someone got hurt. I don't see that the child could be considered negligent, and I don't see that it's reasonable to consider that the parents are negligent unless they have permitted the child to do something which would reasonably be expected to have led to an accident, and had reasonable opportunity to prevent them from doing so.
I won't claim to know all of the details here, but "a kid breaks something, the parent pays for it" is kinda the way the world works. This isn't jumping out as crazy to me.
I would definitely say it's the parent's responsibility. To not be responsible the parent would have to be neglecting the child by leaving her unsupervised.
Of course, this may also be true of the old lady's estate; if you have a brittle little old lady rolling around why is nobody watching out for her?
Being old and therefore more susceptible to injury doesn't mean you're not in charge enough of your faculties to be allowed on the street.
This is like the definition of a non-story. You can sue a 4-year-old for negligence almost everywhere. You just don't apply the same reasonableness standard as to an adult.
Being old and therefore more susceptible to injury doesn't mean you're not in charge enough of your faculties to be allowed on the street.
In many cases, however, a caretaker is indeed a damned good idea. If you're so frail that a 4 year old can bust your hip, you may well be in need of one.
Imagine if, say, an enthusiastic puppy or cat jumped on them for sloppy kisses.
I'd assume the fracturing of the hip was from falling as a result of getting hit, not getting hit by the bike specifically.
Falling, especially if you land badly (like, say, when you're not expecting it?), can really fuck you up. This is especially true if you're older, more brittle, and less springy.
Anecdotal, but my Gran, a perfectly independent woman who didn't need a caretaker, slipped in the kitchen and busted her hip. Ended up being in the hospital for a long while. And she was like 70 at the time.
Just because you don't have a caretaker doesn't mean you're not susceptible to greater injury because of your age and infirmity.
So was the 80 year old guy who hit me with his car when I was nine. Guy still went bankrupted paying my medical bills. If you think you get off because it was an accident, go rear end a car. It's an accident after all.
That accident broke a woman's hip requiring surgery. Her estate is still responsible for that bill. People talking about insurance fully covering it have never had surgery. With medicare supplemental and GM retiree benefits, my grandmother still ended up footing $15,000 for her hip and knee replacement after she fell in her driveway.
Nothing about the incident suggests the woman needed a caretaker or should not have been on the street. You don't need to be falling apart at the seams to have a broken bone when one child knocks you down on a bike and then another runs into you while you're on the ground. I broke my neighbor's leg on my bike when I was five, and he was only six, no brittle bones involved.
I got sued, in name, too. My parents had to pay as if they'd been sued directly, but depending on circumstances and state/local law, whether you sue the child or the parent may be a technicality that makes the difference between the case being dismissed or winning, even if the outcome is the same either way.
So was the 80 year old guy who hit me with his car when I was nine. Guy still went bankrupted paying my medical bills. If you think you get off because it was an accident, go rear end a car. It's an accident after all.
The duty of care expected of a person operating a motor vehicle is more onerous than that expected of a small child riding a bicycle with stabilisers. It's possible for an accident to occur, even an accident where someone has been badly hurt, where nobody involved can be considered negligent.
Now, I've kind of avoided arguing specifics, because the article gives basically no details that would be relevant in deciding negligence. I'm not saying here that I don't think that the child wasn't negligent, but I do think that it would be a tough one to argue in this case.
AT 4 I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW MY LEFT HAND FROM MY RIGHT HAND
I'd call that pretty negligent on your part.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
Glad people are remembering that no court has said this particular girl should be held liable yet - just that it's remotely possible to hold a 4 year old liable for negligence.
I don't think anyone is saying that the girl was acting negligently, we all sort of agree that her age prevents that claim. But her actions were still the direct cause of some damages, there should be compensation. If negligence really has to be involved then whoever was supervising her certainly fits the description.
I don't think anyone is saying that the girl was acting negligently, we all sort of agree that her age prevents that claim. But her actions were still the direct cause of some damages, there should be compensation. If negligence really has to be involved then whoever was supervising her certainly fits the description.
Negligence is the basis of civil liability or tort law in most common law countries. It's how a person is deemed to be the "direct cause" of damages.
Can you sue yourself?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
By Kyle
Well, apparently you can try.
In Lodi v. Lodi, plaintiff and defendant Orestre Lodi tried to sue himself for an “Action to Quiet Title Equity” in regards to an estate he was the beneficiary of.
Lodi properly served himself, and when he failed to respond, moved for default judgement against himself. The trial court, in Shasta County, California, denied Lodi’s request. Lodi appealed.
“…[T]he complaint was not drawn in conformity with the laws of this state and was thus properly subject to the court’s own motion to strike under §436(b)…
n the circumstances, this result cannot be unfair to Mr. Lodi. Although it is true that, as plaintiff and appellant, he loses, it is equally true that, as defendant and respondent he wins. It is hard to imagine more even handed application of justice. Truly, it would appear that Oreste Lodi is that rare litigant who is assured both victory and defeat regardless of which side triumphs.” Lodi v. Lodi, 173 Cal.App.3d 628 (1985).
When considering how to award court costs, the judge held that if the respondent/defendant/beneficiary should be awarded his costs of suit on appeal, which he could thereafter recover from himself, that equities would be better served by requiring each party bear his own costs.
While unclear as to the purpose of this lawsuit, the court noted that Lodi requested a copy of his complaint be served on the IRS. The court speculated that this (a state entered judgement) may be of some advantage to Lodi under the Internal Revenue Code.
I don't think anyone is saying that the girl was acting negligently, we all sort of agree that her age prevents that claim. But her actions were still the direct cause of some damages, there should be compensation. If negligence really has to be involved then whoever was supervising her certainly fits the description.
Negligence is the basis of civil liability or tort law in most common law countries. It's how a person is deemed to be the "direct cause" of damages.
then whoever was supervising her certainly fits the description.
The cost of someone's broken hip doesn't magically disappear because the girl herself is too young to sanely be labeled negligent. Someone was watching her and this still happened. It seems reasonable that if someone causes damages by acting in a way that we would declare negligent if they had the capacity to understand their responsibilities, but they had someone watching them that did nothing to prevent this, the person in charge is the one that's negligent.
I don't think anyone is saying that the girl was acting negligently, we all sort of agree that her age prevents that claim. But her actions were still the direct cause of some damages, there should be compensation. If negligence really has to be involved then whoever was supervising her certainly fits the description.
Negligence is the basis of civil liability or tort law in most common law countries. It's how a person is deemed to be the "direct cause" of damages.
then whoever was supervising her certainly fits the description.
The cost of someone's broken hip doesn't magically disappear because the girl herself is too young to sanely be labeled negligent. Someone was watching her and this still happened. It seems reasonable that if someone causes damages by acting in a way that we would declare negligent if they had the capacity to understand their responsibilities, but they had someone watching them that did nothing to prevent this, the person in charge is the one that's negligent.
Possibly, but not necessarily. It depends precisely what the child was doing, and whether it is considered that the guardian should have been expected to prevent them from doing it. Really, though, none of us can answer the question of whether or not there is any negligence here, because the details given in the article are too sketchy.
I don't think anyone is saying that the girl was acting negligently, we all sort of agree that her age prevents that claim. But her actions were still the direct cause of some damages, there should be compensation. If negligence really has to be involved then whoever was supervising her certainly fits the description.
Negligence is the basis of civil liability or tort law in most common law countries. It's how a person is deemed to be the "direct cause" of damages.
then whoever was supervising her certainly fits the description.
The cost of someone's broken hip doesn't magically disappear because the girl herself is too young to sanely be labeled negligent. Someone was watching her and this still happened. It seems reasonable that if someone causes damages by acting in a way that we would declare negligent if they had the capacity to understand their responsibilities, but they had someone watching them that did nothing to prevent this, the person in charge is the one that's negligent.
Possibly, but not necessarily. It depends precisely what the child was doing, and whether it is considered that the guardian should have been expected to prevent them from doing it. Really, though, none of us can answer the question of whether or not there is any negligence here, because the details given in the article are too sketchy.
We can make some judgments sophisticated enough to form our opinions with the bare set of facts we already have, unless there's some ridiculousness that we don't know about like maybe the woman was staggering around erratically. The child was riding her bike on a sidewalk, which is not only recognized as somewhat dangerous, but actually illegal in many places. It's pretty safe most of the time, but when it isn't there's at least some basis for negligence from the very fact that bike met sidewalk. Whoever was watching the girl could have easily instructed her to maybe slow down or stop when people were passing by, or something simple that could have easily prevented this. There's plenty to work with to demonstrate that this girl's supervision was not meeting certain standards of care.
You're making a lot of suppositions there, and I did say that I wasn't going to argue negligence on incomplete facts. Really the only points I've ever been trying to make are that it isn't necessarily ridiculous to sue a four year old child, and that there are such things as accidents where nobody is negligent.
Posts
I'm not sure that you can hold someone at fault for something without also asserting that they were either negligent or acting with intent. At least, I've never known that to be the case with any litigation I've been involved in.
I actually can't really see how that would work, conceptually.
What?
It's not really my fault, I didn't do anything unreasonable, but I'd still argue that fixing or replacing the mower is my responsibility, because I was the one using it for my own benefit.
Sometimes, bad shit happens. And there is almost always a "someone responsible" who should be considered financially liable for it. Sometimes it's the person suffering the damages, sometimes it's some careless fucko, and sometimes it's a well-meaning person who just got unlucky. But if something needs to be paid for, it should be paid for by the person most responsible for it, regardless of whether that person was being stupid or was just a victim of circumstance.
I really doubt that the legal system would view that as negligence. The more likely interpretation would be that, since you borrowed the lawnmower, it is understood that you will return it in a similar condition. How it was damaged is more or less irrelevant.
It's more of a debt than anything else. You borrow a lawnmower, so you owe your neighbour one working lawnmower or its equivalent.
The thing that makes this case funky is that the girl would easily be considered as acting negligently if she were say...20 years older. Her age sort of erases her own negligence, but it's incredibly strange that somehow the cost of the accident is then shifted to the victim.
That doesn't seem right to me. If you have a dog that does something to cause costly damage while you're watching it, you're going to pay for it even if the dog can't be deemed negligent. I don't see the difference with someone watching a child that is too young to be negligent under the law.
Someones precious snowflake caused this woman a busted hip which required surgery to fix. While we can argue about a pain and suffering amount, at the very least however I fail to see why this woman's estate should have to pay for it. Now if her insurance fully covered it, if she in fact had insurance, then at best she is looking at "pain and suffering" but that is a nebulous issue. However the insurance company could always sue to try and recoup their losses.
However the idea that "Oh shes 4, she can fuck up people and/or property all she likes and god forbid you try and hold her/her parents responsible" just seems a tad crazy to me.
They're going to withhold her bicycle license for 2 years, also she will be required to pay the estate $10,000 in the form of Hershey's Bars, Tootsie Pops, Juice Boxes and PB&J sammiches.
Seriously though, shit does happen. It was an accident.
Of course, this may also be true of the old lady's estate; if you have a brittle little old lady rolling around why is nobody watching out for her?
In the UK, the owner of an animal is only liable for damage it causes by statute, and even then only for a limited number of reasons (which are interpreted as strict liability). For instance if a bolting horse runs onto a fast road and causes a car accident, the owner of the horse is not liable for the damage to the vehicles.
Similarly I can see situations where a child could be doing something it seems reasonable to permit a child to do, and nevertheless as a result of that an accident happened and someone got hurt. I don't see that the child could be considered negligent, and I don't see that it's reasonable to consider that the parents are negligent unless they have permitted the child to do something which would reasonably be expected to have led to an accident, and had reasonable opportunity to prevent them from doing so.
Being old and therefore more susceptible to injury doesn't mean you're not in charge enough of your faculties to be allowed on the street.
In many cases, however, a caretaker is indeed a damned good idea. If you're so frail that a 4 year old can bust your hip, you may well be in need of one.
Imagine if, say, an enthusiastic puppy or cat jumped on them for sloppy kisses.
Falling, especially if you land badly (like, say, when you're not expecting it?), can really fuck you up. This is especially true if you're older, more brittle, and less springy.
Anecdotal, but my Gran, a perfectly independent woman who didn't need a caretaker, slipped in the kitchen and busted her hip. Ended up being in the hospital for a long while. And she was like 70 at the time.
Just because you don't have a caretaker doesn't mean you're not susceptible to greater injury because of your age and infirmity.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
*shakes fist at the sky*
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
fucking baby I'm taking you for all you're worth
So was the 80 year old guy who hit me with his car when I was nine. Guy still went bankrupted paying my medical bills. If you think you get off because it was an accident, go rear end a car. It's an accident after all.
That accident broke a woman's hip requiring surgery. Her estate is still responsible for that bill. People talking about insurance fully covering it have never had surgery. With medicare supplemental and GM retiree benefits, my grandmother still ended up footing $15,000 for her hip and knee replacement after she fell in her driveway.
Nothing about the incident suggests the woman needed a caretaker or should not have been on the street. You don't need to be falling apart at the seams to have a broken bone when one child knocks you down on a bike and then another runs into you while you're on the ground. I broke my neighbor's leg on my bike when I was five, and he was only six, no brittle bones involved.
I got sued, in name, too. My parents had to pay as if they'd been sued directly, but depending on circumstances and state/local law, whether you sue the child or the parent may be a technicality that makes the difference between the case being dismissed or winning, even if the outcome is the same either way.
well I'm glad this story had a happy ending.
The duty of care expected of a person operating a motor vehicle is more onerous than that expected of a small child riding a bicycle with stabilisers. It's possible for an accident to occur, even an accident where someone has been badly hurt, where nobody involved can be considered negligent.
Now, I've kind of avoided arguing specifics, because the article gives basically no details that would be relevant in deciding negligence. I'm not saying here that I don't think that the child wasn't negligent, but I do think that it would be a tough one to argue in this case.
SHE WAS 4
AT 4 I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW MY LEFT HAND FROM MY RIGHT HAND
I'd call that pretty negligent on your part.
I am currently in the process of suing myself
On one hand...
it's a difficult case, because I can't tell the difference between the plaintiff and the defendant
The conflict of interests involved is astounding.
Negligence is the basis of civil liability or tort law in most common law countries. It's how a person is deemed to be the "direct cause" of damages.
Slightly off topic, but...
http://inretentis.com/legal-issues/can-you-sue-yourself
then whoever was supervising her certainly fits the description.
The cost of someone's broken hip doesn't magically disappear because the girl herself is too young to sanely be labeled negligent. Someone was watching her and this still happened. It seems reasonable that if someone causes damages by acting in a way that we would declare negligent if they had the capacity to understand their responsibilities, but they had someone watching them that did nothing to prevent this, the person in charge is the one that's negligent.
Possibly, but not necessarily. It depends precisely what the child was doing, and whether it is considered that the guardian should have been expected to prevent them from doing it. Really, though, none of us can answer the question of whether or not there is any negligence here, because the details given in the article are too sketchy.
We can make some judgments sophisticated enough to form our opinions with the bare set of facts we already have, unless there's some ridiculousness that we don't know about like maybe the woman was staggering around erratically. The child was riding her bike on a sidewalk, which is not only recognized as somewhat dangerous, but actually illegal in many places. It's pretty safe most of the time, but when it isn't there's at least some basis for negligence from the very fact that bike met sidewalk. Whoever was watching the girl could have easily instructed her to maybe slow down or stop when people were passing by, or something simple that could have easily prevented this. There's plenty to work with to demonstrate that this girl's supervision was not meeting certain standards of care.