You certainly can hold a 4-yr-old negligent for something. There is a certain universe of scenarios that a reasonable four-year-old would know is likely to cause harm. Now, that set of circumstances is probably pretty damn small, but it wouldn't be ludicrous to argue that a four-year-old should know that, for instance, dropping something heavy on someone would hurt them. Or that throwing something fragile would break it. It's also significant that anunderstanding of how much harm your action will cause is completely irrelevant in negligence theory, whether the person is a minor or an adult.
And as for the parent—in many jurisdictions, parents aren't liable for negligent actions of their minor children.
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.
Somehow, japan, I don't think allowing a 4 year old to have a race down a sidewalk where they knock over an old lady to be an example of a lack of negligence. Furthermore, the judge's ruling was probably fueled by the parents trying to play the summary dismissal two-step.
As for the Young Report you posted earlier, I can't believe you'd buy that reheated bullshit we've had poured down our throats for the past half-century here in the US.
As for the Young Report you posted earlier, I can't believe you'd buy that reheated bullshit we've had poured down our throats for the past half-century here in the US.
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.
The only suppositions involved in my characterization of this are that a) the girl is on a bike, on the sidewalk that the elderly woman was on and that b) whoever was supervising the girl was capable of speech or vision. That riding a bike on a sidewalk is illegal in many places is merely a fact used for some perspective here.
As for your points, I fully agree with both of them, but I don't think that's what we've been disagreeing about.
She should sue the old woman for knocking her off her bike!
/end sarcasm
Seriously though, this is a case where both parties are most likely equally responsible, both the little girl and the old lady probably weren't paying attention or the crash would not have happened. The little girls family should not have to pay for damages, especially since you know medicare. (Am I opening a can of worms?)
yeah sorry this seems to be a very strange mentality that i have a hard time understanding
it's part of the American culture of litigiousness i can't wrap my noggin' around
this idea that someone has to pay when someone else is hurt, mentally or physically
sometimes, accidents happen!
sometimes, a four year old child is careless and foolish in a way that gets someone hurt
and that just happens
sometimes, there are just accidents where you can't reasonably fault anyone involved for what happened
Uhm, Pony? I'm pretty sure most Americans don't actually believe that someone must be liable for every single thing that happens ever.
But lawyers have a way of convincing people in individual cases that they have grounds to sue someone. It's not a collective mentality. Admittedly, there are people who just troll around waiting for someone to sue, but that's hardly the average person.
As for the Young Report you posted earlier, I can't believe you'd buy that reheated bullshit we've had poured down our throats for the past half-century here in the US.
Wait what?
It's the same bullshit that gets trotted out to bolster the cause of "tort reform", japan.
But lawyers have a way of convincing people in individual cases that they have grounds to sue someone. It's not a collective mentality. Admittedly, there are people who just troll around waiting for someone to sue, but that's hardly the average person.
Actually, no, they don't. The contingency fee system makes sure of that.
As for the Young Report you posted earlier, I can't believe you'd buy that reheated bullshit we've had poured down our throats for the past half-century here in the US.
Wait what?
It's the same bullshit that gets trotted out to bolster the cause of "tort reform", japan.
What bullshit is that? The reforms are based on the same lines of those already implemented for personal injury litigation as a result of road traffic accidents. It formalises a process and restricts the costs that solicitors are permitted to recover. It's mostly to put an end to solicitors deliberately racking up costs by being obstructive, so that it becomes cheaper for a defendant to settle than fight, regardless of whether or not there is actually any blame on their part.
Where it suggests legislation it suggests formalising in statute instances where defendants will already be found not to be negligent in litigation, and restricting the nature of advertising that personal injury law firms are allowed to use.
Wait, I didn't even think about that: The four year old was riding her bike on the sidewalk? She should be thrown in jail.
Do you really fail to see the difference between causing some costly damage while doing something illegal versus something totally normal?
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't like cyclists. I especially don't like cyclists on the sidewalk, which is illegal. A tiny little mutant alien creatures that doesn't even come up to my waist (otherwise known as a "four year old") riding her bicycle on the sidewalk...well I don't have my graphic calculator with me but the curve here is parabolically bad.
As for the Young Report you posted earlier, I can't believe you'd buy that reheated bullshit we've had poured down our throats for the past half-century here in the US.
Wait what?
It's the same bullshit that gets trotted out to bolster the cause of "tort reform", japan.
What bullshit is that? The reforms are based on the same lines of those already implemented for personal injury litigation as a result of road traffic accidents. It formalises a process and restricts the costs that solicitors are permitted to recover. It's mostly to put an end to solicitors deliberately racking up costs by being obstructive, so that it becomes cheaper for a defendant to settle than fight, regardless of whether or not there is actually any blame on their part.
Where it suggests legislation it suggests formalising in statute instances where defendants will already be found not to be negligent in litigation, and restricting the nature of advertising that personal injury law firms are allowed to use.
In other words, the same bullshit, just on new china. Perhaps the better solution would be to get rid of the pants -on-head idiotic "loser pays" system you have?
As for the Young Report you posted earlier, I can't believe you'd buy that reheated bullshit we've had poured down our throats for the past half-century here in the US.
Wait what?
It's the same bullshit that gets trotted out to bolster the cause of "tort reform", japan.
What bullshit is that? The reforms are based on the same lines of those already implemented for personal injury litigation as a result of road traffic accidents. It formalises a process and restricts the costs that solicitors are permitted to recover. It's mostly to put an end to solicitors deliberately racking up costs by being obstructive, so that it becomes cheaper for a defendant to settle than fight, regardless of whether or not there is actually any blame on their part.
Where it suggests legislation it suggests formalising in statute instances where defendants will already be found not to be negligent in litigation, and restricting the nature of advertising that personal injury law firms are allowed to use.
In other words, the same bullshit, just on new china. Perhaps the better solution would be to get rid of the pants -on-head idiotic "loser pays" system you have?
What's your objection to the reforms?
japan on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
I have to wonder what exactly the damages are that her estate is seeking. Not only is the woman dead by other causes at this point, but her age and condition at the time of her injury means any hospital treatment she received was already covered by some combination of Medicare/Medicaid/EMTALA, even if she didn't have her own insurance.
So what does the plaintiff want? Can you ask for emotional restitution via monetary values for someone who isn't alive?
As for the Young Report you posted earlier, I can't believe you'd buy that reheated bullshit we've had poured down our throats for the past half-century here in the US.
Wait what?
It's the same bullshit that gets trotted out to bolster the cause of "tort reform", japan.
What bullshit is that? The reforms are based on the same lines of those already implemented for personal injury litigation as a result of road traffic accidents. It formalises a process and restricts the costs that solicitors are permitted to recover. It's mostly to put an end to solicitors deliberately racking up costs by being obstructive, so that it becomes cheaper for a defendant to settle than fight, regardless of whether or not there is actually any blame on their part.
Where it suggests legislation it suggests formalising in statute instances where defendants will already be found not to be negligent in litigation, and restricting the nature of advertising that personal injury law firms are allowed to use.
In other words, the same bullshit, just on new china. Perhaps the better solution would be to get rid of the pants -on-head idiotic "loser pays" system you have?
What's your objection to the reforms?
See: Any thread we've had where "tort reform" comes up as a topic. The people who get hurt by these "reforms" are the people who are injured and are no longer able to get adequate recompense thanks to arbitrary caps. The only people who benefit are the insurers.
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.
Actually, immediately after I looked this up. I'm tempted to do it just to show how ludicrous suing has become.
See: Any thread we've had where "tort reform" comes up as a topic. The people who get hurt by these "reforms" are the people who are injured and are no longer able to get adequate recompense thanks to arbitrary caps. The only people who benefit are the insurers.
It doesn't cap compensation, it caps the amount of money that the solicitors can reclaim for their own costs in cases where the amount claimed falls under a certain threshold. There's no restriction on the amount of compensation a claimant can pursue or receive.
If the litigation is uneconomic for the solicitor, then their client can fund the litigation through Before-the-event legal expenses insurance (which comes with pretty much any home or motor insurance cover), or if they have none, by taking out an After-the-event legal expenses insurance policy, the cost of which is based on the likelihood of the litigation's success, can be supplied to the client on a credit basis by the solicitor, and can be reclaimed if the litigation is successful.
It doesn't prevent anyone from pursuing litigation in the event of injury, and doesn't prevent anyone from receiving compensation they're entitled to.
See: Any thread we've had where "tort reform" comes up as a topic. The people who get hurt by these "reforms" are the people who are injured and are no longer able to get adequate recompense thanks to arbitrary caps. The only people who benefit are the insurers.
It doesn't cap compensation, it caps the amount of money that the solicitors can reclaim for their own costs in cases where the amount claimed falls under a certain threshold. There's no restriction on the amount of compensation a claimant can pursue or receive.
If the litigation is uneconomic for the solicitor, then their client can fund the litigation through Before-the-event legal expenses insurance (which comes with pretty much any home or motor insurance cover), or if they have none, by taking out an After-the-event legal expenses insurance policy, the cost of which is based on the likelihood of the litigation's success, can be supplied to the client on a credit basis by the solicitor, and can be reclaimed if the litigation is successful.
It doesn't prevent anyone from pursuing litigation in the event of injury, and doesn't prevent anyone from receiving compensation they're entitled to.
So, in other words, it's an end run around the contingency fee system. Which, does, in fact, restrict access to the law for the common man.
Yes, japan, we've had all this play out in the US before. These "reforms" rarely benefit people at large.
How is access to the law restricted for the common man?
This would be a lot easier if you would actually state your argument outright.
Because the contingency fee system is what makes it possible for a lot of people to secure legal aid for torts. When you start limiting the amount of money that a lawyer is allowed to recover on contingency, what do you think is going to happen? They're going to elect not to take cases. And your insurance system is a problem, because it forces a plaintiff to front money that he or she may not have.
Again, this is all bullshit that we've seen here in the US before, and the results rarely end well for the man on the street.
This reminds me of that episode of Home Movies where Brendan gets hit by a car and then gets sued by the driver for riding on the wrong side of the road.
I'm guessing the old lady doesn't have health insurance and Medicare can't cover it so this is the only way she can get financial aid to cover her injuries.
Ninjabear on
Play Smash Bros 3DS with me!!! Friend Code: 2981-7429-8364
How is access to the law restricted for the common man?
This would be a lot easier if you would actually state your argument outright.
Because the contingency fee system is what makes it possible for a lot of people to secure legal aid for torts. When you start limiting the amount of money that a lawyer is allowed to recover on contingency, what do you think is going to happen? They're going to elect not to take cases. And your insurance system is a problem, because it forces a plaintiff to front money that he or she may not have.
Again, this is all bullshit that we've seen here in the US before, and the results rarely end well for the man on the street.
The option is still there to fund litigation via a CFA rather than BTE or ATE insurance, but it only becomes an option (or a necessity, even) if the litigation is taken out of the fixed fee process. That only happens if one of the following occurs:
-the defendant insurer denies involvement or disputes liability
-the defendant insurer disputes causation after the submission of medical evidence
-No agreement can be reached on quantum, after the time limits within the process elapses, an unretractable offer has been made, and a hearing has taken place
If none of the above actually occur, then the litigation is trivial, the amount of work required on the part of the solicitor is known, and there is no reason for fees to be charged on the basis of the amount of the compensation. Most of the time this work is carried out by people who are not qualified solicitors.
Once litigation drops out of the process, then to an extent, all bets are off and the fee scheme is wide open again, but that is a tiny minority of cases.
EDIT: Also worth noting, since this is the UK, compensation for injury has nothing to do with recovering the cost of medical treatment.
EDITEDIT: Because I'm tired and your "fronting costs" comment only just sank in - ATE insurance can be purchased on a contingency basis, so the insurer providing the legal cover takes the risk on the outcome of the litigation rather than the solicitor (because cherry-picking of cases was a serious problem prior to its introduction), but the premiums are higher and for them to be fully recoverable it generally has to be demonstrated that the policyholder could only afford the insurance on that basis.
japan on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'm guessing the old lady doesn't have health insurance and Medicare can't cover it so this is the only way she can get financial aid to cover her injuries.
I'm guessing the old lady doesn't have health insurance and Medicare can't cover it so this is the only way she can get financial aid to cover her injuries.
Have you read any part of this thread?
Oh, so this is her estate suing. Didn't see that part.
Ninjabear on
Play Smash Bros 3DS with me!!! Friend Code: 2981-7429-8364
In the end, the child's standard of care is not that of a reasonable person under the circumstances, but that of a 4 year old girl of similar skill and intelligence. For the girl to have even breached her duty towards the old lady, she would have had to have acted in a manner reminiscent of a 3 year old girl.
I think the jury is going to have a tough time finding such, in fact, I wouldn't put it past a directed verdict for the defendants in this case.
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.
That is the exact opposite of what "unrelated" means.
Yes, that's exactly my point. A simple fall at that advanced age can trigger any number of other ailments that will appear unrelated. This woman fractured her hip.
Edit: It would probably have helped if I put "unrelated" in quotes.
Bionic Monkey on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
If they could make that case then they would have - maybe they tried it and it failed. For the purposes of the suit, the injuries from the accident were legally unrelated to her death.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to make a larger point about it, just that the fact that she died a mere few months of "unrelated causes" after fracturing her hip is text-book to what I've been taught.
"If you're kind when you should be cruel, you'll be cruel when you should be kind."
When a state's laws won't permit the execution of someone who, say, rapes and murders a 4 year-old but will permit a 4 year old to be sued and conceivably have their life ruined you gotta wonder where their priorities are (justice or trial lawyer lobby $$$?) and how morally confused their system is.
I also gotta wonder how money-hungry the elderly woman's relatives are. I mean, suing a 4 year old? Is a few grand worth having, like, all of your neighbors, friends, and some family hating your guts because of your act of utter ruthlessness?
Suing a 4 year old is something you'd expect from The Onion.
widowson on
-I owe nothing to Women's Lib.
Margaret Thatcher
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
...there's a world of difference between being liable for someone's medical expenses and being executed for first degree murder and child rape.
Another thing - suing only the 4 year old (and not her parents) is also pretty stupid, from a strategy viewpoint.
Don't know anything about the local rules of court or judgment enforcement, but in most places you wouldn't be able to enforce a judgment against a minor (and they won't have assets to seize anyway) and there is a limitation period to recover a judgment (very likely to be less than the 14 years remaining until she turns 18).
Most homeowner's policies cover negligent actions by people living in the house besides the policy holder. So it's not stupid.
Posts
And as for the parent—in many jurisdictions, parents aren't liable for negligent actions of their minor children.
Somehow, japan, I don't think allowing a 4 year old to have a race down a sidewalk where they knock over an old lady to be an example of a lack of negligence. Furthermore, the judge's ruling was probably fueled by the parents trying to play the summary dismissal two-step.
As for the Young Report you posted earlier, I can't believe you'd buy that reheated bullshit we've had poured down our throats for the past half-century here in the US.
Wait what?
The only suppositions involved in my characterization of this are that a) the girl is on a bike, on the sidewalk that the elderly woman was on and that b) whoever was supervising the girl was capable of speech or vision. That riding a bike on a sidewalk is illegal in many places is merely a fact used for some perspective here.
As for your points, I fully agree with both of them, but I don't think that's what we've been disagreeing about.
She should sue the old woman for knocking her off her bike!
/end sarcasm
Seriously though, this is a case where both parties are most likely equally responsible, both the little girl and the old lady probably weren't paying attention or the crash would not have happened. The little girls family should not have to pay for damages, especially since you know medicare. (Am I opening a can of worms?)
Uhm, Pony? I'm pretty sure most Americans don't actually believe that someone must be liable for every single thing that happens ever.
But lawyers have a way of convincing people in individual cases that they have grounds to sue someone. It's not a collective mentality. Admittedly, there are people who just troll around waiting for someone to sue, but that's hardly the average person.
It's the same bullshit that gets trotted out to bolster the cause of "tort reform", japan.
Actually, no, they don't. The contingency fee system makes sure of that.
Do you really fail to see the difference between causing some costly damage while doing something illegal versus something totally normal?
What bullshit is that? The reforms are based on the same lines of those already implemented for personal injury litigation as a result of road traffic accidents. It formalises a process and restricts the costs that solicitors are permitted to recover. It's mostly to put an end to solicitors deliberately racking up costs by being obstructive, so that it becomes cheaper for a defendant to settle than fight, regardless of whether or not there is actually any blame on their part.
Where it suggests legislation it suggests formalising in statute instances where defendants will already be found not to be negligent in litigation, and restricting the nature of advertising that personal injury law firms are allowed to use.
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't like cyclists. I especially don't like cyclists on the sidewalk, which is illegal. A tiny little mutant alien creatures that doesn't even come up to my waist (otherwise known as a "four year old") riding her bicycle on the sidewalk...well I don't have my graphic calculator with me but the curve here is parabolically bad.
In other words, the same bullshit, just on new china. Perhaps the better solution would be to get rid of the pants -on-head idiotic "loser pays" system you have?
What's your objection to the reforms?
So what does the plaintiff want? Can you ask for emotional restitution via monetary values for someone who isn't alive?
See: Any thread we've had where "tort reform" comes up as a topic. The people who get hurt by these "reforms" are the people who are injured and are no longer able to get adequate recompense thanks to arbitrary caps. The only people who benefit are the insurers.
Actually, immediately after I looked this up. I'm tempted to do it just to show how ludicrous suing has become.
It doesn't cap compensation, it caps the amount of money that the solicitors can reclaim for their own costs in cases where the amount claimed falls under a certain threshold. There's no restriction on the amount of compensation a claimant can pursue or receive.
If the litigation is uneconomic for the solicitor, then their client can fund the litigation through Before-the-event legal expenses insurance (which comes with pretty much any home or motor insurance cover), or if they have none, by taking out an After-the-event legal expenses insurance policy, the cost of which is based on the likelihood of the litigation's success, can be supplied to the client on a credit basis by the solicitor, and can be reclaimed if the litigation is successful.
It doesn't prevent anyone from pursuing litigation in the event of injury, and doesn't prevent anyone from receiving compensation they're entitled to.
So, in other words, it's an end run around the contingency fee system. Which, does, in fact, restrict access to the law for the common man.
Yes, japan, we've had all this play out in the US before. These "reforms" rarely benefit people at large.
This would be a lot easier if you would actually state your argument outright.
Because the contingency fee system is what makes it possible for a lot of people to secure legal aid for torts. When you start limiting the amount of money that a lawyer is allowed to recover on contingency, what do you think is going to happen? They're going to elect not to take cases. And your insurance system is a problem, because it forces a plaintiff to front money that he or she may not have.
Again, this is all bullshit that we've seen here in the US before, and the results rarely end well for the man on the street.
I'm guessing the old lady doesn't have health insurance and Medicare can't cover it so this is the only way she can get financial aid to cover her injuries.
The option is still there to fund litigation via a CFA rather than BTE or ATE insurance, but it only becomes an option (or a necessity, even) if the litigation is taken out of the fixed fee process. That only happens if one of the following occurs:
-the defendant insurer denies involvement or disputes liability
-the defendant insurer disputes causation after the submission of medical evidence
-No agreement can be reached on quantum, after the time limits within the process elapses, an unretractable offer has been made, and a hearing has taken place
If none of the above actually occur, then the litigation is trivial, the amount of work required on the part of the solicitor is known, and there is no reason for fees to be charged on the basis of the amount of the compensation. Most of the time this work is carried out by people who are not qualified solicitors.
Once litigation drops out of the process, then to an extent, all bets are off and the fee scheme is wide open again, but that is a tiny minority of cases.
EDIT: Also worth noting, since this is the UK, compensation for injury has nothing to do with recovering the cost of medical treatment.
EDITEDIT: Because I'm tired and your "fronting costs" comment only just sank in - ATE insurance can be purchased on a contingency basis, so the insurer providing the legal cover takes the risk on the outcome of the litigation rather than the solicitor (because cherry-picking of cases was a serious problem prior to its introduction), but the premiums are higher and for them to be fully recoverable it generally has to be demonstrated that the policyholder could only afford the insurance on that basis.
Have you read any part of this thread?
Oh, so this is her estate suing. Didn't see that part.
I think the jury is going to have a tough time finding such, in fact, I wouldn't put it past a directed verdict for the defendants in this case.
Yes, that's exactly my point. A simple fall at that advanced age can trigger any number of other ailments that will appear unrelated. This woman fractured her hip.
Edit: It would probably have helped if I put "unrelated" in quotes.
"If you're kind when you should be cruel, you'll be cruel when you should be kind."
When a state's laws won't permit the execution of someone who, say, rapes and murders a 4 year-old but will permit a 4 year old to be sued and conceivably have their life ruined you gotta wonder where their priorities are (justice or trial lawyer lobby $$$?) and how morally confused their system is.
I also gotta wonder how money-hungry the elderly woman's relatives are. I mean, suing a 4 year old? Is a few grand worth having, like, all of your neighbors, friends, and some family hating your guts because of your act of utter ruthlessness?
Suing a 4 year old is something you'd expect from The Onion.
Margaret Thatcher
Yeah WTF.
These two things are in no way related windowson.
They're related by the saying.
Most homeowner's policies cover negligent actions by people living in the house besides the policy holder. So it's not stupid.
and the kids thought it was proper to potentially ruin this kid's life for an unrelated incident?
I hope a fucking meteor crashes into their house and crushes them.