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.
Frankly, you have no idea what the situation is. And it's her estate, not her kids personally.
Also, there isn't even a remote chance that this is going to ruin the 4-yr-old's life.
Right, because if they sue for thousands of dollars and the parents have trouble supporting the kid, that won't effect things at all.
Why does her estate care about suing a 4 year old?
The parent's wouldn't be responsible for paying any judgment against the 4-yr-old. Worst case is their homeowners policy pays the judgment and their premium goes up.
Maybe the estate has debts relating to the injury? Who knows! Let's not let ignorance of the specifics get in the way of being judgmental!
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.
Frankly, you have no idea what the situation is. And it's her estate, not her kids personally.
Also, there isn't even a remote chance that this is going to ruin the 4-yr-old's life.
Right, because if they sue for thousands of dollars and the parents have trouble supporting the kid, that won't effect things at all.
Why does her estate care about suing a 4 year old?
The parent's wouldn't be responsible for paying any judgment against the 4-yr-old. Worst case is their homeowners policy pays the judgment and their premium goes up.
Maybe the estate has debts relating to the injury? Who knows! Let's not let ignorance of the specifics get in the way of being judgmental!
I honestly cannot consider any way that this could be seen as not kind of awful.
Seriously, brainstorm. You're suing a 4 year old kid on behalf of a person who is now dead and did not see fit to sue that 4 year old in life. But you're justified.
I honestly cannot consider any way that this could be seen as not kind of awful.
Seriously, brainstorm. You're suing a 4 year old kid on behalf of a person who is now dead and did not see fit to sue that 4 year old in life. But you're justified.
What... what is that justification?
That's what we have judges/juries for. To make decisions, but after they hear the facts.
I honestly cannot consider any way that this could be seen as not kind of awful.
Seriously, brainstorm. You're suing a 4 year old kid on behalf of a person who is now dead and did not see fit to sue that 4 year old in life. But you're justified.
What... what is that justification?
That's what we have judges/juries for. To make decisions, but after they hear the facts.
Right.
Does that mean we're not allowed to come up with stuff on our own? Making our own little legal hypotheses?
If so, we can table this thread for a couple years while things shake out.
Really the only way I can imagine this making sense is if somehow every part of that family was absolutely protected from being sued for any sort of negligence or legal responsibility for the child. But the family totally used their little kid like a missile to whack an old lady. So now, they're forced to try the kid, because the parents have... have... diplomatic immunity?
I am maybe not actually a practicing lawyer. I might... I might never be one.
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
...what?
What part are you saying doesn't make sense? All that's been decided is the case doesn't get thrown out immediately. The law says children 4 and older can potentially be held liable for negligence; she was over 4. That's all that matters at this stage.
There aren't any other facts in the article. What if the woman yelled repeatedly at the kid to slow down or turn and wasn't able to get out of the way quickly enough, but the kid rode into her anyway? What if the kid was wearing a blindfold? There are plenty of circumstances where a jury might think a kid acted more negligently than a reasonable 4-year old would.
All I know is, if I met anyone who sued someone over something this petty, I wouldn't waste my time talking to them.
Petty? She fractured her hip. Potentially leaving thousands of dollars of medical bills.
And it's completely and utterly necessary that they sue them? After the woman died of completely unrelated causes? I can completely understand that it's not a good situation but suing them seems excessive.
Zombiemambo on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
Bills can hang around after people die; that's one of the things estates are for.
All I know is, if I met anyone who sued someone over something this petty, I wouldn't waste my time talking to them.
Petty? She fractured her hip. Potentially leaving thousands of dollars of medical bills.
And it's completely and utterly necessary that they sue them? After the woman died of completely unrelated causes? I can completely understand that it's not a good situation but suing them seems excessive.
Why should she be responsible for the medical bills rather then the person who caused them?
well, the reason why we have these types of suits is not necessarily because americans are trigger-happy on the lawsuit gun or something, but because their insurers are. Medical expenses are paid for by a couple different systems, depending how you got injured. In this case, the old lady broke her hip, which was probably expensive to treat, and now her insurer is encouraging/compelling the estate to sue the kid for negligence so that the kid's family's insurance (or w/e they have) can be used to recoup the medical expenses.
Honestly, if we had a single-payer health care system like the UK's or Canada's (or most other industrialized countries), we'd see a lot fewer tort cases, since the biggest expense at issue is usually medical costs. but that's another story. Not the kind of 'tort reform' anyone seems to be suggesting.
Since the plaintiff in this case died a few months after the accident, she probably didn't have time to get a lawsuit going. At any rate, the executor of the estate has a duty to maximize the value of the estate to the heirs, and that means pursuing any claims that have a chance at success. And, despite the youth of the child, clearly there is some negligence at issue, so the case does have a chance at success, especially now that it cleared the 'four year old children lack any standard of duty, and so are incapable of negligence' hurdle.
dojango on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
All I know is, if I met anyone who sued someone over something this petty, I wouldn't waste my time talking to them.
Petty? She fractured her hip. Potentially leaving thousands of dollars of medical bills.
And it's completely and utterly necessary that they sue them? After the woman died of completely unrelated causes? I can completely understand that it's not a good situation but suing them seems excessive.
Why should she be responsible for the medical bills rather then the person who caused them?
Because her piggy pank doesn't have a thousand dollars in it.
All I know is, if I met anyone who sued someone over something this petty, I wouldn't waste my time talking to them.
Petty? She fractured her hip. Potentially leaving thousands of dollars of medical bills.
And it's completely and utterly necessary that they sue them? After the woman died of completely unrelated causes? I can completely understand that it's not a good situation but suing them seems excessive.
Why should she be responsible for the medical bills rather then the person who caused them?
Because her piggy pank doesn't have a thousand dollars in it.
And for all we know the old lady's didn't either.
DeShadowC on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
All I know is, if I met anyone who sued someone over something this petty, I wouldn't waste my time talking to them.
Petty? She fractured her hip. Potentially leaving thousands of dollars of medical bills.
And it's completely and utterly necessary that they sue them? After the woman died of completely unrelated causes? I can completely understand that it's not a good situation but suing them seems excessive.
Why should she be responsible for the medical bills rather then the person who caused them?
Because her piggy pank doesn't have a thousand dollars in it.
Try reading a post in the thread with the word "insurance" in it.
Hell the 4 year old could be rich and the old lady's estate could be almost broke for all we know. The funny thing though, had it have been a 20 year old instead of a 4 year old, a lot of you wouldn't have had an issue with this in the slightest.
All I know is, if I met anyone who sued someone over something this petty, I wouldn't waste my time talking to them.
Petty? She fractured her hip. Potentially leaving thousands of dollars of medical bills.
And it's completely and utterly necessary that they sue them? After the woman died of completely unrelated causes? I can completely understand that it's not a good situation but suing them seems excessive.
Why should she be responsible for the medical bills rather then the person who caused them?
Because her piggy pank doesn't have a thousand dollars in it.
Try reading a post in the thread with the word "insurance" in it.
if she didn't have insurance, she would have even more incentive to sue, since hospital bills ain't cheap, and that's money that could have gone to her heirs, but for the actions of the defendant.
dojango on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Hell the 4 year old could be rich and the old lady's estate could be almost broke for all we know. The funny thing though, had it have been a 20 year old instead of a 4 year old, a lot of you wouldn't have had an issue with this in the slightest.
Oh, but why is that? Why would we be okay if someone sued a twenty year old for riding a bicycle recklessly and causing injury to another person but find it ridiculous to sue a four year old. I haven't the faintest idea!
Hell the 4 year old could be rich and the old lady's estate could be almost broke for all we know. The funny thing though, had it have been a 20 year old instead of a 4 year old, a lot of you wouldn't have had an issue with this in the slightest.
Oh, but why is that? Why would we be okay if someone sued a twenty year old for riding a bicycle recklessly and causing injury to another person but find it ridiculous to sue a four year old. I haven't the faintest idea!
Because someone's precious little snowflake caused damage, which in this case is a physical injury to another person, and now they don't want to pay. I mean why should they have to pay for things their little snowflake does its not like we can expect parents to be responsible for their children.
DeShadowC on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
if she didn't have insurance, she would have even more incentive to sue, since hospital bills ain't cheap, and that's money that could have gone to her heirs, but for the actions of the defendant.
Can a piggy bank pay for insurance. I don't think there's enough for that either.
As has been previously mentioned, her parents' insurance covers their child for liability.
Before liability insurance, people used to never sue teenagers (even though they could cause car accidents just like adults) because there was no way to recover damages. Now that insurance exists, you sue the kid, the parents' insurance pays for damages.
Hell the 4 year old could be rich and the old lady's estate could be almost broke for all we know. The funny thing though, had it have been a 20 year old instead of a 4 year old, a lot of you wouldn't have had an issue with this in the slightest.
Oh, but why is that? Why would we be okay if someone sued a twenty year old for riding a bicycle recklessly and causing injury to another person but find it ridiculous to sue a four year old. I haven't the faintest idea!
There are different duties of care owed. The 20 yr old is expected to exercise more care than the 4 yr old, but that doesn't mean the 4 yr old isn't expected to exercise any care at all.
Hell the 4 year old could be rich and the old lady's estate could be almost broke for all we know. The funny thing though, had it have been a 20 year old instead of a 4 year old, a lot of you wouldn't have had an issue with this in the slightest.
Oh, but why is that? Why would we be okay if someone sued a twenty year old for riding a bicycle recklessly and causing injury to another person but find it ridiculous to sue a four year old. I haven't the faintest idea!
There are different duties of care owed. The 20 yr old is expected to exercise more care than the 4 yr old, but that doesn't mean the 4 yr old isn't expected to exercise any care at all.
dude
she's four.
she's not responsible for her own actions. she's barely able to conceptualise other human beings as being real. where do you draw the line here? if a baby was riding the bike, would you sue the baby? would you lock it up in baby jail? come on.
Um, yeah. What argument are you trying to make here, DeShadow? Did you honestly mean to imply that four year old children should be held to the same legal standards as twenty year old adults?
Because it has nothing to do with how "precious" they are, and everything to do with the quantifiable differences between their respective mental capacities.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited October 2010
Why does the law allow a 4-year old to be sued over anything ever, is the question.
I don't think I have any memories from when I was 4. Your brain is not at all developed at that age, why 4-year olds should be held accountable under the law - for anything - seems incredibly fucking silly.
This might sound callous, but when an old car get into a crash it don't get the same insurance as a new lexus. Its like, if I bought a top of the line laptop, gave it to a friend, he broke it; I'll be paid for the top of the line laptop, and the oppsit is true when its an old banged up lap top.
The question is, the old lady kinda used up all of her organic fuel here, that why she fell so readily. A 35 year old person for example would either notice the girl and stop her or get out of her way, or he would get hit and curse loudly, but thats it.
Yes the girl/parents might be a bit negligent, but being this old and out there in the street puts some of the responsiblity on you. You are old and brittle, accept it.
When I get in or out of the subway, there is a reasonable amount of shoving taking place, a lot of people want in, a lot of people want out, so, we shove a bit. Its a known fact, so, if an old lady takes the sub and gets hurt during the shoving, how do we sue? the last person to shove? What about the fact that everyone else on the subway knows, accepts and is a part of this shoving culture? Should it not be taking into account?
Her guardians are the ones who would be responsible for paying any judgment. My problem being some people seem to be completely against this lawsuit based purely off of her age.
Her guardians are the ones who would be responsible for paying any judgment. My problem being some people seem to be completely against this lawsuit based purely off of her age.
Consider that, if what's been said in this thread is correct, she's being sued, and not her parents.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Her guardians are the ones who would be responsible for paying any judgment. My problem being some people seem to be completely against this lawsuit based purely off of her age.
Because saying that a four year old can be negligent is fairly absurd.
Couscous on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Her guardians are the ones who would be responsible for paying any judgment. My problem being some people seem to be completely against this lawsuit based purely off of her age.
Then they should directly sue the girls parents, nobody would have a problem with that.
Being at all able to sue or prosecute a four year old is something I would expect possible during the middle ages, not now.
Her guardians are the ones who would be responsible for paying any judgment. My problem being some people seem to be completely against this lawsuit based purely off of her age.
Because saying that a four year old can be negligent is fairly absurd.
This.
Frankly a culture who obsesses this much over finger pointing is a concern. The old lady died because she was an old lady. The judge of this case should really tell the estate to get the fuck over themselves.
Haven't read the whole thread, but off the top of my head I'd assume the kid was being sued because the lady who fractured her hip didn't have medical ensurance and needed to pay the bill. This is America after all.
Demiurge on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Hell the 4 year old could be rich and the old lady's estate could be almost broke for all we know. The funny thing though, had it have been a 20 year old instead of a 4 year old, a lot of you wouldn't have had an issue with this in the slightest.
Oh, but why is that? Why would we be okay if someone sued a twenty year old for riding a bicycle recklessly and causing injury to another person but find it ridiculous to sue a four year old. I haven't the faintest idea!
There are different duties of care owed. The 20 yr old is expected to exercise more care than the 4 yr old, but that doesn't mean the 4 yr old isn't expected to exercise any care at all.
dude
she's four.
she's not responsible for her own actions. she's barely able to conceptualise other human beings as being real. where do you draw the line here? if a baby was riding the bike, would you sue the baby? would you lock it up in baby jail? come on.
she's four.
As it says in the article, you draw the line at age four, because that's what the law says. If for whatever reason the state courts decide to change the line... fine, but then a year later there'll be a thread about how horrible it is to sue a 5-year-old for negligence. She's only 5! You have to draw the line somewhere, and if it's drawn, you have to follow it, at least in trial court.
And as for why they're suing the kid and not the parents, apparently they'd have even less chance of proving negligence on the part of the parent. The only place they can get a tiny foothold is the very slim standard of duty owed by a 4 year old. I very much doubt the plaintiffs will win, but it's not a 0% chance.
Everyone is mentioning insurance of the parents in this thread, what kind of insurance do they/you have that covers an accident like this? I know I wouldn't have any insurance that would cover me hitting an old lady while riding my bike.
Everyone is mentioning insurance of the parents in this thread, what kind of insurance do they/you have that covers an accident like this? I know I wouldn't have any insurance that would cover me hitting an old lady while riding my bike.
In the UK, if you have any kind of property insurance covering your home (Buildings and Contents, or just Contents) then you almost certainly have some kind of liability insurance. Plenty of people have it but don't realise it.
Everyone is mentioning insurance of the parents in this thread, what kind of insurance do they/you have that covers an accident like this? I know I wouldn't have any insurance that would cover me hitting an old lady while riding my bike.
In the UK, if you have any kind of property insurance covering your home (Buildings and Contents, or just Contents) then you almost certainly have some kind of liability insurance. Plenty of people have it but don't realise it.
Everyone is mentioning insurance of the parents in this thread, what kind of insurance do they/you have that covers an accident like this? I know I wouldn't have any insurance that would cover me hitting an old lady while riding my bike.
In the UK, if you have any kind of property insurance covering your home (Buildings and Contents, or just Contents) then you almost certainly have some kind of liability insurance. Plenty of people have it but don't realise it.
What about people who rent?
Then they would have Contents, as opposed to Buildings and Contents insurance.
Posts
Frankly, you have no idea what the situation is. And it's her estate, not her kids personally.
Also, there isn't even a remote chance that this is going to ruin the 4-yr-old's life.
Right, because if they sue for thousands of dollars and the parents have trouble supporting the kid, that won't effect things at all.
Why does her estate care about suing a 4 year old?
The parent's wouldn't be responsible for paying any judgment against the 4-yr-old. Worst case is their homeowners policy pays the judgment and their premium goes up.
Maybe the estate has debts relating to the injury? Who knows! Let's not let ignorance of the specifics get in the way of being judgmental!
I honestly cannot consider any way that this could be seen as not kind of awful.
Seriously, brainstorm. You're suing a 4 year old kid on behalf of a person who is now dead and did not see fit to sue that 4 year old in life. But you're justified.
What... what is that justification?
That's what we have judges/juries for. To make decisions, but after they hear the facts.
Right.
Does that mean we're not allowed to come up with stuff on our own? Making our own little legal hypotheses?
If so, we can table this thread for a couple years while things shake out.
Really the only way I can imagine this making sense is if somehow every part of that family was absolutely protected from being sued for any sort of negligence or legal responsibility for the child. But the family totally used their little kid like a missile to whack an old lady. So now, they're forced to try the kid, because the parents have... have... diplomatic immunity?
I am maybe not actually a practicing lawyer. I might... I might never be one.
What part are you saying doesn't make sense? All that's been decided is the case doesn't get thrown out immediately. The law says children 4 and older can potentially be held liable for negligence; she was over 4. That's all that matters at this stage.
There aren't any other facts in the article. What if the woman yelled repeatedly at the kid to slow down or turn and wasn't able to get out of the way quickly enough, but the kid rode into her anyway? What if the kid was wearing a blindfold? There are plenty of circumstances where a jury might think a kid acted more negligently than a reasonable 4-year old would.
Petty? She fractured her hip. Potentially leaving thousands of dollars of medical bills.
And it's completely and utterly necessary that they sue them? After the woman died of completely unrelated causes? I can completely understand that it's not a good situation but suing them seems excessive.
Why should she be responsible for the medical bills rather then the person who caused them?
Honestly, if we had a single-payer health care system like the UK's or Canada's (or most other industrialized countries), we'd see a lot fewer tort cases, since the biggest expense at issue is usually medical costs. but that's another story. Not the kind of 'tort reform' anyone seems to be suggesting.
Since the plaintiff in this case died a few months after the accident, she probably didn't have time to get a lawsuit going. At any rate, the executor of the estate has a duty to maximize the value of the estate to the heirs, and that means pursuing any claims that have a chance at success. And, despite the youth of the child, clearly there is some negligence at issue, so the case does have a chance at success, especially now that it cleared the 'four year old children lack any standard of duty, and so are incapable of negligence' hurdle.
Because her piggy pank doesn't have a thousand dollars in it.
And for all we know the old lady's didn't either.
Try reading a post in the thread with the word "insurance" in it.
if she didn't have insurance, she would have even more incentive to sue, since hospital bills ain't cheap, and that's money that could have gone to her heirs, but for the actions of the defendant.
Oh, but why is that? Why would we be okay if someone sued a twenty year old for riding a bicycle recklessly and causing injury to another person but find it ridiculous to sue a four year old. I haven't the faintest idea!
Because someone's precious little snowflake caused damage, which in this case is a physical injury to another person, and now they don't want to pay. I mean why should they have to pay for things their little snowflake does its not like we can expect parents to be responsible for their children.
As has been previously mentioned, her parents' insurance covers their child for liability.
Before liability insurance, people used to never sue teenagers (even though they could cause car accidents just like adults) because there was no way to recover damages. Now that insurance exists, you sue the kid, the parents' insurance pays for damages.
There are different duties of care owed. The 20 yr old is expected to exercise more care than the 4 yr old, but that doesn't mean the 4 yr old isn't expected to exercise any care at all.
I just don't understand why she has to specifically sue the four year old. Why not her legal guardians and leave it at that?
dude
she's four.
she's not responsible for her own actions. she's barely able to conceptualise other human beings as being real. where do you draw the line here? if a baby was riding the bike, would you sue the baby? would you lock it up in baby jail? come on.
she's four.
Because it has nothing to do with how "precious" they are, and everything to do with the quantifiable differences between their respective mental capacities.
I don't think I have any memories from when I was 4. Your brain is not at all developed at that age, why 4-year olds should be held accountable under the law - for anything - seems incredibly fucking silly.
The question is, the old lady kinda used up all of her organic fuel here, that why she fell so readily. A 35 year old person for example would either notice the girl and stop her or get out of her way, or he would get hit and curse loudly, but thats it.
Yes the girl/parents might be a bit negligent, but being this old and out there in the street puts some of the responsiblity on you. You are old and brittle, accept it.
When I get in or out of the subway, there is a reasonable amount of shoving taking place, a lot of people want in, a lot of people want out, so, we shove a bit. Its a known fact, so, if an old lady takes the sub and gets hurt during the shoving, how do we sue? the last person to shove? What about the fact that everyone else on the subway knows, accepts and is a part of this shoving culture? Should it not be taking into account?
Consider that, if what's been said in this thread is correct, she's being sued, and not her parents.
Because saying that a four year old can be negligent is fairly absurd.
Then they should directly sue the girls parents, nobody would have a problem with that.
Being at all able to sue or prosecute a four year old is something I would expect possible during the middle ages, not now.
This.
Frankly a culture who obsesses this much over finger pointing is a concern. The old lady died because she was an old lady. The judge of this case should really tell the estate to get the fuck over themselves.
And as for why they're suing the kid and not the parents, apparently they'd have even less chance of proving negligence on the part of the parent. The only place they can get a tiny foothold is the very slim standard of duty owed by a 4 year old. I very much doubt the plaintiffs will win, but it's not a 0% chance.
In the UK, if you have any kind of property insurance covering your home (Buildings and Contents, or just Contents) then you almost certainly have some kind of liability insurance. Plenty of people have it but don't realise it.
What about people who rent?
Then they would have Contents, as opposed to Buildings and Contents insurance.