A 4-year-old is now able to be sued

[IDrinkaRum]

At least according to the judge in this case. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=2&no_interstitial)

Two 4-year-old children (a boy and a girl) were racing their bikes (bikes had training wheels on them and the mothers of the two children were supervising them) and whilst on said bikes, they ran into an elderly woman, causing her to fall, fracture her hip, get surgery, and ended up dying 3 months after surgery.

Woman's family decided to sue the children and the parents of said children for negligence.

I don't mind the woman's family suing the parents. But why are they suing the kids? What are they going to be getting from the kids? Their crayons? Barbies? GI Joe dolls? WTF?

[blas87]

This is a whole new level of entitlement and what the fuck.

Ok, so some kids ran into your granny and she got hurt and she died. Ok fine, sue the parents. But the kids? Really?

How in the world can you sue someone who can't even write their own name yet and probably still eats crayons?!

[blas87]

It's the prinicple of the matter. The link specifically says that the children were being sued along with the parents.

It should be the parents on behalf of the children.

[blas87]

It's an awfully shitty thing to do to a 4 year old. The parent is responsible for the child. I don't believe the injury is what killed the old woman, but if suing is what they want to do, they should be suing the parents for not paying closer attention or not preventing the accident.

Any judge with any common sense would throw out a lawsuit against a 4 year old. Children cannot defend themselves, let alone in a court of law. That's ridiculous. That's just being over-the-top sue happy to go after small children.

[Ladeeda]

The judge only ruled that the girl is OVER 4, being 3 months away from her fifth birthday. Only children 4 years and younger cannot be sued.

The judge didn't just make this up for the fun of it.

[Greenday]

I think you might need to edit that. Judge said children under 4 can't be considered negligent, but four and up can be.

[Ladeeda]

Mr. Tyrie “correctly notes that infants under the age of 4 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence,” Justice Wooten wrote in his decision, referring to the 1928 case. “Juliet Breitman, however, was over the age of 4 at the time of the subject incident. For infants above the age of 4, there is no bright-line rule.”

The Infants Aren't Capable of Neglicence rule occured over 80 years ago.

[Greenday]

The Infants Aren't Capable of Neglicence rule occured over 80 years ago.

I'm pretty sure a disctrict judge doesn't have the authority to change a law like this. It'd probably have to be at least at the Superior Court level.

[Andara Bledin]

I have a slightly different question: Why the hell are the papers releasing the names of minor defendants?

^-.-^

[Ladeeda]

Yeah, and he DIDN"T change it. He ruled that since the child was only 3 months from her fifth birthday, she was OVER 4 years old.

[Eisa]

Well, she's still under 5....:p

Very WTF.

[Ladeeda]

Well, she's still under 5....:p

Very WTF.


She's OVER 4. That's the point.

[Plaidman]

I have a slightly different question: Why the hell are the papers releasing the names of minor defendants?

^-.-^

Dont'cha know? These two are the next evil masterminds of the universe. Lex Luthor, the Joker, Magneto, Green Goblin, F.O.W.L, Ernst Blofeld with SPECTRE all bow and worship these two monsters. The world MUST know these two names, so that we may beware their deadly bikes of decapation, their tainted poison girl scout cookies, and the worst of it all, the biohazard of Girl COOTIES!

THE WORLD IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

[draco664]

I have a slightly different question: Why the hell are the papers releasing the names of minor defendants?

^-.-^

If I had to guess, I'd say that it's because it's a civil suit. They haven't been criminally charged.

I'm really not sure what the plaintifs hope to accomplish. The kids don't have any assets to speak of, no income to get a percentage of, and they can't be evicted from their home.

They are opening themselves up to retaliation from the 4chan part of the web though.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm really not sure what the plaintifs hope to accomplish. The kids don't have any assets to speak of, no income to get a percentage of, and they can't be evicted from their home.

They are opening themselves up to retaliation from the 4chan part of the web though.
If the kids are found liable, I suspect their parents, as guardians, will end up footing the bill. As far as I can tell, they're shotgunning just to see what they can make stick.

And I do hope the 4chan part of the web lets them know that it's still not cool to pick on kids. It really sucks that their grandmother is no longer with them, but ruining the lives of a couple of kids who probably haven't even started school yet is not the answer.

^-.-^

[draco664]

Someone else thinks this situation is silly too. (http://verydemotivational.memebase.com/2010/10/30/demotivational-posters-the-economy-3/)

[smileyeagle1021]

If I had to guess, I'd say that it's because it's a civil suit. They haven't been criminally charged.



It could also be that the children's parents gave permission for the names to be printed... it's not a bad strategy, because it will make the plaintiffs look even more batshit crazy if there is actual names attached rather than just "a minor who's name cannot be released"

[Kimmik]

It could also be that the children's parents gave permission for the names to be printed... it's not a bad strategy, because it will make the plaintiffs look even more batshit crazy if there is actual names attached rather than just "a minor who's name cannot be released"

I hate to be devil's advocate here.. but the elderly woman's family has a right to sue. Seeing how the children did cause harm, accident or other wise. Medical bills are expensive.

While I believe they are naming everyone in the suit most likely to make sure that it proceeds and is not kicked out because they named the wrong people. I dont see this as one of those sue happy people kind of things. Hospitals dont write off bills because someone dies, they default to the estate in most cases.

It sucks that this happened but I do believe that the children's parents are liable for the medical bills from the accident.

I think it is sucky that this happened at all. My heart goes out to the children and all involved.

[Ladeeda]

I hate to be devil's advocate here.. but the elderly woman's family has a right to sue. Seeing how the children did cause harm, accident or other wise. Medical bills are expensive.

While I believe they are naming everyone in the suit most likely to make sure that it proceeds and is not kicked out because they named the wrong people. I dont see this as one of those sue happy people kind of things. Hospitals dont write off bills because someone dies, they default to the estate in most cases.

It sucks that this happened but I do believe that the children's parents are liable for the medical bills from the accident.


This. It's not a pointless case. Everyone seems to be getting up in arms because of the age of the child without considering the other facts.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Um, you did read the part in the article where it said that the old lady died of unrelated causes, didn't you? Therefore, the accident did not cause her death and there is no medical evidence to back up these people's claims. So to most people, including 4chan and their ilk, it's just going to look as tho they're sue happy cretins picking on a couple of little kids.

[smileyeagle1021]

It sucks that this happened but I do believe that the children's parents are liable for the medical bills from the accident.

.

Then sue the parents on behalf of the children... any time a minor is involved you may name as defendant the legal guardian of the guardian and have no problem with it being the wrong person as long as you explicitly state in the suit you are suing them in legal representation for their child (or at least that is what I remember from my intro to business law class when it came to torts, if a minor causes property damage a business can sue the parents for damage, so I'd assume the same applies to individuals.)

[draco664]

I hate to be devil's advocate here..

No problem. I don't mind it all that much when people disagree with me... ;)

but the elderly woman's family has a right to sue. Seeing how the children did cause harm, accident or other wise. Medical bills are expensive.

Yup, I agree with everything so far.

While I believe they are naming everyone in the suit most likely to make sure that it proceeds and is not kicked out because they named the wrong people.

I have to disagree here. Civil action isn't the same as criminal charges. You can file a suit against someone and if it's tossed, you can refile against someone else.

Naming the children in the suit is just aiming to punish the children by the process, rather than the verdict. If they were truly just after compensation, they'd have just named the parents, since the children have no financial wherewithall to pay any judgement against them. Had they just sued the parents, and had the suit tossed by the judge for naming the wrong people, then adding the children to a new suit would be the way to go.

I dont see this as one of those sue happy people kind of things. Hospitals dont write off bills because someone dies, they default to the estate in most cases.

It sucks that this happened but I do believe that the children's parents are liable for the medical bills from the accident.

Perhaps. That's what the legal action is to determine.

I think it is sucky that this happened at all. My heart goes out to the children and all involved.

Well said.

[Greenday]

Um, you did read the part in the article where it said that the old lady died of unrelated causes, didn't you? Therefore, the accident did not cause her death and there is no medical evidence to back up these people's claims. So to most people, including 4chan and their ilk, it's just going to look as tho they're sue happy cretins picking on a couple of little kids.

Then it's a good thing the kid isn't being sued for murder and just for hurting the old woman.

[Lace Neil Singer]

It doesn't seem as tho they even have a case for that, tho. Also, if they were going to sue for hurting, why wait til after the lady died? I really hope 4chan get hold of this case.

[Greenday]

Possibly because when you have a loved one going through pain and suffering, dealing with surgery and its after effects, and dying, suing someone isn't at the top of your priorities.

[Lace Neil Singer]

And then, after you've had the funeral, you start to think of how you can make money out of your loved one's death? :rolleyes: Whatever.

[Greenday]

No, you realize, "Shit, along with funeral costs, the hospital is handing over the bills to us instead of just getting rid of them like any normal company would?"

[smileyeagle1021]

I really hope 4chan get hold of this case.

Not quite 4chan, but ask and ye shall receive (http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/demotivational-posters-the-economy.jpg)

[FArchivist]

I don't mind the woman's family suing the parents. But why are they suing the kids? What are they going to be getting from the kids? Their crayons? Barbies? GI Joe dolls? WTF?

Well, it sort of works like this:

1) Parents are responsible for the minors.
2) Minors caused the injury they are suing over.
3) If ONLY the parents are named, case gets dismissed, because it wasn't the parents that were the direct cause.
4) So, to sue properly, children must be sued and parents included in the suit as the responsible guardians for the minors.

Um, you did read the part in the article where it said that the old lady died of unrelated causes, didn't you? Therefore, the accident did not cause her death and there is no medical evidence to back up these people's claims. So to most people, including 4chan and their ilk, it's just going to look as tho they're sue happy cretins picking on a couple of little kids.

Ah, but the question is whether the accident contributed or caused undue pain and suffering.

[Lace Neil Singer]

If that's the case, then everyone could sue anyone for any reason. I could sue Greenday for disagreeing with me and causing me undue pain and suffering. It just seems sad to me that some people see a love one's death as an excuse for a gimmie grab.