Poll: 4-Year Old is Cabable of Being Sued.

[ZehGeek]

It's sad this one time, someone's not being a liberal and blaming someone else. The one fucked up time. -.-
If any, the parent should be sued. Since 99% of the time it's there fault. -_- But 4 year olds are still children. Now if it was a 12 year old, then there could be a bit more blame to the kid.

 

[Wargamer]

You. lawyers that will work on this case. Go die. Violently.

You are far more merciful than me.

I do not want those lawyers to die violently. I want them taken into a medical facility, have their arms, legs, eyes, ears and tongue surgically removed, and then invasive surgery performed so that food, water and oxygen are FORCED into the body to sustain life, whilst bodily waste is removed. This system should be used, along with medical treatments as and when needed, to keep them in a perpetual nightmare - conscious, yet totally unable to interact with the outside world in any fashion - for the remainder of their natural lives.

Upon death, their next of kin are sued for expenses.

 

[Les Awesome]

lawyers were children once i suppose..............maybe thats why they're
lawyers now cos they got sued when they were FOUR
the moral of the story is....DON'T SUE FOUR YEAR OLDS

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Negligence (Legal Definition): The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.

In my understanding of four year olds, I can safely surmise that a reasonably prudent four year old would not understand the act of being involved in a traffic accident with a lady of enhanced chronology - in fact I believe the defendants primary thought in this case would be, and I quote from the defendant, "Waaaaaah!"

Therefore, I must countersue the judge in this case for using an unrealistic expectation of the defendant and under the Children Act of 2004; which I believe the defendant has adequately proven her suitability, the Judge is to be tried as a sex offender as they have "wilfully and with due menace" attempted to force a child into direct reprisal for their actions in a time of peace.

 

[WanderingFool]

Shouldnt ned to read the article to go "WTF?"

 

[archvile93]

This is very pethetic, and stupid, and greedy. But look on the bright side, they'll never get that money from a 4-year old so they're just wasting huge sums of money on lawyer fees.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Hunh... I was really tempted to click the third option until i read this.

Technically... yes, they should be sued. Maybe not the kids, but the parents yes, and then they'll work it into a case saying they'll sue the "family" not the individuals. However, since this IS about the KIDS being sued, yes, they should.

Well... no, I'll phrase that. Yes, they COULD. SHOULD they? No. Come on people, this woman clearly was too old. Yeah, they broke her hip, but what was she doing? You honestly tell me this woman couldnt have moved to the side? That she didnt notice these kids coming at her? Hell, my GREAT grandfather is in his 90s and still walks to mow his lawn, and does at least two miles a day in walking. And how can you say this woman died from her hip replacement. I dont want to be insensitve, but she was EIGHTY-SEVEN! There's people who die younger then that of stress and natural causes. What was she doing getting a hip replacement anyway? how long did honestly think she was going to use it?

I say this, cause I can already see what they are ebing charged with:
Assault/Battery, Negligence, the Medical bills fro the woman, Grievances for the woman (who's dead, which never makes sense, whats the money going to go to? her grave?), grievances for the family surviving, and probably some more minor charges.

Its just all so.... pointless. Christ the woman is dead now (i'm going to sound like an ass pretty soon, though I think I already have), why are you bothering with this? She was 87! Its not like she had 20 more years of life she was cheated out of.

 

[Canid117]

I?! Wha?! I don't even?!


*Brain Asplodes*

 

[emeraldrafael]

This is very pethetic, and stupid. But look on the bright side, they'll never get that money from a 4-year old so they're just wasting huge sums of money on lawyer fees.

yes they can. It wont be one lump sum. what they'll do is drive the family to bankruptcy, take all their assets (either cash or material), and then make the family/kids pay the rest in installments over the rest of thier lives with interest accruing.

Beleive me, America's fucked up enough where they will BLEED these four year olds for all the money they all no matter how long it takes.

 

[ActivatorX]

I really hope my friends Matt & Trey come across this and, well, tear the whole subject a new one.

They do already have an episode with everyone suing everyone.

OT: Yes because it is obviously the 4 year olds fault.
/sarcasm

My word, I totally forgot about that episode! Sexual Harassment Panda!

 

[Stoic raptor]

Impossible. A child cannot be charged with anything at all in the U.S. if they are 7 years old or younger. Above that, you can possibly charge them. Possibly. Usually not, unless it is a tort not caused by parental negligence.

If anyone is to get sued, it should be the judge for malpractice.

Seriously, the parents were watching, and bikes are not dangerous instruments. How do they even get negligence?

 

[Nevyrmoore]

Impossible. A child cannot be charged with anything at all in the U.S. if they are 7 years old or younger. Above that, you can possibly charge them. Possibly. Usually not,unless it is a tort not caused by parental negligence.

If anyone is to get sued, it should be the judge for malpractice.

However, is charging someone enacting criminal law, or does it also stretch into civil law?

 

[Zombus]

That is the stupidest thing I have read all week, if not all month. It was obviously a goddamn accident, not something to get so fucked up as to sue over!

 

[lacktheknack]

HEY! JUSTICE SYSTEM!

GET FIXED, YOU MALFUNCTIONING... THING!

 

[Whytewulf]

I am not condoning it, but it's all phrasing and a technicality. The judge here is saying that according to current laws, the estate can sue the child for negligence. In this case, the parents would be responsible for any settlement, just like a caretaker of a person. They still sue the person of the action.

Again I am not condoning how this is done and it is a WTF moment.. But the elderly lady, broke her him, and died. The estate wanted to go after someone and couldn't specificially go after the parents.

Note that no criminal charges have or will be filed, the judge is just saying they can sue.

I personally call this one of those.. oh what do they call them.. oh ya.. ACCIDENTS!

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

So glad you put a WTF option in; its the most...just...weird thing i've read today haha.

A FOUR year old? Their not even children at that age as far as I'm concerned. I can't believe some people are taking it seriously...

 

[krseyffert]

It´s so retardet i barely have words.

wow just....wow. There is a special place reserved in hell for the involved laywers.

... and people who talk in cinemas

 

[XT inc]

sue the wee child, take every last cent they own and garnish their wages for the next 10 years. Oh wait that adds up to 0 dollars never mind.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

The 4 Year old shouldn't be sued directly for it, but if the old lady was indeed injured, then the parents of the child should be open to a lawsuit. I mean, they should have kept in eye on the kid.

Kind of. It's not like the kids were known trouble-makers whose parents don't give a damn, it was an accident, for all we know the parents looked away for a just a second.

All it takes is that one second. It's harsh yes, but a lot of lawsuits occur because of accident. There are a number of cases where a person sues an owner because their dog bit them. A lot of people get sued for accidental traffic collisions. It's a harsh fact, but its a true one. There isn't anything broken with most of the US laws or the legal system, but in this case, I do believe the judge to be wrong with placing the lawsuit on the 4 year old over the parents.

And people, remember that the little girl got off easy here. She is technically responsible for the old woman's death and her family is LUCKY that she they're only being sued for compensation.

 

[Stoic raptor]

Impossible. A child cannot be charged with anything at all in the U.S. if they are 7 years old or younger. Above that, you can possibly charge them. Possibly. Usually not,unless it is a tort not caused by parental negligence.

If anyone is to get sued, it should be the judge for malpractice.

However, is charging someone enacting criminal law, or does it also stretch into civil law?

With criminal law, the minimum is 10 years, in some states, that a child could be charged as an adult. Younger than that, they go to juvenile jail, but that is really rare. They only charge minors as adults if they keep repeating crimes over and over and over again. And if the child is 7 or younger , it is deemed that they could not understand what they are doing.

In civil cases, if you are over 7, you can be charged. But if you are a minor, your parents could be charged instead.
If a parent knows you are doing something bad, but doesn't do anything about it, parents are in trouble instead of kid. If parents are careless, like they were not watching over their kids, parents get the trouble. If parents let their child use dangerous instrumentalies without proper instruction (guns, cars), then parent is charged.

The kids are 4, so they cannot be charged with anything. Parents were watching, so there was no negligence. Bikes with training wheels are not dangerous instruments.
I guess they could say that the parents were negligence by letting them race, but this is still stupid. Why would the estate even sue, and why would the judge agree to something that is blatantly illegal. Something is seriously wrong here.