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

[Nicarus]

Being sued...at 4 years old? 4 years old?!?! Who in their right mind would even consider something so...ack!!

I read the article, and sounds like an accident to me! I mean, there's no way the child would have this kind of thinking at such an age:

"I'm gonna get a friend, race down the sidewalk in our bikes, and knock over the old lady that'll 'just' be passing by on (insert date and time)! This'll be fool-proof!"

What's next...murder trials for babies because the mother died in childbirth?! The law system needs a freaking full-on reboot if we've steeped so low.

 

[soulsabr]

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

Can I get an "AMEN"!?! ... but only the lawyers who would take the plaintiff's side.

 

[ActivatorX]

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.

Um no she wasn't. The article clearly states that the woman died of "unrelated causes". And 3 months later to boot.

Congratulations on being one of the few people who can actually read.
It's funny how big of a deal people have made out of this topic, just because they didn't even bother to read the article thoroughly.
*giant facepalm*

 

[Mr.Mattress]

I am gonna say this is a WTF moment, but, the kid caused a woman to die. I think it's fair that people should be allowed to try to get some form of Compensation. Though it is a bit extreme to sue a 4 year old (or even allow that), it is justice...

Please read my previous post (the second post above you), for your own sake.
Thank you.

Well still, she did cause her to need surgery, that still is an offense.

 

[Valksy]

What do you call 10,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean...


Seriously, that is about the most fucking stupid thing that I have seen in a while.

 

[gigastrike]

This whole case is messed up! Does it matter if the 4 year-old is even included? One way or another it's coming out of the parent's pockets, and everyone knows that the kids could have handled the situation better.

 

[Mr.Gompers]

What do you call 10,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean...


Seriously, that is about the most fucking stupid thing that I have seen in a while.

A good start!

OT: Our legal system seems to be in desperate need of some fixing up.

 

[Wintermoot]

wait! did you hear that? that where a milion lawyers doing a milion facepalms

 

[BRex21]

unrelated to the accident or unrelated to the hip? also i believe 3 months is a typo, almost every source agrees 3 weeks.
http://mountainbike.about.com/b/2010/10/29/4-year-old-on-bicycle-can-be-sued-for-running-down-woman.htm
http://en.terra.com/latin-in-america/news/ny_4yearold_girl_can_be_sued_for_bike_accident/hof12323
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/882870--can-a-4-year-old-be-sued-for-negligence-judge-says-yes

 

[Orcboyphil]

The kid should sue the old womans estate for theft of resources that that old woman and all the other retirers have stolen from her generation.

 

[ChaoticLegion]

I swear, Americas legal system is so fucked up beyond belief. I studied law for 4 years at university and seen my share of ridiculous UK laws, but America takes the fucking cake.

lmao xD Currently studying Tort law and I know precisely what you mean. I also agree with you, American law is the most claimant friendly law there is and their bounds of negligence consistently encourage the ever present blame culture found in american society.

 

[Dags90]

What do you call 10,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean...

A sitcom pilot?

OT: The judge only ruled that the child could be sued, not that the child is liable. It's a matter of "Yes, you can bring this to court." Civil courts have very low limits on what can and can't be brought to them.

 

[Dastardly]

If I had to guess, I'd say this ruling was a result of having to work around age-old technicalities in state law.

It might be that a lawsuit against the parents would only be successful if the parent could be shown to be negligent. And, as this judge stated, the term "supervising" is just too vague to have any legal meaning. The judge, however, obviously does feel that the victim's estate should be able to sue for certain damages.

Being aware, as are likely the lawyers, that a negligence suit against the PARENT would be picked apart by opposing lawyers, the judge is allowing the child to be named as the subject of this particular suit. Remember, this would be a CIVIL matter, not CRIMINAL. They do not have to show that the child did this negligently beyond a reasonable doubt--they simply have to demonstrate that the child DID hit the woman, eventually resulting in her likely premature death.

The problem is that they're presenting it in the media in this way because 1) it's funnier and 2) it allows them to villainize the legal system. In doing so, they're allowing people to mix up the terminology and thought processes for civil and criminal law.

TL;DR: This simply allows the plaintiff to name the child in the suit, likely getting around a technicality that the opposing lawyers would exploit if the PARENT were named instead.

The payoff: The money will still come from the mom. Also, I'm not defending the lawsuit itself, but simply saying that (while there are many examples of the failings of our legal system, this isn't one, it's simply being presented as one).

 

[Requx]

You should be able to get sued for being too fragile.

 

[Lokluster]

I hate how, essentially, the whole point of practising law is to UPHOLD the system of justice, and yet there seems to be no evidence of that in the world today. If every lawyer solely cared about safeguarding justice, no one would represent the prosecution in this case.
How the hell can anyone have the nerve to lead a prosecution against a 4 year old?! I swear some people just need to die. In a fire.

 

[Dastardly]

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!

He's got it. The judge is well within reason in this decision--it's just the press making it look like some kind of toddler witch hunt.

 

[Lokluster]

What do you call 10,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean...

A good start. =D

 

[Lordedubs]

If I had to guess, I'd say this ruling was a result of having to work around age-old technicalities in state law.

It might be that a lawsuit against the parents would only be successful if the parent could be shown to be negligent. And, as this judge stated, the term "supervising" is just too vague to have any legal meaning. The judge, however, obviously does feel that the victim's estate should be able to sue for certain damages.

Being aware, as are likely the lawyers, that a negligence suit against the PARENT would be picked apart by opposing lawyers, the judge is allowing the child to be named as the subject of this particular suit. Remember, this would be a CIVIL matter, not CRIMINAL. They do not have to show that the child did this negligently beyond a reasonable doubt--they simply have to demonstrate that the child DID hit the woman, eventually resulting in her likely premature death.

The problem is that they're presenting it in the media in this way because 1) it's funnier and 2) it allows them to villainize the legal system. In doing so, they're allowing people to mix up the terminology and thought processes for civil and criminal law.

TL;DR: This simply allows the plaintiff to name the child in the suit, likely getting around a technicality that the opposing lawyers would exploit if the PARENT were named instead.

The payoff: The money will still come from the mom. Also, I'm not defending the lawsuit itself, but simply saying that (while there are many examples of the failings of our legal system, this isn't one, it's simply being presented as one).

Thank you so much, was about to say something like this this my self. Because in all honesty the media in this country is just looking to push some buttons in this already emotionally charged time before our mid-term elections. Don't fall into the media's trap people, they just want to sell you ads and airing stories like this is the best way to do so

 

[Duffy13]

You guys are overreacting and confusing legal speak. The article specifically mentions that the child cannot be held liable, and thus the target of the lawsuit would transfer to whoever is liable for the child's actions. The point was that just because the action originated with a child does not indicate immunity in a civil matter.

My guess is that for some reason they can't sue the Parents directly (probably fails some litmus test for negligence), so instead they sue the child who can't be liable yet. The parents are now liable, lo and behold the actual target is found. While it's convoluted, it's seems more like a clarification of specific rules.

I know people like making snap complaints about laws based on their moral views, but without strict rules and regulations things would be far worse then this case. Imagine how much we would have to complain about if everything was vague.