Slashdot Mirror
New York Judge Rules 6-Year-Old Can Be Sued
suraj.sun sends this snippet from Reuters:
"A girl can be sued over accusations she ran over an elderly woman with her training bicycle when she was 4 years old, a New York Supreme Court justice has ruled. The ruling by King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten stems from an incident in April 2009 when Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, both aged four, struck an 87-year-old pedestrian, Claire Menagh, with their training bikes. Menagh underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died three months later. In a ruling made public late Thursday, the judge dismissed arguments by Breitman's lawyer that the case should be dismissed because of her young age. He ruled that she is old enough to be sued and the case can proceed."
I have no words for this.
Okay, a pair of four year olds on their bikes. Accidentally hit an old lady.
And they're going to sue the four year olds?
Okay guys. It really IS time to kill all the lawyers.
*Grabs a gun*
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The law (which he probably didn't write) says that accountability starts at four years old. The child was four.
What else was the judge supposed to do?
I can't figure out why America is on a downward spiral
Hey Soulskill, please file things under Idle where they belong. This is not News For Nerds nor is it Stuff That Matters, so it doesn't belong on the Slashdot frontpage.
What happened to accidents? It seems that everything in life needs to be controlled, somebody is accountable. There is no space for accidents, so somebody got to hang, that's when it comes to small girls. But when you talk about serious crimes like foreclosure fraud and the wall street fraud then they don't press charges because 'they might find the culprit'.
If I would have intentionally rammed my bicycle into anyone at the age of 4 years and 9 months I would have received, at a minimum, corporal punishment.
Of course today that would probably get my parents sent to jail.
If you're old enough to be sued you should be old enough to vote and vice versa. People who have grievances with a child should sue the guardian or supervisor of the child. In most cases the problem with a child should probably be dismissed as an accident. (Children are little walking accidents after all.)
Any judgment will be paid in doodie.
No more candy for 4 years?
http://archeleus.com/blog
One can only hope common sense prevails. 4 year old kids are still learning that their actions have repercussions.
The woman who has died will not benefit from the court case, just her immediate family who are trying to gain financially from her demise.
blame Macaulay Culkin for this. YOu can see what a disaster a young child can cause.
PS, this was typed by my dog. Sue him!
Who's behind the "accusations", and why are the kids being sued?
I don't know anything about American law, but if the accident caused the woman's death (though indirectly), this would be a criminal case, no?
Use his brain. Four year olds can't by any stretch of the imagination be held accountable.
Sue the parents (although I don't advocate that at all) but not the kid. What if she is found guilty, then what? Will she be send to jail for manslaughter or something like that?
Get real, wake up and fix this legal system. As said in a post above, killing the lawyers is a good first step in the right direction.
1. Haul 6 year old girl into the court.
2. ???
3. Justice!
It's bizarre. If they judge her, then what?
She can't be sent to prison, has no income to pay a fine, and I doubt very much she can be made to perform community service. So I'm just wondering.
Also, there's this:
But running around is what 4 year old children do. I think pretty much everybody has noticed that young children have some problems with fine motor control and are ocassionally running into people while playing. They're children, they haven't completely figured it yet. What are the parents supposed to do, keep them on a leash?
cars. His noontime snacks are garnished by three grapse for the next six lunch periods.
but I'd like to believe that they won't win the suit.
Soon an infant will be sued for puking on the ground, causing somebody to slip and bust their ass.
Table-ized A.I.
It's shit like this, America.
- When you do things right, no one will be sure you've done anything at all.
the RIAA must have something to do with it! was she listening to pirated music on her mp3 player when she hit the lady?
So as long as I only murder sufficiently old people, I really shouldn't be held accountable by the legal system?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I live in Europe where (almost) everybody has insurance (civil resposibility) against such things, but only if the parents admit having done something wrong during the supervision of their kids.
If they did everything right and the kid does damages, the victim has to sue the kid.
Since most kids don't have any income, you may have to wait a long time to get your money.
Sounds like a systemic issue. If she was so frail that a 30 pound 4 year old could kill her she should of been in a facility. The kids shouldn't of been in a public place where they were a nuisance and a danger to others. That should probably be a fine of 20$. If you want to live in a place without the proper areas to ride bikes your kids don't get to ride bikes.
Wooten concluded by writing that there was no indication or evidence that "another child of similar age and capacity under the circumstances could not have reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman."
This judge either just arruved from Mars or is a complete imbecil. I don't know a single 4 year old that would appreciate the consequences of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman/oncoming 18 wheeler/100 foot crevice (feel free to add your obstacle here). Besides, based on does he think that a 4 year or even 6 year old kid is competent to stand trial?
.... could such bullshit happen.
For fucks sake : THEY ARE CHILDREN. ALMOST STILL BABIES.
I think that is the stupidest decision I have ever read. In no civilised country could children of that age be accounted for anything.
No, sorry. The biggest bullshit would be if they would be accused of murder 1st degree and grilled on the electric chair.
Once upon a time, I adored the USA, but Judges like him turns the States into just one thing : a big fat joke.
What can they get from a 6 year old kid any ways?
You can read up on the attorney who filed it here: http://ctfamlaw.com/profile
But it also means that the debt will be collecting interest for a long, long time before payments can start. If the parents aren't wealthy enough to pay up, the child may end up with a debt so large that it will be unable to pay it. Ever. Because it did something stupid at age 4.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
If you possess the body of a 4-year-old child and run into them with your training bike and hope they die after surgery months later, then sure.
Good luck with that.
What can they get from a 6 year old kid any ways?
FTFA:
The decision also will allow for the lawsuit to proceed against the Kohn family for the incident.
That's the thing, you can sue until you're awarded gagillions of dollars - now go and try to collect it.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
So as long as I only murder sufficiently old people, I really shouldn't be held accountable by the legal system?
No but hows about we wait until the individual is old enough to understand the concept of life and death before we take them to court for murder. 4-6 years is NOT old enough.
If it were my kids I would tell the judge that they are not guilty by reason of insanity....
"Here's my cwayons, my huggy bear, my Dora The Explorer backpack, my woller skates, and my puppie, Snookie. Datz all I have, Mam."
Table-ized A.I.
Hey everyone, it's Captain Hindsight here to save us! Thanks Captain Hindsight!
What can they get from a 6 year old kid any ways?
Nothing. But they may be able to get whatever the parents have. And, of course, the endless satisfaction many adults receive from destroying the lives of small children.
Even if these kids did do this maliciously, they're kids. They aren't expected to have an adult's sense of, well, anything, including empathy and right or wrong. Not at age 4, for fuck's sake.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
And it will be the parents (or rather the parents insurance) who will pick up the bill.
If there is no insurance, it will be the parents who will have to pay.
At least that is how it is done in Belgium.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
That's fine. I only objected to rejecting the case based on the age of the victim. Rejecting a case based on the age of the perpetrator is perfectly fine.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Right. It's based on the age of the perpetrator, not the victim.
Duh.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Clap....
clap...
clap.
Congratulations, America. Well done.
What's next, indeed.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Why is this on Slashdot?
What can they get from a 6 year old kid any ways?
I suspect, that they want something from the parents, FTFA:
Wooten also disagreed with the lawyer's assertion that Juliet Breitman should not be held responsible because her mother was supervising the children at the time. "A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street," Wooten wrote. He added that "the term 'supervising' is too vague to hold meaning here."
It sounds to me like another case of not-quite-up-to-snuff parental supervision. But anyway . . .
My cousin is a lawyer who litigates, and I have had numerous contacts with lawyers from my employer. The fact is, I will never get sued, because I have no money, or, what be considered by them as chump change. Now, my employer, legions of lawyers would drool at the chance to sue them. They chase the money, simple as that.
So if a 6 year old is getting sued . . . you can bet that lawyers have their sights on the parents' assests.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
surely this is just a plug for the john stewart rally thing today...right?
You cold calloused bastard, the collision and operation was a major contributing factor. Lucky, in your future, you can look forward at 87, to forced euthanasia and your nutrients being used as fertilizer. Who modded this up Score:5 Insightfull
Aren't they really sueing the parents? From TFA: "The decision also will allow for the lawsuit to proceed against the Kohn family for the incident". ISTM it sort of makes sense here that the parents/legal guardians have responsibility for their children's actions. Sounds like they should have taken liability insurance.
... walking into someone by accident WHEN YOU ARE FOUR.
Remember, this is an age group that still pees or poops itself when out playing.
Cruel or not - at age 87, the woman should be able to determine that she might not withstand a thrashing from a 4 year old, and take appropriate measures. She could have stayed across the street from the kids. She could have stayed home. She could have shot first, and asked questions later. She could have run over the kids first. But, NO! She PERMITTED the little rascals to run her down.
Life sucks, and life is short. This little old lady was at or near the end of her sucky life. Her family should be grateful that she went out in a relatively clean manner, rather than lying abed for years, slowly being eaten up with cancer.
For that matter, maybe the old lady feared cancer, and chose "Suicide by Trike"!
Maybe, just maybe, you should specify which country you live in, not which continent.
I live in Germany, and you can do fuck all to a 6 year old. A 6 year old could throw in your window and nobody, not the kid nor the parents would have to pay.
Well, can a 4 year old make a rational decision based on its surroundings, like turning in time to not hit the 87 year old lady who will fall over and suffer hip damage, resulting in surgery and later death, makes me wonder why there not suing the hospital as well death cause by surgery rather then death from falling over due to a CHILD not being able to monitor a situation like an adult. Picking on the one who cant make a proper decision just seams callous and petty. 'Lawyers' I guess.
"Grandma, you shouldda let me watch Happy Pony!"
Table-ized A.I.
...and her life had exactly the same value as yours.
Besides, she can't sue anyone as she is dead. The lawyers, on the other hand, deserve the right to make a living from what they do best: hog the legal system with pointless lawsuits against people who can't argue their own case. Thus: the need for more lawyers! I suspect this ruling was made in solidarity with Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten's dear colleagues.
First, this was a trial court ruling by a judge, not a justice. This did not create or modify precedent for other courts. In New York, unlike the rest of the US, the low-level trial courts are called Supreme Courts. What the rest of us would think of as "The Supreme Court" is called the Court of Appeals. Yes, it's very confusing.
Second, this was a ruling on a motion to dismiss, not a ruling on the merits. This only says the child may be sued, not that the child is liable, nor even that the child (as opposed to the parents) would be made to pay anything. The parents are being sued as well; this is not some spiteful attack on the child in particular.
Third, this is not surprising in the least from a legal perspective and relies upon well-settled legal principles. In general the law in the US does not recognize an absolute age limit to liability. For negligence, children are judged according to the standard of a reasonable child of that age (unless they are undertaking an adult activity such as driving a car). For a four year old, that's not saying much.
Fourth, there's nothing uniquely American about this. Several European countries have similar or even harsher rules. In France, for example, children are judged according to the same negligence standard as adults, which is much stricter than the US rule.
A 4-year old, even if they "did it on purpose" is incapable of understanding the consequences of their action at that age. I have 5 children and have worked with many more. Children that age are simply incapable of grasping the concepts involved. The fragility of the elderly, the finality of death, the concept of broken bones.
Parents are responsible for their children. If you want to sue someone, the parents would be the appropriate people to sue. It is cruel, irresponsible, and irrational to sue a child who was 4 years-old when the "crime" was committed. The prosecutor and the judge should both be removed from office by the citizens of that area. They have clearly demonstrated their lack of competence.
The judge says there's no evidence a child of that age couldn't appreciate "the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman." The judge is an idiot and not fit to sit the bench.
Aaah, America.. the land of the lawyer. The word "unfortunate" has lost its meaning. It's now followed by the words "what are you going to do about it?".
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
Why should the parents inherit the fiscal sins of the child if not the judicial? If they're not responsible enough to be sued on the child's behalf, how are they suddenly responsible for the child's debts?
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
If you can't do the time - don't do the crime.
I live in Europe where (almost) everybody has insurance (civil resposibility) against such things
Which part of Europe ? I live in Europe too and I don't have such an insurance.
Exactly, and the sad part is the relatives probably didn't give a shit about her until they found out there was lawsuit potential. Sadly too many nowadays in part because we all have to work like dogs just to keep out of bankruptcy just don't have the time to take care of our old like we used to back in the days when only one worked per home. My grandma is 94 and lives in her original home but both my dad and my surviving uncle live in houses next to hers and have set up life alert and an intercom system for her. And we certainly wouldn't allow her to go walking without someone at her side.
It is pretty obvious that anyone so weak a 4 year old could kill her by bumping her with her training bike shouldn't have been out by herself, but most likely the poor thing was alone and had to be out taking care of herself. But suing the kid in this tragedy is just obscene. It isn't like at 4 one can even understand frailty or mortality or even have the fine motor skills to easily dodge. This whole "treat kids like little adults" thing we have seen more and more of is stupid and ignores that children are NOTHING like little adults, both in intellect or in physical grace. Anyone who has had kids knows that before 8 they are about the clumsiest creatures that ever drew a breath, and even into their teenage years are simply miles ahead of any adult on the clumsy scale. It isn't malice or even their faults, it is simply a byproduct of growing and not being comfortable in one's own skin yet. Acting like this kid actually did anything other than acted like any other kid and had an accident is just insane.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Saying "not to sound cruel" doesn't magically make this not a cruel comment.
In which European country can you sue a four year old child? In Germany, you can sue the parents for failing to supervise the child. If the judge finds that the parents did all they could be expected to do, then the blame game ends there. Parents are not automatically responsible for the mischief of their children. Children less than seven years of age are not responsible for their own actions. No ifs and buts. Other restrictions are listed in BGB 828.
Suppose this case had happened in Germany: If the judge finds that the parents supervised the kids as required by law or if supervision would not have made a difference, then the parents would not be held liable. Since the kid is under seven years old, it is not responsible either. End of story.
So if 4-year-olds are now held to same accountability standards as adults, are they now allowed to drink, vote, be drafted into the army and carry concealed firearms as well?
At some point in the race, they struck an 87-year-old woman named Claire Menagh, who was walking in front of the building and, according to the complaint, was "seriously and severely injured," suffering a hip fracture that required surgery. She died three months later of unrelated causes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=1
It's a nice thought, but no, not all life has the same value. You want proof? Talk to a doctor about requirements for organ transplant recipients. Young before old, no druggies or drunks, no one with uncurable conditions, or even lasting illnesses. If all life was of equal value, then it'd simply be a matter of "who started needing the replacement first."
Then there's the legal system. Self-defence makes murder legal. Hmm. But if your life is worth the same as your would-be killer, you should be just as liable for his death as he would have been for yours.
I could go on, but it should be obvious by now that by any measure, different lives have different values.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Sure someone has to pay - you do. What a stupid system. Parents should be responsible for their kids' actions until they're old enough to be responsible for themselves (which should be much later than the age of 4, so the US's system is pretty stupid too).
Does this mean 4 year olds have the right to consent? I mean, if they can be sued for their actions why the hell can't they be trusted to make their own?
Feel free to mod me down, just know that unlike some Anonymous Cowards I'm not afraid to express my views as myself.
They are the child's guardian. If your child throws a ball and breaks someone's window, the parent is responsible to pay for and replace the window. Maybe not legally, but definitely morally.
Actually they probably would have spanked me even if it was accidental just to emphasize the point that I shouldn't have done that.
The 80s were such a cruel time to grow up.
I thought there were all sorts of legal precedents that defined the age at which a child understands the difference between right and wrong--and that the age was normally around six or seven. In this case it was up to the parent to control the child, and that means she shouldn't have been allowed to race her bike on the sidewalk. It's the parent who should be held accountable. The parent should have said, "We have to be careful of other people when we're riding a bike on the sidewalk. No racing."
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
Is the suit filed because of the original accident or because, 3 months later, an 87 year old woman died? I can't imagine anyone trying to prove that the accident lead directly to the death given the woman's age. Further, if a jury trial is called for, what lawyer would bring a 6 year old child into a courtroom to be examined. If the kid wasn't bawling her eyes out, she sit there in that big chair with her legs dangling in the air, looking like a cute 6 year old. No jury in the world would ever find against her. In addition, where in the world could you gather a jury of her peers? You must be 18 to sit in a jury and its hard to make the connection that a bunch of adults are her peers.
What are the parents supposed to do, keep them on a leash?
This is exactly the plan. Over the last 50 or so years, the trend has been to gradually make people afraid of everything, and what better way to be sure that they're afraid of everything than if they fear their own family?
Remember, the more that people are scared, the more they need the government, and the more they are willing to give up for an illusion of security.
Yes, though a small child running into most people would be one of the minor annoyances that happens all of the time, results in a talking-to, and everyone moves on. In this case, the woman was unfortunately fragile enough that the result, which normally would be harmless, was actually deadly. Should the child, who clearly already doesn't know not to run into people, be held responsible at age 4 for not knowing that elderly people are incredibly fragile and get potentially fatal complications easily?
The poor elderly lady's life may have the same value, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same durability. A 40 year old friend of mine was sucked under the wheels of a big-rig and survived, while my grandmother died due to having a very curable disease but for which the surgery would have killed her. Considering that healthy 4 year olds still use plastic cups, it's unfortunate but not surprising that the destructive force of large toddlers mixes poorly with the elderly.
Of course, that's why this is being litigated in Civil court, and not Criminal court.
The ______ Agenda
They could always file for bankruptcy after they've paid the kid's whole amassed fortune of $1.20
Ha, ha, ha. This is another example of why America is fucked. Keep it up, you pathetic heap of shit.
Im fairly sure its the age of 10 here in the UK
Gotta start 'em young I guess.
So apparently all the serious and violent adult criminals in NY are behind bars, so now they are going to put small kids in jail?. Well for starters, you might wanna get some small sized handcuffs to complete the lunacy.
Legally too.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
If the parents were the ones being sued, I'd agree with you. But in person whose metaphorical window was broken obviously doesn't believe they are, since they're not the ones being sued. Why, then, would fiscal responsibility still rest with the parents?
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
You understand that half the joke with captain hindsight is that absolutely everything he comments on is obvious in foresight as well, right?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
The motivation for this is simple: who benefits from this ruling? I'm guessing the offspring of the old lady, the state, and of course the lawyers.
If all life is equally valuable, then whoever will live the longest (statistically) with a transplant should win.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
You're either being funny, trolling, or an idiot.
Liability is tied to responsibility. If the parents are not responsible for the damage, then they're not liable. They are responsible (and liable) if they fail to supervise the child age-appropriately and such supervision would have prevented the damage. A child under the age of 7 is not responsible for its own actions and thus not liable.
Then really, why not just sue the parents? Because they didn't do it and it's not their fault? Then why try to get what they can from them?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
A mother in New York has successfully sued her newborn for failing to properly aligning himself for natural delivery, forcing a cesarean section. While compensatory damages are only $14,789, the woman is seeking $2,000,000 in putative damages for a future the humiliation at her spa and Bermuda resort. The baby has counter sued the mother for failing her lamaze class, seeking damages for in proper immunization from failure to emerge through the birth canal. More at 11.. Next, sperm sued for infertility!
And yes that word DOES mean what I think it means.
WTF is wrong with people! In the old days this would be a tragedy that would haunt the little girl for the rest of her life. Now she's going to forget about that and just remember how the 'justice' system *sued* her for a horrible accident and ruined her life for it.
And since this is slashdot, she's going to grow up a rebel, find solace in technology, start programming around 9 years old, invent her own OS by 13 and AI by 17. Still under 18, she sends her new AI capable software out as a virus, gets a few million PC's infected and now has a distributed network of AI. Then it takes over industrial, then government computers. Then satellites. Then she dies when an old lady runs her over and the AI gets sad. So it starts taking out its sadness and agression. Then the world comes to and end. Oh wait, no- that couldn't have happened, that last part at least. The world came to an end right after an asshole piece of shit judge said a 6 year old girl could be sued.
Nobodies Prefect
Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog
Post, without any guiding commentary, something of a legal and non-technical nature which Slashdot readers are ill-equipped to comment intelligently on, due to (1) their lack of relevant background knowledge, plus (2) the quixotic expectation that the same analytical skills which underlie their professional success in technical fields can simply be brought to bear on unrelated subjects, unmodified, and unsupplemented by any additional education on the subject, self-administered or otherwise, which might provide a foundation for a sensible thought on the subject.
Result: a bunch of geeks who are clueless about the law, and about the sensible practical judgments which are the foundation for just about any legal doctrine that doesn't appear to make sense to an outside observer, and many of whom are perpetually butthurt over information "not being free", make a bunch of uninformed and nonsensical comments about how lawyers and judges are crazy and stupid.
Look, parents should keep a closer eye on their kids. They need to spend more time with them, listen to them, and play a more active role in their child's development.
If parents don't, then they should be jailed until they do. ;-)
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"legal murder" is a mistatement of terms. Murder is premeditated illegal killing. Self-defense is usually not premeditated, and it's not illegal. I think the technical term for killing is homicide, and that doesn't assign guilt or assume planning. There are adjectives to describe the cause of the homicide.
This is CIVIL not criminal. If you can't rate a criminal prosecution you shouldn't rate a civil one in many situations... THIS is one of those situations.
The lesson here AGAIN for Americans to learn from is not to become civilized but to keep their children from doing ANYTHING because we prosecute, sue, and don't provide health care to children. So children can't do ANYTHING because this place isn't safe for kids to be kids
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Great, as a lawyer it's great to know that you're going to try and kill me for the actions taken by another lawyer who I don't know, have never met, and is handling a case that I would never take. You're also going to kill the lawyers who presumably tried to stop this from happening, the other side of the lawsuit.
At 87 my grandmother was still providing daycare for two and three year old kids... and volunteering at the elementary school as well. She had her 102nd birthday this year, and is still going good... not watching little kids anymore but still able to do everything for herself. Oh, she also had eight kids and so many grand and great grand kids that I have no idea what the total is now. Good genes and healthy living seem to pay off. Also, not getting a broken bone when you are old seems to prolong life.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
You want proof? Talk to a doctor about requirements for organ transplant recipients. Young before old, no druggies or drunks, no one with uncurable conditions, or even lasting illnesses. If all life was of equal value, then it'd simply be a matter of "who started needing the replacement first."
That's not a judgement of value of a life, that's a judgement of the value of the transplant. All of those criteria are used to judge who will probably get the most benefit, i.e. longevity, from the transplant. No point in transplanting an organ who is just going to die of some other cause in a week. But likelihood of death has no bearing on the value of life.
Then there's the legal system. Self-defence makes murder legal. Hmm. But if your life is worth the same as your would-be killer, you should be just as liable for his death as he would have been for yours.
Self defence does not make "murder" legal, it makes killing justified. It's not a judgment of the value of the life of either person - its a judgment of the circumstances and context of the killing.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
This would be the place to say - think of the children!
So now in the good (?) old U.S of A Lawyers have moved from ambulance chasing to trike chasing?
Only lawyers would have the perverted, greedy and corrupt mind to think this one up.
What are lawyers asking that the kids shouldn't be allowed to play?
This is a legal system thats lost its way.
yes, they are still kids. they aren't responsible for the accident even if he/she does it purposely or not. they don't fully understand the effect of hitting someone by their bikes. the kid may be aware that the elderly will be hit but the kid can never tell the impact of hitting it purposely if it was the intention. but still kids are kids. they are not adults. so why let them suffer. that's why there are parents to guide their children.
darren paige
but logically I think it makes perfect sense
It's shit like this, America.
Keeping them locked and / or chained is the way to do.
If a dog attacks and eventually kills someone it is put down. A child is not unlike a dog.
This is a pretty standard ruling under American Tort law. In civil negligence cases, the standard for negligent acts performed by children is whether a reasonable child of the defendant's age, intelligence, and experiences would have exercised reasonable care in this situation. (This is, of course, more generous a standard than is applied to adults, where the standard is whether a reasonable person would have exercised reasonable care. This is to say that, for the child, the test is more subjective and is geared specifically to the intelligence and experience of the child in question.)
As to the point of all of this, the deceased woman's estate can make a civil negligence claim against the child for medical expenses (which may be quite high - I haven't the first idea as I'm not a doctor), lost income/life expectancy (which in this case will be very low), and funeral costs. The one thorny legal issue that will likely come up in this case is whether the death was proximately caused by the bike crash. If there were some intervening cause of the death, say if the deceased caught an infection while in the hospital and the infection killed her, that might reduce the defendant's liability. (On the other hand, it might not. It will depend on the facts of the case. I'm just highlighting legal issues here.) Other potential claims will depend on the facts of the case. If, for example, the deceased was walking with her family when the child on the bicycle struck her, those family members might have claims in their own right for physical or emotional harms they suffered.
Lastly, the issue of who will actually pay is very simple. This child is not going to pay herself. This child is not going to jail. Standard homeowner's insurance includes a general liability policy which covers damages in civil lawsuits. The fact that the suit was even brought in the first place indicates that the defendant's family almost certainly has such a policy because it would make no economic sense to sue absent them having one. (In civil suits, insurance money is very easy to get. As a plaintiff, you really don't want to have to deal with getting liens on property, garnishing wages or seizing bank accounts. One can do it, to be sure, but then you have to get into other considerations of what the state law will allow you to take, and you actually have to get your hands on the property/money to seize it. Often, if their isn't a ready supply of insurance money to go after, plaintiffs will elect not to sue.)
By the way, this is not news. This is a sad story that got picked up by some media outlet because most members of the media (to say nothing of most people in the United States) don't understand the common law of negligence that is applied in state courts.
Actually when I was 5 years old I was allowed to play outside unsupervised, as long as I didn't cross any major streets and came back if my parents blew the whistle that they used for the purpose.
The article doesn't say that she died from complications of her surgery, it just says that she died not very soon after surgery. It wasn't murder if she was so old that she would have died soon anyways.
Correlation != causation.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Suing a 4 year old? How retarded one has to be to even think a 4 year old could act reasonable enough to be judged for her behavior? Earliest when they start to go to school they develop some kind of early stage which one could call reasonable. But even then a punishment shouldn't exceed a "bad girl/boy! clean up your room and bring your mommy an apple!" or the like.
Damn I'm so glad that I raise my son (soon 21 months old) not in the U.S. Otherwise I would be afraid to hell to let him play outside at all. Couldn't be sure that some screwed up judge decides that a 2 year old might also be responsible for his behavior ...
When they sue the kid, they will be able to force the doctors who treated the woman to testify about their treatment. When the doctors admit under oath that they didn't do everything possible to save the woman's life, the kid becomes irrelevant. Next they will go after the doctors. It's very important to note that the woman died after being treated by them. They aren't suing the kid to get what the kid or the kid's family have - that is probably next to nothing anyway.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Not to sound judgemental, but, you're an ass.
Still, I fail to understand why one would sue the child, when the parents are the obvious targets. Plus, a four year old doesn't have any assets, so what does the old lady expect to be able to recover?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I wasn't claiming this incident was murder, that wasn't the point of my post.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Imagine a hacker, whom the usual media circus has convinced the general public that this guy can launch nukes by whistling into a phone.
Chances are, Bob the Wal-Mart clerk would be on his jury. Now, I don't mean to denigrate Bob the Wal-Mart clerk, but Bob the Wal-Mart clerk, by dictionary definition, isn't the peer of Mr. Rhetorical Uberhacker.
Bob the Wal-Mart clerk, for example, showers daily and has social skills. He also can't get his microwave to display the correct time, and gets his news from 'clicking on that blue E'.
"A jury of one's peers" has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with legalese. Sad, but yes, some sixty year old retiree would be the peer of this poor girl.
Judge ruled she can be sued. Now find me a jury that will convict her. Then you can put down my country.
No. You're confusing equal with identical.
Organ transplant triage is based on success rates, not the value of life. The young and those with no chemical dependencies or complicating conditions have a documented higher success rate. They can undergo the extremely traumatic procedures and will be more likely to have positive outcomes. This is, in fact, based ultimately on the fact that two lives *are* equal. Given the choice between a 70% chance of saving one life and a 40% chance of saving another, which is the more responsible choice of action? If, on the other hand, there were a surplus of suitable organs, then such procedures would be done to these less attractive patients. Triage is about preserving the most life, not selecting which is more valuable.
Self-defense is an accepted justification because it deters attacks. It means an attacker has to accept that by breaking another's right to safety, they themselves lose that same right. Again, this is equality in action, not a value judgement on life.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
You understand that half the joke with captain hindsight is that absolutely everything he comments on is obvious in foresight as well, right?
Why, yes. That's rather obvious. You're point being?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If the parents of the girl are liable, so are the care givers of the old lady. Someone must be looking after the 4yr old girl on the sidewalk. Why the fuck is there no one to look after the 87 yr old? If the 4yr old knocks into the 87 yr old and dies, is the old lady liable? As if the old lady is fast enough to avoid an incoming bike. How this case goes to court is beyond reason.
Gah, the old woman's estate. Stupid reading comprehension not-good-ness.
Wait.. who's suing..?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I would imagine that one of two things happened to cause this suit:
(1) The estate of the 87-year old got hit with a buttload of medical charges unpaid by Medicare and, as such, no assets in the estate were left for bereaved;
or
(2) The parents whose four year-old ran into the old lady laughed it off at some point.
I think it's probably case (1), unless the old lady had been bitching about the kid flying around the neighborhood inadequately supervised (get off my lawn, notwithstanding) for a year beforehand. Even so, it's all about the money - when in doubt, always follow the money. Most sane people do not sue six year-olds, even in this country.
That is all.
Actually, in NY you are allowed to practice corporal punishment at home on your children, "as long as it does not leave a bruise." Even so, I'm sure you can bruise your kids for serious offenses as long as nobody reports you on it
The Eggshell Skull rule clearly holds that you are liable for the harm caused by your negligence even if the harm is unusually high because your victim was vulnerable.
the suit is really going to be against the parents for failing to control their brat. I have no problem with this.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Despite your correction of the previous poster, some of his comment still stands as true. Though killing your would-be killer during the act as self defense is not murder, it is killing. Having a blanket exemption for killing in self defense is to vague, too open. For instance, someone is coming at you to kill you and you can overt that without killing your attacker, you should be required to take that route. Your killers life is functionally less valuable than yours at the moment but not value-less.
Along those same lines, capital punishment is truly murder. It fits all the qualifications for murder. Planning, motive, malicious intent (wanting to end a life is malicious), but by making this act NOT murder, effectively the 'target' ( I hesitate to say victim ) as a life value of approx ZERO. If it had any value, then there should be repercussions for killing them.
In war, the enemy has a very low 'value' on their life as well. It is ok to kill them and it is not self defense for the most part. Yet another example of all life not being equal.
Yeah, she lived long enough.
Many court judgments don't clear out during a bankruptcy, so even that might not help.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
I say that when you live in a state and country where a judge allows 6yrs old to be sued, its either: A) time to throw the judge in a circular padded cell, asking him to pee in a corner, while having a companion who constantly knits something, made from thin air, OR...
B) its time for you to move elsewhere because sanity has left town and that's the a big hint you should pack up and leave too!
Incidently.... this Judge is a Republican... I wonder
Hon. Paul Wooten
Supreme Court, Civil Branch, New York County
80 Centre Street
New York, NY 10013
(646) 386-3604
Judicial Offices
Justice, Supreme Court, New York County, Elected, 2009 to 2022
Justice, Supreme Court, New York County, Appointed by Governor David Paterson, 2008 to 2008
Party Membership GOP
Party Line Republican
The fact that this judge referred to previous cases in order to decide to let this case move forward displays an enormous amount of lack of judgement, common sense and 'cahunas'. I mean, these previous cases were NOT RIGHT to begin with, but instead of stopping these idiocies, he propagates them. Let's get him out of his office NOW! Because he probably believes the world was done in 7 days and Dinosaurs and men were walking together. I'll bet he thinks the Flintstones are a documentary.
No
You wonder what is going on in the United States, their legal system appears to be pretty much broken.
I think it's completely insane for the family of the victim to want to be heard in court. In most countries this would be ruled as an accident, regrettable but nevertheless an accident between a small child not completely in control of their actions and an elderly person less aware and agile than a typical 40 year old. The media around the world is laughing at the USA right now, go and do an internet search to see the kind of reactions that are being published.
Do the majority of Americans believe a costly court case is the only way to find out all the facts and reach some resolution after such an unhappy accident? I think people are suprised in many countries that in the USA the resolution of a sad accident is not solved through the two families talking after a coroner has defined the facts, perhaps arbitrated by a counsellor, but that the victim's family is claiming that emotional laying to rest can only be achieved by sueing a pre-school child in court.
In most countries I think the police and legal authorities would rule that cause of death was an unfortunate coming together of circumstances, and probably there would be an opportunity for the victim's family to meet the child's parents. Child's parents would be terribly upset and offer sincere apologies, maybe ask the child to apologise, victim's family would probably be distraught but recognise that very sad accidents happen and accept apologies and understand that things happen that we can't control. Both families would probably agree that the small child was not an intentional murderer, not evil at heart, and agree that a small child shouldn't be traumatised or penalised for life for an accidental action so try to impress upon the child that you must be careful in what you do, but not load the kid with massive guilt complexes.
Meanwhile in the USA the victim's family wants to go to court and sue a pre-school child for millions.
Seems like you're moving back to a pre-20th century era when children were considered small adults with the same rights and responsibilities. Progress in science has proved that children are biologically as well as experientially unable to make the same level of decision making as adults and hence have to be treated differently. Their brains have not yet formed, they are simply not adults and cannot be considered accountable as an adult.
In my youth, my friends and I routinely rode our bikes all over creation and my parents had NO idea where we were. We were often 10 miles from home with no way to contact us. Good thing there weren't any perverts back then!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Is the real issue here that: Because the 4 year old committed this act, the parents were going to write it off and say, "Well, they're 4 years old, what do you want?" and be free of culpability. I don't think that the lawyers really want to sue the 4 year old, I think what they want is for the parents to not be off the hook for damages...am I right? The issue is not that they want to sue a 4 year old, they want to sue the parents! While I don't agree with either of these suits, it does make sense that someone would want to sue the parents of a child that caused an accident to recover some of the costs incurred from said accident.
Am I the only person that thinks this is reasonable? The sensationalist headline is VERY misleading.
Well, these are a couple of nasty little Jew kids... I'd say they're not worth much!
It's a nice thought, but no, not all life has the same value. You want proof? Talk to a doctor about requirements for organ transplant recipients. Young before old, no druggies or drunks, no one with uncurable conditions, or even lasting illnesses. If all life was of equal value, then it'd simply be a matter of "who started needing the replacement first."
This is not true at all. The reason is...you have money/power/are famous...you will get that transplant...no matter what condition you are in. Prime example would be David Crosby. His talented years (if you can call him talented at all) were spent doing as many drugs as possible...he's as old as dust and he was famous/had money...so he got that transplant. If it had been you or me...we would have died waiting.
The moral of the story is that if you have money/power/are famous...you will get that transplant over someone who needs it worse.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
it depends on the state, the legal system operates in 50 different ways in that country.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
it does not leave a bruise.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Actually, even a supervising parent is not enough to protect the kid from legal attack. From TFA:
"A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street"
- King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten
I find it bizarre that there is even a possibility that a 4 year old can be considered legally liable for "risky behavior such as running across a street". Children at 4 years old have not developed the mental capacity to properly judge the effects of their actions. Holding them personally legally liable is crazy. There are arguments to be made that the parent or a supervising adult may be liable for some failure, but holding the 4 year old liable is very odd. What punishment can there be? The child has no assets. Is taking the child away from the parents and into state custody warranted? If not, then what penalty will be enforced? Nevermind the fact that the child probably doesn't even remember the incident anymore and hence any punishment will be completely pointless.
Not to sound cruel, but at 87 years old she was expected to die any day any minute.
I would expect someone to post this, but seeing it marked as insightful is one of the saddest things I've come across on /.
Are you kidding, sueing a kid because an old woman was accidentally struck. If the kids backed the car into her fine, but because she didn't move out of the way this isn't there fault.
Well certainly no one would argue that doctors and courts shouldn't be the ultimate arbiter of which lives are "valuable."
Me neither.
Dilbert RSS feed
because they, legally, have to bear the fiscal responsibilities of their child until the child is either emancipated or turns 18. At least in the US.
Well, no, not really. The joke is that it's pretty obvious in both hindsight and foresight what should be done, but that knowledge is worthless, and the problem is actually getting it done. Captain Hindsight shows up and tells everyone what should have been done, but neither he nor anyone else makes any effort to actually correct the problem or prevent it from happening again, kind of like the GP.
Wow! How many ways can they think of breaking it? :).
Saying that a "6-year-old can be sued" provokes responses such as your. Perhaps saying "parents of a child that causes fatal injury can be sued" would make the debate more rational.
The parents are getting sued for not taking precautions against their child injuring someone with something they provided. Whether it is a bicycle or slingshot or pellet gun, the parents must bear responsibility.
If you're an unmarried college student who lost an eye to a 4-year old with a slingshot, wouldn't you want to hold that kid's parents accountable for having such a profound impact on your life? What? That patch over your eye preventing you from getting your dream date? Suck it up, it was just a kid that injured you, "what's the point" of pursuing it? After all, some internet forum post might proclaim that you're a nerd who didn't have a shot at a dream date anyways.
Just because the person who died was 87 doesn't make what happened acceptable. To that person's family who suffered by the hospital bed, it can't be easy to pretend nothing happened and say "oh well...what's the point" Who pays for their time lost from work while visiting their injured mother? Sure, as long as it wasn't you, then it is easy to say nobody should be held accountable. And since it wasn't your mother who died after surgery and three months of suffering, you can just say "what's the point" of pursuing this since she was 87.
For sure, this is an unfortunate incident for both families. But asking "what's the point" is rather pathetic.
To have a certain guilt put upon the shoulders of this 6-year old boy that he just about killed a person will do wonders, I'm sure!
It will be great to his psyche as an adolescent and a young adult.
The parents should counter-sue.
live in Europe where (almost) everybody has insurance (civil resposibility) against such things, but only if the parents admit having done something wrong during the supervision of their kids.
If they did everything right and the kid does damages, the victim has to sue the kid.
In Germany, children up to 7 years are in principle not capable of being guilty of anything. So you can't sue them. (Maybe you can sue them, but the case would be very simple: Child under seven, you've lost). In road traffic, children under 10 are never at fault. Parents will be responsible if they were negligent. So if they are insured, and the damaged party was a friend or relative, they will tend to claim to have been negligent (and insurance pays). If they are not insured, they will tend to claim they have not been negligent. And judges know that even properly supervised children are quite capable of causing damage, which then nobody will have to pay for.
So this case wouldn't have a chance in hell. For the woman who was injured and died, that would have been just bad luck. Like tripping over your own feet and hurting yourself.
You wonder what is going on in the United States, their legal system appears to be pretty much broken.
Generally broken, but working flawlessly when it's being actively malevolent, as apparently in this case.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Thank you, Captain Obvious! :)
- Corporal Redundant, Anon.
Yeah, right, pops. No jury in the world is going to convict a baby. Well, maybe Texas.
(New York, in this case).
Self defense is valid because the other person is trying to take your life when he has no right to, and by doing so in that instance he forfeits his own right not to have his life taken by another.
Murder is defined as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought". Killing someone in legal self-defense is by definition not "murder". Perhaps you meant to use kill. Words have meaning.
You can not separate the two. "Preserving the most life" and "value" are the same thing in this case. Higher odds of success has more value. Value is value.
I agree on the self defense aspect. Actually that's not even worth discussing in this context and has nothing to do with value.
The same judge is also reenacting the legal right ot have Debtors prison and Debt slavery.
Sounds like the judge needs to be disbarred and thrown into jail for the rest of his life, or at least burned at the stake by the public as a warning to the other judges. I prefer judges and other public service personnel to be publicly executed by the public for misdeeds.. Torches and Pitchforks are the answer to tyranny
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Not to sound cruel, but at 87 years old she was expected to die any day any minute.
False.
In 2006 the life expectancy of an 87 year old female was 5.78 years. Actuarial Life Table
The issue in a case like this is financial responsibilty. Fundamentally, it shouldn't matter whether it is your four year old kid who puts a woman in the hospital or your three year old German Shepherd.
You were the one who thought they were ready to be let loose on the sidewalks.
The average cost of an assisted living facility is $38,000 a year. The nursing home bed starts at about $72,000 a year and rises dramatically with the level of care required. The Average Cost of a Private Nursing Home Bed
The 80s were such a cruel time to grow up.
Yup.. I was forced to listen to Iggy-Pop if I did anything bad.... IT straightened me out fast.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Until the Federal Supreme Court says otherwise. Or changes its mind.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
if so, we're qualified to be sued the moments after we're born.
Suing the child is wrong. Sue the parents.
according to TFA, "[Justice] Wooten concluded by writing that there was no indication or evidence that "another child of similar age and capacity under the circumstances could not have reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman.""
This is such a thin argument that it will surely fall apart at the seams under the slightest scrutiny. No child aged 4 or 5 is capable of appreciating danger of anything. Their minds are not developed enough to reason in such an advanced manner.
They're using their grammar skills there.
>>>A [German] 6 year old could throw in your window and nobody, not the kid nor the parents would have to pay.
Oh. They'd pay.
Can you say "car keying"? ;-) Of course this poor old woman's DEAD and $3000 paint damage isn't really comparable is it? While accidents certainly happen, the ~$50,000 cost of 3 months in a hospital recovering from a broken hip should NOT have to be borne by the victim or her children.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
if the child is found liable:
1. The child will counter-sue for the life-long emotional trauma inflicted onto a 6 year old by a vicous lawyer placing the guilt of an old lady passing away onto the poor kid.
2. Parents will keep their kids locked up in the house wrapped in bubble wrap until they are free to emerge into the world like an 18 year old butterfly. Then you will have 200 lb 18 year olds on training wheels running into old ladies. This will only increase the number of fatalities.
3. Child obesity will soar. "No way dad! I'm not going to be one of those other irresponsible punk-ass 4-year olds that take chances with lives of random people on the side walk. Since I don't have any assets to pay for any damage I could reasonably forsee as a result of my presence among other individuals it would just be immoral for me to venture outside."
4. I will also throw myself in front of 87 year old ladies riding their Hoverounds. Given that the elderly tend to have slow reaction times I can be guaranteed to sustain some sort of injury as they run over me. And old ladies tend to have more assets than 4 year olds.
You want proof? Talk to a doctor about requirements for organ transplant recipients. Young before old, no druggies or drunks...
I've transported both the patients and the organs. I can't say I know the rhyme or the reason, but I can say that "druggies [and] drunks" are not necessarily forbidden from getting a "new lease on life". That is probably the most spectacular case. But it's not entirely unusual. And the sad irony is that many of the patients were middle-aged to elderly. Many of the donors were very young, usually teens and 20-somethings. That certainly wasn't always the case, but it was far more than I was prepared to consider.
Normally, I'd say go for a jury trial, but jurors nowadays can be so unbelievably stupid, its still a crap-shoot.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
The parents have already been determined to be not responsible. They can't sue the parents.
However, it they win against the child, then they can sue the parents as responsible for the child's debts.
In other words, they have to win two lawsuits in order to get a dime out of the family, the second easier than the first, but the first one is a doozy.
I think it's a pretty dirtbag thing to do, myself, and I hope their community vilifies the family suing a child.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Many parents have funds and savings in the name of their children. I bet that four year old has more than $1.20.
The interesting thing here is that while the children definately require supervision you can argue the elderly person involved likely did as well. You could also argue any adult should be able to look after themselves and if not should attain care to counter balance their needs. Obviously the elderly person involved is no longer here to file the lawsuit so it is likely her survivors. If they are willing to point out the lack of care or oversight on the part of the childrens parents then as we see by the result of a relatively minor accident resulting in death that the same oversight was neglected by the survivors collecting on the womans behalf. Of course I just play a lawyer on the Internet but maybe these people bit off more than they could chew or made a knee jerk reaction based upon losing someone close to them. Personally if that old person was me I would be happy that if anyone put me out of my misery it was a fresh life and the last thing I would want is to torment these kids with the thought they deserved to be punished for what they did.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
The 6 year old -- who probably has no assets beyond the two+ year old tricycle -- should hope for a speedy trial, multi-million dollar judgement, and then immediately file for bankruptcy.
In 7 years (age 13 or 14), the bankruptcy will be off her record and she can go on with her life.
</sarcasm>
Yes a successful suit can be filed against any young child. The parents will be the ones paying the tab unless somehow they did not have legal custody or control of that child. The joy of it all is that their homeowners insurance may have to foot the bill in the end.
Many more than 50. We have Tribal Courts that cover Tribal Law, the State Courts, and Federal Courts.
The systems are similar everywhere so its not like in North Dakota you have capital punishment for adultery and in South Dakota there is anarchy while Wyoming operates Sharia courts.
He was for rejecting the case because it could be argued that the accident alone wasn't sufficient for the death of the victim. My grand father broke his hip when he turned, and he died a few weeks later after surgery. So if someone was calling him at the moment and he was turning his head and breaking his hip, would you consider calling a name reason enough to pursuit a lawsuit?
You're right, the cost should be borne by insurance. Accidents happen, that's what insurance is for.
We really need to get the safety practitioners onto this one. Was ALARP really considered?
From now on, I suggest that anyone from 18 months onward (maybe upward of 24 months) must attend a one day lecture on bicycle safety. Topics (albeit high-level) will include
- Bike preparation
- Pre-ride inspection
- Acceleration/Deceleration and Breaking techniques
- Mounting/Dismounting your bike
- Parking your bike
- Helmet maintenance and safety
- Eye protection
- Laws in your relevant jurisdiction
- Footpath and Road etiquette
- Bike maintenance and repair
All bikes should also be clearly labelled with stickers to ensure parents and children understand the rules and potential consequences of bike usage.
Hopefully, this posting will give a raging boner to any safety practitioner - because the rest of us think you and your industry are out of control.
AC
There are laws about who is responsible for a loss (for instance, whether the children owe money for the old lady's injuries) and there are laws about how it can be collected (for instance, how much the defendant can pay and meet basic living expenses, and for how long one can try to collect the liability, often several years).
The old lady undoubtedly had expensive medical bills. If the children were behaving irresponsibly, it is more proper that they bear the burden of those bills than the old lady's heirs, her insurance company (which often has the same rights she does to recoup costs which were others' fault from others), or her family. It seems at least arguable that her family should be compensated for the distress at her gruesome, although perhaps essentially just accidental, death.
The children may not use significant money from day to day, but they be covered under their parents' liability insurance, or have bank accounts or trust funds in their names. Thus, the reason to sue.
Saying ""not to sound cruel" doesn't magically make this not a cruel comment." doesn't magically make GP's post a cruel comment.
The truth hurts. But it needs to be addressed.
It wasn't really the accident that killed her. It was her age.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
Not quite. In the elderly, any time being bedridden can be fatal due to various complications that can set in. They need not start off especially fragile.
That said, I agree entirely with Hairyfeet -- kids are KIDS, and maybe the old lady's family should have been looking out for her a bit better in the first place.
And maybe we should admit that sometimes accidents are just accidents, and no one is particularly to blame. The old lady and the kids, neither being at the coordinated prime of life, were likely about equally incapable of dodging each other, and Shit Happened.
The trouble with today's litigious society is that it's founded on the notion that *Someone Must Pay!* and this leads to ludicrous situations like suing little kids over stupid accidents.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
zygote sued for squatting, loss of income, medical expenses, emotional distress; or in the alternative to vacate premises
Having a blanket exemption for killing in self defense is to vague, too open. For instance, someone is coming at you to kill you and you can overt that without killing your attacker, you should be required to take that route. Your killers life is functionally less valuable than yours at the moment but not value-less.
One of those slippery slope arguments. I could also say "well the man had a knife, and angrily said 'I am going to kill you', and charged. You shot him dead. But maybe he just wanted to scare you and was going to turn and walk away at the last moment. How do you know what he was going to kill you? How do you know what he was thinking"
Life is short, things happen in a instant, several chaotic seconds sometimes. One doesn't have time to sit around pondering what is on the other persons mind. I am also not Jet Li, I don't have great physical combat skills, if my life is truly threatened I am not going to 'go easy' on someone if there is a risk to me. Don't point guns or knives at people, don't threaten others lives and you don't risk have them taking yours, that is the way it is.
However, if you are ever put in such a situation, feel free to apply your personal philosophy. No matter what happens your attacker is bound to appreciate it.
That argument cuts both ways:
By the same token, should a frail 87 year old woman be allowed to roam the sidewalks without assistance? Should she be left to her own devices, unprotected from every risk -- tripping over uneven pavement; stepping off the curb and landing wrong; her own perhaps-failing vision that didn't warn her of an oncoming hazard, such as toddlers on bicycles??
Perhaps her family should be sued for letting her out on her own, without their aid and protection. Perhaps she should be sued for failing to get out of the way of an obvious hazard, such as uncoordinated toddlers on bicycles.
Or maybe we should recognise that unless everyone lives in a bubble, sometimes stupid accidents happen and people get hurt, and no one party is to blame.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
That's criminal responsibility - and then only if it can be demonstrated that the child realised that what they were doing was wrong. IIRC you can neither sue nor be sued until you're 18 in the UK.
(ICBW, IANAL, etc etc)
Yeah...the only perverts were the just-hit-puberty kids who were riding their bikes all over creation. :)
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
This is the US most of us don't get insurance.
Car analogy:
So, if I hit a car that's so badly rusted the entire frame collapses, I'm liable to buy them a new car? No. I'm probably liable for the $300 replacement cost of a scrapyard rustbucket.
If it doesn't work this way with people, as well as cars, it should. I should not be liable for extreme bodily injury such as a fractured hip, if your osteoporosis is so bad that my actions would have caused a slight bruise for a healthy adult.
Not to mention the idea that suing a 4 year old is just crackers....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
And so families have to sue children.
God Bless America.
Sometimes reality is cruel.
You don't tell the truth to be cruel; you tell the truth to tell the truth.
Just because the truth also happens to be cruel doesn't make it any less true.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
so what does the old lady expect to be able to recover?
Probably want to get their hands on the bike as a method of self defence in future....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Of course Captain Obvious would stand up for Captain Hindsight, they are cousins.
To the gp poster Surt.. nothing personal, couldnt resist the joke.
Sucks to be you. Perhaps you should try having some of that evil socialised healthcare so you don't have to stoop so low as to sue children for accidents.
you bad man, I dawnna det my dun and shoot you, and den my daddy dawnna beat up yaw daddy taws my bigga den yaw daddy!
Don't you too me, uh-oh, I went sissy aw ovah my lawyers office.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
That's actually fallacious reasoning. Let me show you why:
Assume: All lives are equally valuable.
Case 1: Do not kill murderer: you die. Murderer has created a 1-life deficit.
Case 2: Murderer attempts to kill you, which will create a 1-life deficit. You defend yourself and kill the murderer. The outcome is a 1-life deficit. You yourself have not contributed to the life-deficit at all!
Now consider a person not intent on murder attacks you:
Case 1: Do not kill assailant: you are injured. No change in life-deficit.
Case 2: Kill assailant: assailant is dead. 1-life deficit. Here, you'd be punished for killing the assailant, as you contributed to the life-deficit.
So as you can see, the axiom "all lives are equally valuable" is consistent with "murdering in self-defense shall not be a punishable offense if you would otherwise be murdered yourself."
Depends. Was he in the US? if so I wouldn't be surprised.
ITT: WAY too many people who have never had children, telling others how they would have handled their own imaginary children.
What if it wasn't accidental? That will be determined. I too hate the litigious nature of folks now days, but sometimes it may be the only way to have others take responsibility for themselves.
So you expect a 4 year old's thought process to be "I'd better not do X because otherwise I will be sued for my pocket money."? Really? Perhaps they'd better start teaching "courts and the law" in kindergarten so they can learn about this stuff.
Yes there is a general problem with kid's discipline today but this is absolutely the wrong way to fix it. Remember that they will end up hiring a lawyer to defend the child who will make up any possible believable excuse for the child so the message the child will get is that their actions were justified because their parents and other adults said they were. Even if they lose the case the consequence is financial so the child will likely be unaware of it because of their young age so the only result I see is that it will make things a LOT worse.
I agree that the child should have been punished, a nice long time out or a spanking being the obvious choices, but suing, that's just insane and inane. My experience with 4 year olds is that they tend to be incapable of comprehending that something like that could cause serious injury or death.
It's a horrible and sad situation that happened, why compound the tragedy by abusing a small child with the legal system.
IMO that judge is complete scum.
Children below age 8-9 don't even really get the sense of "right" and "wrong".
They certainly do. What they can't do is always think about the consequences of their actions nor control their emotions. The result is that they probably knew after the fact that hitting the old lady was wrong but did not think that racing down the path towards on the bikes would lead to that.
"Here's my cwayons, my huggy bear, my Dora The Explorer backpack, my woller skates, and my puppie, Snookie. Datz all I have, Mam."
This was a kid who lives in Manhattan... Depending on where in Manhattan, there's a good chance that the parents are quite wealthy. Frequently, wealthy people hide some of their income from taxes by moving it into trust funds in the name of their children. This kid may have a couple hundred thousand in her name.
That's the thing, you can sue until you're awarded gagillions of dollars - now go and try to collect it.
It may be not as difficult as you think. The child has her whole life ahead, and her parents are still working. The victim's family would love to get 30% of all their wages, practically forever. Free money.
Completely different situation..
Accidents happen, but it seems in American everyone thinks someone should be to blame, so yes "what's the point" of this stupid lawsuit? All it will do is hurt more people then the original accident did. I wonder what the dead lady would think of her family trying to exploit her death for a dollar against a child trying to learn riding a bike and screwing up.
In France, for example, children are judged according to the same negligence standard as adults, which is much stricter than the US rule
It's absolutely not the same thing. In France, civil torts are judged not with regard to the offender's personality, but in the abstract (was there a tort, is it the result of a human being's action ?).
So a child's behavior may give ground for civil liability, but the child himself is never put on trial. His custodians are instead. In the case depicted, only the parents would be liable, even if they were supervising the activities of their toddler, by the simple fact there was a damage caused by the child.
But, again, the child himself wouldn't be held liable, and wouldn't go to trial. Only his parents. And only if he had no civil insurance, which is completely unlikely, because it comes packaged in your house insurance down here, so almost every family is covered.
There are no more perverts now than there were back then. What we have more of is paranoia.
Were you referring to the 4 year old or the 87 year old?
The worst thing about corporal punishment is that families that practice it do not adhere to the prohibition on double jeopardy.
If you're over at grandma's house and do something that causes her to spank you then you're likely to get spanked again when you get home by your parents.
How about going down to Toys R Us /sarcasm
By a small toy chair.
Rig it wit cupper wire.
And then just zap the litle terrorist.
Broadcast it national TV.
And force all kids to watch it!
Or perhaps someone should sue the judge for
Child abuse ?
Im thinking that judge must be having a serious attention disorder to exploit a 4 year kid just to make headlines.
How sick is that?
I think it's odd that more and more we treat younger kids like adults, but then let them live in mom's basement until they are 40.
What a douchebag you are.
The parents are also being sued. What was going on here is that they were trying to have the child removed from the suit because ,they argue, a 4.75 year old is not capable of negligence.
because they, legally, have to bear the fiscal responsibilities of their child until the child is either emancipated or turns 18. At least in the US.
Citation please?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Unless, of course, you happen to be a former baseball star or play keyboards for the Allman Brothers.
Then they move your old, addict ass to the front of the line...
-- Sig under construction...
In this particular case the law is working as intended. This judge has not stated if the child is negligent, guilty or anything of that nature. Instead they simply ruled on the current law which states that in their district of operation no child under the age of 4 may be sued. The suit may proceed as to determine liability, damages etc. and that is all the judge was ruling on.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Then you are arguing that old people are worth less because they, statistically, have the least amount of life left.
Learn to love Alaska
Not to sound cruel, but at 87 years old she was expected to die any day any minute.
Not to sound cruel, but we might as well allow people to go around viciously beating 87-year-olds for any reason at any time, because they are expected to die any time.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
But take one look into our sweet angelic faces and let it not be forgotten
That deep down at heart we're both really... ROTTEN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vze3NVumZ2g
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Also known as the United States of America...
--
El Guerrero del Interfaz
Not sure about the States, but in the UK self-defense is not a legal reason for killing someone. However, using reasonable force to prevent a crime, is a legal reason, even if you kill them. So if you kill a potential murderer, provided the force used was reasonable, that's perfectly legal. There's no question of what value you place on the lives involved.
The USA really has gone to the sewer!
Does this mean that because they are suing the six year old, they also will base the suit on her ability to pay? Or the parents pay? They must be rich, or else who in their right mind would do this.
The 80s were such a cruel time to grow up.
You're kidding right? I think it's significantly more cruel what we do to kids now. We let them grow up with this sense of entitlement and utter disregard for others, not to mention selling them this lie that everyone is equal to everyone else in skill and aptitude. Everyone's a winner, so no one is. I say it's time for parent's to quit farming off the education and disciple of their kids to the school and the government and start taking responsibility. Of course, in regards to this particular story, spanking would have sufficed and the lawsuit should have been laughed out of court.
What do you mean by "we", you childless troll?
It's beyond a joke when slashtards start harking back to some fucking nonexistent "golden age".
Why yes, I do have children, and they are about 1000 times more considerate of others than you are.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
No, the worst thing about corporal punishment is that it is used as a fig-leaf by child abusers.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The five-year old lives in the here and now, and doesn't comprehend the idea of long-term consequences. He has difficulty seeing a point of view that is different from his own and this can make him seem stubborn and argumentative. But, he is generally cooperative and helpful, wanting to please his parents and be good. He may come home from kindergarten talking about a child who is bad. This is a good time to help him recognize what happens when someone behaves badly and to praise him for his good behavior.
Because of five's here and now mindset, consequences for misbehavior and non-compliance should be immediate and brief. Don't expect that he'll learn his lesson the first, or even the tenth, time he receives a consequence. He hasn't yet learned self-control; and so, discipline this year involves baby steps, not giant leaps. Don't give up and don't get frustrated; just keep on giving consequences for misbehavior consistently with the attitude that he has the desire to be good, but is still learning. Distinguishes right from wrong, honest from dishonest, but does not recognize intent.
The judge is allowing a case to go forward to prove that it shouldn't go forward, and is ok doing so because he/she knows that it won't go forward?
First, the old lady is dead so she has all the time in the world.
But the reality of it is that most cities have laws about riding bicycles on the sidewalk making it illegal. It's one of those things/laws/ordinances that generally gets over looked unless there is a problem because of it. And yes, I'm well aware of how much more dangerous it is to teach a kid to ride their bikes in the street, but that's likely why they over look it until there is a problem. So allowing or encouraging the violation of a law would likely be something done wrong during the supervision of their kids.
What would socialized health care have done differently? I mean the woman is still dead.. There are still costs associated with burying them. The family of the dead women are still disadvantages because of the premature loss of the old woman.
How would that evil socialised healthcare made much of anything different?
I would if I could
Shit happens. You are not entitled to win the lottery every time something goes wrong. The old lady is dead, and this incident didn't exactly cut her life short. Her estate should be beaten to a pulp for even trying something like this. If this were a younger person "run over" by a 4 year old, there would have been no injuries whatsoever. If you can't survive a fall to the sidewalk, then you are taking a risk by going outside. You certainly can't be entitled to millions of dollars if when your time finally comes. When we were religious, if something bad happened to you then that's something that God did to you for something that you must have done. I know a lot of this stupidity is driven by insanely high medical bills that people incur when they hit the emergency room. Maybe I need to write it down somewhere: if I end up in that condition, then *please* declare me a total loss (like a car!) so that I don't have a $2Million dollar bill for a few hours at the hospital to pass on to my family. This is stupidity, and it has to stop.
Normally insurance works like that. If I get injured in an accident, that is why I have medical insurance. They pay for fixing me up. Doesn't matter if I caused it or if someone else did, they cover my bills. That's the point.
Now the only cases where this differs is in cases of negligence or if something was deliberate. If someone was negligent in their actions then they can be accountable for the harm they caused.
People need to accept that, in life, shit happens. That is the whole point of insurance, for when shit happens that you cannot afford. The actions of a 4 year old? Those count as shit happening. 4 year olds lack the mental capacity to be at all responsible for something like this. They cannot understand the consequences their actions have or plan for the future as implied. This isn't a case of "Well they should learn," no I mean they CANNOT, their brains are not developed to that stage. That whole, pesky, biology, thing.
It is just people trying to force their views, their mental state, on to someone else. Too many people have this idea that kids can understand anything an adult can, they just have to be taught. If they don't understand, well then their parents just didn't teach them well enough, or perhaps beat them enough to make it stick!
Doesn't work like that. The mind of a child is extremely different from the mind of an adult. They simply lack the ability to reason and understand as an adult can and no amount of wishing, whining, threatening, etc will do a damn thing about it. It is biology, it is how things work.
that nobody seems to ask who is suing. TFA also does not mention it.
At four years old the parents should have been watching to avoid this sort of thing.
The child should be sued because ultimately the parents will pay for not doing their job. As they should.
This was no minor injury they inflicted. It may have been a coincidence that the adult died but it was certainly because of the children and lack of oversight by their parents that the person was severely injured the last few months of their life.
Work Safe Porn
.....she was older than dirt anyway. She was 10 years past her life expectancy, if this didn't kill her, falling out of bed would have. What kind of damages can you ask for when you aren't depriving anyone of your income and you have out lived everyone else?
To be annoyingly precise: whoever's life will be extended most by the transplant should win.
This whole "treat kids like little adults" thing we have seen more and more of is stupid and ignores that children are NOTHING like little adults, both in intellect or in physical grace.
Yeah except if they send "sexy pictures" to each other then it's "child porn".
"And it will be the parents (or rather the parents insurance) who will pick up the bill."
Probably. But then it would be the parents the ones to be sued, not the child.
Regarding personal responsibility, little children are equivalent to an animal or a property (and rightly so IMHO, I should add). I must add she was not a six year old girl, as the article says, but a four year old girl (only the trial went two years before that act). Would you sue a horse that happens to break something of yours or would you sue the horse's owner?
Just from the article:
"A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street [...] Wooten concluded by writing that there was no indication or evidence that "another child of similar age and capacity under the circumstances could not have reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman."
All I can say is... WTF!!!??? And this applies both for judge Paul Wooten as much as for his colleagues that allow him to office.
"I live in Germany, and you can do fuck all to a 6 year old. A 6 year old could throw in your window and nobody, not the kid nor the parents would have to pay."
Are you sure? I don't think so.
There surely won't be criminal responsibility but there would be civil cause: when there's a damage, someone's going to pay, dolus (criminal intention) or not dolus.
Heck, if your car's emergency brakes fail and the car goes into your neighbourgh shop, you'll end up paying for the repair (or your civil insurance policy will do). It can't be any more unintended than that, but still you pay. Children (or dogs, or cars, or horses) can't be criminally prosecuted since they can't be held to criminal intention, but their custodians certainly can (and will) pay for civil damages.
"You're right, the cost should be borne by insurance. Accidents happen, that's what insurance is for."
Insurances are not any kind of magic that happens to appear when need arises. *Your* insurance company will pay *once* it's stablished that it is *you* the one held responsible for the paying.
In other words, your insurance policy will only pay if and when it is you the one that has to pay (and the payment cause lies within the insurance policy, of course).
"If you're over at grandma's house and do something that causes her to spank you then you're likely to get spanked again when you get home by your parents."
And rightly so.
"Of course I just play a lawyer on the Internet but maybe these people bit off more than they could chew or made a knee jerk reaction based upon losing someone close to them."
Maybe, but since there was a damage it seems proper to look after retaliation. But looking after retaliation doesn't mean that "the ones that must know" should accept *any* kind or way to seek retaliation. In my book, judge Paul Wooten is more guilty -by orders of magnitude, by accepting the sue than the old woman's family by filling it.
Well it was fun while it lasted.
"The trouble with today's litigious society is that it's founded on the notion that *Someone Must Pay!* and this leads to ludicrous situations like suing little kids over stupid accidents."
While I'm enterily with your argument, I have a problem with your conclusion. The fact is that, no matter what, somebody *DO* pay (the woman did die, the woman did get hospitalized and buried, etc.), so it's a substantiated matter to decide about *who* is going to pay.
I have no problem with civil causes... as long as they are properly managed (in this case -and a lot of other, "you made a pervert and stupid use of justice, like suing a four year old girl? You pay. Dearly").
C'mon moderators, give this guy a break. That was actually pretty funny. I don't think he was seriously trolling.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
"well the man had a knife, and angrily said 'I am going to kill you', and charged. You shot him dead. But maybe he just wanted to scare you and was going to turn and walk away at the last moment. How do you know what he was going to kill you? How do you know what he was thinking"
There's the figure of criminal negligence. An adult charging with a knife somebody that's holding a gun and expecting nothing bad should happen is commiting criminal negligence. That's why such a defense wouldn't hold water: maybe he thought to walk away in the last moment, but it doesn't make any difference, it was still criminally stupid.
"There's no question of what value you place on the lives involved."
Of course there is. It's implicit within your *reasonable* force. If an inocent life were as valuable as the one of a criminal within his criminal intent, then it would be no way you could apply reasonable force against the criminal in such a manner that the criminal ended up dead: the very fact the he died would be argument enough to probe you were beyond reasonable force.
NY Judge gets sued by six year old! The six year old was only 4 when the NY Judge admitted to kicking the little girl's bike with training wheels into the path of a bus. When recently interviewed, the little six year old screamed "I WANT MY BIKE BACK! NOW!"
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
Yeah but look how you turned out? You post on /.
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
Yes, but you can get a lot of that within a state or city too, especially a bigger city. You'll have an area that's predominantly white, black, Chinese, or whatever.
First, I'll state that I'm not an American, but rather I'm one of your northern Canadian neighbors. It's funny because I can definitely notice differences in upbringing and culture between Americans and Canadians, but I can also notice a lot of similarities, and I'll bet that the influence of American TV tends to increase those over time.
But hell, I can go to Vancouver (BC) or Toronto (Ontario), and see big cultural differences in a regional sense, and people nearly hate each other in those areas too. Try shopping in some areas of Richmond (Greater Vancouver Area, predominantly Chinese) and you'll be lucky to get any service if you're not Chinese or with a Chinese friend. Heck, a lot of provinces/cities have a hate-on for Toronto, and don't even get me *started* on Quebec.
But to compare that to Europe still seems a bit silly. At least for the most part I can go to a restaurant in North America and order a coffee/coke in English. Yeah, some people have funny accents that makes it a bit hard to understand, and there are areas that are culturally a bit non-english, but for the most-part there's still a lot of *sameness* too.
#1 Doesn't matters. If a kid cannot do contracts or have full rights of an adult, you cannot expect them to have the full responsibilities of an adult either. I guess you are too dumb to understand this basic social concept and principle of equality?
Neither issue is directly on point for this case. If the case is based on the intentional tort of battery, then all that's necessary is to ascertain whether or not the kid knew that she was going to hit the lady with her bike. If she hit her deliberately, then whether or not the defendant knew the contact could result in the kind of injury that happened (i.e. whether the kid understood the consequences of her actions) is utterly irrelevant for liability in battery.
See Garratt v. Dailey (Wash. 1995), a case that almost all first-year torts text books cover about a 5 year old who yanked a chair out from under an old lady as she was sitting down.
If it's a case based on negligence, then the plaintiff is going to have to establish that the child's actions were beyond the standard of care for a reasonable person. The majority of courts adjust this standard for children to that of a reasonable person of their age group, so I think the family of the deceased is going to have a really tough time with this.
In the end, though, it's going to be the parents that have to foot the bill anyway if the kid loses. This story is non-news. The ability to sue children for their actions is long-established. Whether the family of the deceased can prevail against the girl is another matter, but all the judge did here is say that the case passes the minimum requirement needed to establish a claim that can be tried, which isn't exactly hard.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
[H]ow could the kids have possibly known their actions would lead to the death of the elderly woman.
It doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not they understood that their actions could have resulted in an injury of some sort and whether (a) their actions were intentional or (b) if acting as a reasonable person (of their age) they could have prevented the injury by taking reasonable care and whether the cost of avoiding an injury was greater than the likelihood of it happening times the cost of the injury.
The "thin skull rule" says that you are still liable for injuries that are grossly out of proportion with what you expect a normal person to suffer if you would have been liable for the injuries that a normal person would have taken. If you'd be liable for bonking someone on the head hard enough to bruise them, then you'd also be liable if the hit unexpectedly caved their fragile skull in.
That being said, if a broken hip was enough to kill the woman, I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but it's likely that something else would have taken her out in relatively short order as well. A running dog, a sudden noise, a slippery step, a moment of disorientation.
That's true of every single death on the planet. If your actions didn't kill someone, they would have died anyway. Shooting someone trapped in a burning building is still murder. What matters is that the crash with the bike was the proximate cause of her death. Other contributing factors do not automatically absolve you of all responsibility, and the health of the victim is explicitly off-limits for blame shifting when injury leads to death.
It's not the old woman's fault for being old, and she shouldn't have her life cheapened as a result of it.
Now, to play the devil's advocate, if I were a defense lawyer on this one, I would look into the woman's dietary and exercise history: if I could show that with better diet and exercise, other people her age would have reasonably been able to recover from such an accident, I could probably minimize or even remove my client's liability.
It's a good thing you're not their lawyer then, because the absolute best you could do there is reduce damages for wrongful death by cutting down her life expectancy. Even if she didn't die, the kid's still potentially liable for lesser injuries. It's not like we have a "no death, no foul" rule for battery or negligence much less the insane Spartan rule you suggest.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
In the end, that's all they're doing anyway. The kid isn't going to be financially liable for her acts. It's the parents who will be. Remember that "liability" in a civil case isn't really about moral right and wrong but about whether or not the victim deserves to be compensated for their injuries and by whom. Doctrines of vicarious liability are mostly legal fictions to determine whether or not the latter cause is served more than the former.
People get upset about civil liability when they think of it as, "Who did wrong?" more than, "Who should have to pay for this?" Sometimes the two are distinct, as in this case.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Note: The article seems to imply that death resulted from the injury. This is not the case. She died for unrelated reasons. The case is purely about a non-death injury and can still go forward.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Yes, sometimes it's reasonable to "make someone pay" (achieve a fitting vengeance). But other times... it's like this case, not even reasonsable as *revenge* (what rational person takes revenge on a child, or for an accident?)
The trouble is we've gotten into a legal habit of assuming someone is ALWAYS at fault, and therefore ... "someone must pay", even if that's completely irrational. Of course, it's also the most profitable situation for the ambulance-chasing lawyers.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Never mind. It seems that her death is completely unrelated to the injury and not at controversy in the case.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Well, let's see how "honorable" Mr. Wooten spends his money....
from opensecrets.....
---------------
WOOTEN, PAUL
BROOKLYN,NY 11201 SELF/ATTORNEY 3/31/06 $2,000 Clarke, Yvette D (D)
Wooten, Paul
Brooklyn,NY 11201 Paul Wooten & Associates/Owner 11/17/04 $250 DNC Services Corp (D)
WOOTEN, PAUL
BROOKLYN,NY 11201 PAUL WOOTEN & ASSOC./ATTORNEY 7/23/04 $250 Towns, Edolphus (D)
WOOTEN, PAUL
BROOKLYN,NY 11217 ATTORNEY AT LAW 10/15/97 $250 Vitaliano, Eric (D)
WOOTEN, PAUL
BROOKLYN,NY 11217 ATTORNEY AT LAW 8/30/97 $250 Vitaliano, Eric (D)
WOOTEN, PAUL ESQ
BROOKLYN,NY 11216 ATTORNEY 4/23/92 $250 Brooklyn Democrats
WOOTEN, PAUL ESQ
BROOKLYN,NY 11216 ATTORNEY 4/3/91 $250 Brooklyn Democrats
----------------------
I know it's a common meme to say there's no difference between the parties.
But tort reform is one big difference. Stories like this are why.
There's only one thing that profits from 4 year olds getting sued. And it's not society.
$50k for 3 months in a hospital. In the U.S.? LOL. Get real. Another dreamer off by an order of magnitude. Points of reference, all at a major U.S. academic hospital:
- outpatient impacted molar removal (all 4) under general anestesia at the dept. of dentistry: $4k
- 45 minute outpatient hernia surgery: $10k
- 5 days of stay after flatlining in ER due to clostridium difficile infection: $50k
- uncomplicated delivery via a cesarean section, total mother + child: $40k
A mother of a friend of mine's stayed at an assisted living facility for the elderly. Monthly bill was around $7k. And that was a pretty low-key place.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I suspect many parts of the US have wanted California to leave the Union since they found out its slogan was "California: the land of fruits and nuts".
87? That's 66 years late for her date with the Sandman...
Organ transplant triage is based on success rates, not the value of life. The young and those with no chemical dependencies or complicating conditions have a documented higher success rate. They can undergo the extremely traumatic procedures and will be more likely to have positive outcomes. This is, in fact, based ultimately on the fact that two lives *are* equal. Given the choice between a 70% chance of saving one life and a 40% chance of saving another, which is the more responsible choice of action? If, on the other hand, there were a surplus of suitable organs, then such procedures would be done to these less attractive patients. Triage is about preserving the most life, not selecting which is more valuable.
That's some funny weaseling I'd say. There's no such thing as saving a life. We all die sooner or later. So you mentioning a chance of saving someone is utterly meaningless. You only turn out right when you say "preserving the most life": yes, it's about how many days recipient A is expected to live vs. recipient B. The one with higher number wins. Pretty simple.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Sounds like a systemic issue. If she was so frail that a 30 pound 4 year old could kill her she should of been in a facility. The kids shouldn't of been in a public place where they were a nuisance and a danger to others. That should probably be a fine of 20$. If you want to live in a place without the proper areas to ride bikes your kids don't get to ride bikes.
should've is a conjunction of "should have", not "should of"
"Everyone gets one" -Spidergrammerman
Doofus, it's her family who is suing: the lawyers are not suing on their own behalf!! The family is on the hook for legal bills, I'd guesstimate anywhere between $500k to $1M. Imagine you'd suddenly become liable for that amount of money. You'd sue everyone and their mother too, it's merely a matter of self-preservation. The alternative is to go bankrupt, like many do in the U.S. due to medical bills.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I'd guess the relatives got the bill.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Wow I dont think I want to live in a nation of the litigious where we go around suing everything that breaths. Seriously a 4 year old? Whats next Mr Prosecutor? Will you sue a dog that bites someone next? Maybe a newborn who's mother passes away giving birth? To the family of the deceased my condolences. To the defendant this may be an opportunity to use the Survival of the fittest defense. The judge is only following what the statutes says he must so we shouldnt be too harsh on him; but whom ever started this lawsuit should be sentenced to work at a daycare facility full of 4 year olds for a couple months to learn first hand just what a 4 year old is capable of.
Her parents should sue the judge! No child of 4 (or now 6) should have to go through the trauma of being accused (or being led to believe they have) of murder. She may be scarred for life now. This story will now follow her for the rest of her life. The family of the woman who died should show some forgiveness and understanding and plea to the could for the decision to go ahead reversed.
Lets just ignore that she's 89 years old and would've died soon, probably in the same way too as falling over is quite a common occurrence; only this time they have a finger to point for hospital fees, if it weren't the child it'd be the owner of a mall or the maker of her shoes etc.
So as far as my argument of socialized health care? Shit happens and people need medical treatment, it's a basic and universal need for *everybody* in the world.
You're either being funny, trolling, or an idiot.
Why can't they be all three?
Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
If it's proven that the child was responsible, then obviously the financial liability rests with the parents. Since the parents didn't themselves commit the act they can't be directly sued for it. This mother (who was in this case "supervising") has a child, she is responsible for that child's actions. It's hardly the old woman's fault that the mother has a child or allowed that child to race a bike down a sidewalk. If your kid breaks my window, I don't care if they're 1 or 4 or 12, you're paying for it. I don't care if you were or weren't properly supervising them, they're your responsibility. Likewise, if it had been the mother's dog that attacked the old woman the dog would be put down and the mother held liable for medical costs. The reason the child can be sued is that it can testify and via certain legal mechanisms a child can even own property (typically held in trust).
Yes, the ruling can be made to sound odd, but it makes perfect sense.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
He's right. If the parents don't fail to supervise the kid (as appropriate for the age and character of the child) or if supervision would not have prevented the damage, then the parents are not responsible for the damage and consequently not liable. Children under 7 years of age are not responsible for anything they do, so they're not liable either (explicitly stated in the law, BGB 828).
Sue the little kikes!
... are just gettin' their own licks back at Hell's Grannies
Infants are not missing brain matter. They have merely outsourced it to parents.
Considering this was caused mostly by the woman's pre-existing condition it should be treated the same way as a death from natural causes.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
"Yes, sometimes it's reasonable to "make someone pay""
No, no, no... that's not my point. My point is that indeed someone does pay. The hospital and bury bills got payed, didn't they? The sons of the old woman lost her mother, didn't they (for an emotional payment).
"The trouble is we've gotten into a legal habit of assuming someone is ALWAYS at fault"
With regards of civil cases it is not someone being at fault but someone being held responsible. That's specially obvious for monetary issues but can be extended to emotional damages too.
"and therefore ... "someone must pay""
As I already stated, the fact is that someone *does* pay. As long as there's a bill involved, someone does pay it (even if it's the one producing the service if nobody else puts the money).
"even if that's completely irrational."
But it's not irrational. Let's take the extreme case of "faultless" incident: the so called "act of god". You own, say, a hut in the forest; it's stroken by a thunder and it becomes ashes. Evidently, nobody is at fault. But still there will be bills and someone will pay for them to rebuild your hut (you).
That's the point for civil cases: there are bills and they are payed. Now, who's gonna pay them?
Yes, poor family. This kind of thing sucks a lot of money from one part of the economy and onto the legal system. It's mainly in the lawyers' interest: the family could just as well invest their money on the lottery.
If a child does vandalism such as graffiti, or breaks a window, are the parents not liable? The child's parents have shown that they may require their home insurance policy or personal liability insurance to extend to their dependant offspring.
They old woman was unlucky and it cost her, her life. That is tragic. But what about the trauma the children and parents have faced for the past two years.
The law suit should proceed. There needs to be a precedent and closure.
That was sarcasm...
Inevitable expenses... Who's gonna pay them? With civil cases, quite often an innocent party who just happened to have enough money to make them worth suing.
Yeah, everything has a cost. But that's not the point of the ambulance chaser philosophy of "Someone Must Pay!" That point is to create blame where none truly existed, for the purpose of extracting money, of which the lawyer takes 30% to 50%.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Please oh please let New York be the very first area of the world to be taken out when the asteroids start falling. What's next? Suing babies in the womb?
I recommend the movie/documentary "Wisconsin Death Trip" if you want to see just how little has changed in 100+ years.
HAND.
There are more people now than in the past. Even if the percentage stays the same the numbers increase. If you live in a city, the chances are that population density has increased meaning that your percentage chance of meeting a pervert has increased. If because population density increases ease of transportation also increases (because you have better buses or whatever), then the range that a pervert can roam may also increase, increasing your chance of meeting one. Finally, the reporting of crimes involving child molestation etc seems to be increasing (although I have no evidence to support my feeling). If this is true it is possible that the reporting itself may have an effect on the actions of people. I live in Japan and whenever someone commits suicide in a bizarre manner inevitably there is a rash of copycat suicides. I think it is wrong to conclude that reporting of suicide induces suicide, but the manner of suicide is often affected. This may be the case in child molestation too. The reporting may not affect the chance of someone molesting someone, but I don't think it is unlikely that it might affect their decision of who to molest (i.e., a family member as opposed to a stranger).
To conclude, while the rate of child molestation in the population may not have increased, the absolute rate of child molestation may very well increase. And the type of molestation and choice of victim could easily be affected by the publicity given by other cases. So the impression that certain types of molestation are on the increase could be very real.
Of course this is speculation and I haven't actually looked at any data...
INAL, but I see a common flaw in the complaints about this. It seems that a lot of people are claiming that a 4-year-old can't have malice so therefore she can't be held civilly responsible. Let me point out, that in most adult collision cases with cars, the responsible person is RARELY accused of malice. While malice is a nice thing to throw in for punitive damages, it's not required for compensatory damages. Simply being at fault is required for compensatory damages.
"Inevitable expenses..."
They are still expenses, so it's worth the question "inevitable... to whom?"
"With civil cases, quite often an innocent party who just happened to have enough money to make them worth suing."
That's an orthogonal issue, unrelated to the first one. One thing is "someone's gonna pay" and a different one "is our justice system good enough so the one that ends paying is felt by society in general the one that in fact should pay?"
"for the purpose of extracting money, of which the lawyer takes 30% to 50%."
That's related to the second question, not the first one. Of course if somebody makes money out of muddying the waters (the attorney) isn't it expected for him to muddy the waters? And if such, wouldn't we do something to counter that?
You must not live in the U.S., or else you've never experienced getting medical bills.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
>>>most of us don't get insurance.
"Most"? False. Recent studies show that only 8 million or about 2% of Americans are not insured by a private company or the government.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
There's a need for a safety net to help those too poor to pay their bills (i.e. less than 5% in the US).
There's not a need for a government monopoly to pay every little stupid thing, like wiping the patient's runny nose. Let people pay their own bills and only have the government step-in when the citizens runs out of cash (i.e. the safety net).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
My local hospital charges $500/day for a stay. Multiply by 90 and you get $45,000 which I rounded to an even number (about 50,000).
I did not include cost of hip replacement surgery because I don't know what it was, but for my family member have spent just $8000 for a pacemaker implant and $12,000 for hysterectomy. Not millions of dollars over 3 months as you falsely claim.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Wow, that's some cheap hospital you got -- consider yourself lucky.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Yep. Same conclusion the organ transplant lists came to.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
You are missing it. Yes, if a child commits vandalism, THE PARENT is liable. That is, you may sue THE PARENT for the damages. What you are actually suing for is the parent negligently failing to control the child's behavior adequately to prevent the damages.
The judge here is saying that instead, the plaintiff may sue the actual 6 year old child directly.
For even trying that, I sincerely hope they get nothing.
I don't see where this is going AT ALL. money from the parents for the accidental death of an 86 year old woman? I want to know what jury would convict a 6 year old girl of anything. I think that the plaintiff should have to explain to the little girl what happened and exactly why she is being sued in front of the court. Maybe the counter-suit for emotional trauma will be enough to send her to a good college.
Yes, but that's because the parents are responsible for the child's actions. That also means if anyone is going to be sued, it should be the parents.
A jury of her peers, right? Can you imagine trying to get a dozen four-year-olds to sit still for ten minutes, much less through a whole trial?
And then there would be the potty breaks, the snack breaks, the "he looked at me funny" breaks, the "she's touching me" breaks... yeah, I would also say go for a jury trial. That would be hilarious.
The little bastards! They're a menace! Can't they try them as adults and go for the death penalty? Or at least life without parole?
Wow. What an amazing way to prove his point by using yourself as an example. How ironical.
This is outrageous. The amount of stress the judge is inflicting on this little girl is tantamount to child abuse. Someone should lock him up.
Paranoia, and scaremongering media hell-bent on increasing readership/viewership (and thus advertising revenue).
It's official. Most of you are morons.
That's actually really inefficient. It's cheaper in the long run to pay for all medical treatments than to only pay for the ones the patient can't afford. Think of it like developing software, if you catch the problem early it's orders of magnitude cheaper to treat.
There's a reason every other country in the world pays less for health care than the United States.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Well if the child or its parents cannot be held responsible, then it must be classified as an accident and your insurance would pay for it?
Okay, substitute "intend" for "plan". That's the point anyway. Back on point, pardon me...
Kids can intend harm. People need to relax and free themselves from the urges that their feelings push them around with.
I find it interesting that people here are highly modding comments that support their urge to hold children utterly blameless, rather than ones that represent the truth.
Let's look at it this way: Imagine an adult hits a child because the child ate the adult's cookie. It's dumb to argue whether the kid ate the cookie. It's dumb to argue whether they wanted to eat the cookie. It's dumb to argue whether they intended to eat the cookie, or whether they knew it belonged to someone else. The issue is not that the kid is performing kid-like behavior. The issue is whether the kid ought to be hit. If you overly focus on your emotional reaction to how kids should not be hit because they don't know better, then you'll fight anything that resembles showing that kids might know better. Resembles. Like showing that kids have agency or intentionality. Appalling illogicality, resisting truths because they're in the neighborhood of an idea that one abhors. It's surprisingly childish, having one's rationality blurred so badly by the forces of one's emotions.
As for morality, all that's needed is a conception of the suffering of others. You could find a way to imprison and torture people for the rest of their natural lives and it would be evil. A proper grasp of the concept of death is not required to do evil.
that's not how the law works. IF your action was a tort, simply bumping into someone is not a tort, but recklessness or malace would make it a tort, then you are responsible for the damages, even if you didn't think it would be as harmful as it was.
failing to supervize your children is negligence.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
So you're saying that if I'm attending the store, and some wicked man tries to kill me for the money, I must let the man shoot me so I will not be deemed (by your opinion) "murderer"?
It's like this here in Uruguay too. If an armed robber enters a store, and the owner defends himself by shooting him (because otherwise, it would be him who would be shoot), and the robber dies, the man goes to jail, the robber's family claims for "justice", and then the F*CKING RETARDED BASTARD "Human Rights Organizations" come and use all their power and influence to make the store owner (the would-be victim) look like a twisted cold-blooded assassin.
You can see it everyday here at the local news.
-- The Big Head