6-Year-Old Child Sued In New York

Submitted by: almightybob1 6 years ago in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376

Seriously America. What the hell.
There are 269 comments:
Male 5,413
I`m not too sure. This is hard to pick sides. If she sued for money, then she`s a greedy buttwipe. But it seems she didn`t but went along to sue the child anyway. But that child has to live with the fact they killed someone. That`s a HUGE weight to have on your shoulders.
0
Reply
Male 6
@jtrebowski. That`s still not really suffering. The parent`s don`t have to pay a dime, and most likely will be able to counter-sue for the lawyer fees. If they counter-sue, theres almost no way they lose, so they don`t lose money, and they don`t lose a lot of time because their legal counsel does all their work.

Really not much of a pain in the ass.
0
Reply
Male 105
If there is an actual case of Malpractice or Negligence, they should be sued. The big problem is that everyone wants a "Jackpot" ruling for every little thing they can think of.

I agree that the child shouldn`t be sues but the parents should be held responsible for the actions of minors in their care.
0
Reply
Male 105
It is currently in.

I typed a bit too fast...
0
Reply
Male 105
@jtrebowski The tort reform I am talking about is along the lines of stopping ambulance chasers and people suing just to see if they can win even thought there is no evidence of Malpractice. Many alleged malpractice cases are settled out of court even if there wasn`t any malpractice due to a settlement being cheaper than fighting it in court. If there was a penalty (such as having to pay the cost of the defense) for both the Plaintiff and the Prosecuting Attorney if they lose in a case of Frivolous Litigation it would help prevent many cases from clogging up our overworked court system. And hopefully cure the U.S. of the sue-happy state is is currently in.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Fuego is that the most interesting thing you have to say? I`ll wager yes :-)
0
Reply
Male 3,369
@Nvet: Seriously? If some doctor negligently causes harm or death to your loved one, you want the government to determine how much his/her life is worth? wow. That`s cold.
0
Reply
Male 3,369
@monkey: I doubt dealing with a lawsuit is nothing less than a major pain in the ass, especially when you have mean right-wingers blaming your little girl for a death.
0
Reply
Male 105
Yet another case that proves that the US needs tort reform. Which would help in more ways than people realize. It would drastically reduce insurance premiums for everyone from homeowners to Doctors, and hopefully lower costs in the long run...
0
Reply
Male 6
@suicism. She`s being held responsible for negligence, which caused her death. Murder is a criminal case while this is a civil torts case. Two different things there.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
I`m not sure if this has been mentioned, but - if a six-year-old girl can be held responsible due to her maturity and intelligence (at the age of four, no less) when it comes to murder, then couldn`t a 14-year-old boy when it comes to sex?
0
Reply
Male 6
@jtrebowski. And how would the parents suffer? They won`t have to pay a dime. And if their lawyer is halfway decent, he`d initiate a counter-suit to pay for his fees.
0
Reply
Male 1,287
wow...over 250 comments. I`d wager a third of them are notTHATbored. wtg
0
Reply
Male 2,345
ok this has to be said, drat YOU to all the non-nice individuals that sue everyone else for every damn thing they can think of.

America is officially not worth a good god damn anymore and it is because of poo like this.
0
Reply
Male 3,076
haha now America is really drated up XD
0
Reply
Male 3,369
@ Monkey: maybe that`s the idea. They may not be after money, but just trying to make the parents suffer. If that`s the case, it`s just a matter of being vindictive.
0
Reply
Male 3,369
elkingo said: "How do you see this as frivolous? There was medical bills incurred, and pain and suffering."

I don`t believe they`re suing for the bills or P & S. They`re suing over her death, in which case the argument could be made to go after the doctor instead, because he /she only kept her alive THREE MONTHS!!! With that being said, I was only bringing up "frivolous lawsuits" because conservatives are notorious for whining about the need for tort reform.
0
Reply
Male 2,893
The bitch ass judge should be hanged for being a faggot.
Also, she probably sued them because she knew she was gonna die anyways. She just wanted to hurt someone because she wasn`t going to be there to take the blame.
What a c*nt.
0
Reply
Male 6
It`s funny. Most people in here are assuming that the lady is going to get the money from the parents. However, Parents are generally not held liable for their children`s torts, including negligence. I reviewed the suit and she didn`t sue the parents at all for negligence, only the child. Whoever her lawyer was seriously misstepped, because she won`t be able to receive any money from just the suit against the child, even if she wins.
0
Reply
Male 90
i think just knowing they accedently killed someone is punishment enough i think they should just be left alone before they are scarred for life
0
Reply
Male 2,229
This is a straight up WFT. American litigation style.
0
Reply
Male 1,057
@mkkloote: Where do you draw the line on whether a life is valuable or not? Betty White is 88. Do we run her over and say "Oh Well. She lived a good life, had fame and fortune so nobody can complain"???

How about on the other end of the spectrum? We run over a toddler and say "Well he was from a broken home, wasn`t contributing to society, wouldnt have amounted to much so Oh Well".

Your argument gets you into areas where we (and the courts) don`t need to go. Was it a human life? What contributed to its suffering or e
nd? That`s what needs to be dealt with.
0
Reply
Male 1,057
@elkingo: Criminal charges are brought by the prosecutor on behalf of `the people`. Civil suits are brought by the person suffering the damage.

@almightybob: Many places the parents can only be sued for the WILLFULL misconduct of the child. In cases where it is not willfull, ie a `true accident` the parents could not be held liable and therefore the children are sued. As a practical matter, they should all be sued and let the judge figure it out.
0
Reply
Male 833
wow... just wow. to me this just looks like they are trying to sue the parents by going through their kids. i mean what are they gonna charge them with? intentional murder? cause i doubt they did this on purpose.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@jtrebowski

How do you see this as frivolous? There was medical bills incurred, and pain and suffering.
0
Reply
Female 106
The poor children are probably a lot more freaked out than the family of the lady.
They must feel crappy to know that they might have accidentally caused the death of another. :/
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@almightybob:

Right, but they way laws are written in the US, the prosecutor would have to brig the charges against the child. If they win, the parent will be the one paying the damages.

But you know, if people were honorable, this would have never went to court. They should have known that as a result of the child`s actions, someone got hurt -- and should have sought to make things "right".
0
Reply
Male 3,431
The suit should be effing dropped, and the dumb asses that brought it should be drop kicked.
0
Reply
Male 4,680
"He also wrote that the Juliet`s lawyer had presented no evidence as to the child`s lack of intelligence or maturity, nor that "a child of similar age and capacity" would not have understood the danger of riding a bicycle into an old woman."

Tha... that`s just it. I give up. The newspapers are right, common sense really IS dead.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]If you or your child breaks something, or damages something as a result of you or your child`s actions, whether under your supervision or else. You pay for it.[/quote]
You do. The child does not. Therefore the suit should be against the parents. Not the child.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Only in America :-):-)
0
Reply
Female 28
Okay, so the lady passed away, and sure, the MAIN precipitating factor was a little TODDLER on a bike, but in reality, she WAS 87, and I`ve worked in an orthopedics unit before, and older people just don`t do well after those types of operations, so she probably got an infection or just deteriorated, but still, in my opinion, 87 years is a good long life, and who knows, maybe she would have broken her hip anyway, because after menopause, females have really horrible bones & joints...but yeah...lets just sue the 4 year old...a year after the fact...WTF
0
Reply
Male 4,793
Yeah, they should just grab their kids and run to another country.
0
Reply
Male 3,369
@elkingo: Actually, it`s quite murky, asis your current stance on "frivolous" lawsuits.
0
Reply
Female 2,695
when i was learning how to ride a bike i ran into my neighbor`s dog and they yelled at me and i cried
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I was raised to think and act responsibly. If you or your child breaks something, or damages something as a result of you or your child`s actions, whether under your supervision or else. You pay for it. It is called responsibility, and fidelity.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@jtrebowski

I don`t argue with ad hominem. My position on rape, assault, and negligence is relatively clear.
0
Reply
Female 3,001
wow, only in America...
0
Reply
Male 3,369
Elkingo, I can`t see how conservatives like you get throught the day without tripping over your knuckles. You`re holding a four year old liable for being a four year-old ( I mean really, if she`s to be held accoutable to this level at her age, who`s to say she`d need supervision at all while playing on a New York street, right?), yet, if the old lady had been raped, you`d come up with some sort of roosteramamie story about how she deserved it because of the way she dressed.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
From the i-am-bored link: "She underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died three months later."

That makes it sound like they are suing from wrongful death. Not the case at all.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Aha, something I found makes even more sense.

Here

She did die three months later, and that is not what the case is about - she died of something unrelated.

Her son is continuing the lawsuit and is suing for negligence that resulted in injury. The son wants the parent to pay for medical bills as a result of the injury. Makes more sense.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@Red Fear,

that quote is a half quote, and it taken out of context. That is how progressives build an argument, state half of something.

Here is the full quote:

"The judge ruled there was no evidence of Juliet’s lack of intelligence or maturity or anything to indicate 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."
0
Reply
Male 68
The Judge said she had "presented no evidence she lacked intelligence or maturity`

Apart from the fact that she was four years old at the time!!!
0
Reply
Male 337
really? WTF?
0
Reply
Male 2,332
Maybe they should sue God for creating old age, which inadvertenly led to this 87 year old woman`s demise.

Yeah..that sounds logical.
0
Reply
Female 331
I know that many elderly people go south after breaking their hip...regardless, an accident is an accident. You`re going to sue a child for doing what kids do? I mean, there`s got to be some way to handle this outside of suing a 4-year old...
0
Reply
Male 4,807
She underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died three months later.

THREE MONTHS LATER?!!

I`d be suing her hip doctor.
0
Reply
Male 1,010
When two persons collide in a situation like this, they both have equal responsibility for their injuries to begin with. Then you have to enterpret where it can be moved, according to the facts. Fact here is that this was a child under 10 and a grown person.

This "old lady" was an adult, and obviously able to take care of her self. If she is to weak to cope with things that you may expect to encounter when in a public place, like kids on bicycles, as an adult person you have to take the neccesary measures to secure yourself. The child was not acting in a way that is unnatural or especially negligent. Here we have a 10 years minimum age for negligence. Surprised it`s not the same in the US, these laws a pretty alike in US/Europe. (Most differences are in how large the payments are)
0
Reply
Female 7,994
Well, now I know that the NHS- which has treated me, and everyone I know, humanely and well for many years is actually not treating us at all- we dreamt it. Secondly- can anyone understand the concept of an accident? Amazingly, they do happen. This was one- tragic yes, but you cannot hold a small child to blame. Sometimes there is no point to it- and this would be one in most other countries.
0
Reply
Male 5,314
what does he want, all her legos?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"Could you really expect a FOUR year old to have complete control over a bike. Really?"

Exactly why her parents should be held responsible, because knowing that they allowed her to ride her bike where hitting someone was a possibility. Not that they were wrong perse for doing it, but they should be responsible for the old ladies medical bills. You are responsible when you give your unskilled bike and let her cruise around the same way you would be responsible if you gave your unskilled kid a ball and a bat and they broke a window! Not responsible criminally, but financially.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Reganom Your definition fails to define "the situation" which is what you asked me to do.

"The use of the word hit doesn`t define the situation. Was i running at the car? was i stationary?"

We can play semantics all day really and ask each other what the definition of "hit" is or what "the situation" has to be for something to be considered getting "hit", however I don`t think that most people would be fooled. Most people know what it is to "hit" something. They know when they see something being "hit". They know what it is when one car "hits" another even if the other car was moving too, even if two cars are moving towards each other they could almost certainly pick out which car "hit" which. Ask people what it means to hit something, they won`t be confused. Now if the kid didn`t "hit" her than that is another story, but based on what we know she did.
0
Reply
Male 105
Seriously, W T F. Very unfortunate ACCIDENT for the elderly lady. Could you really expect a FOUR year old to have complete control over a bike. Really? This judge is negligent, not the child.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] If you lost a loved one to a bicycle race, you would want justice too. [/quote]

I would want to burn alive every child involved for daring to accidentally knock over my ancient, frail and expensive grandmother!
0
Reply
Male 521
Wow. I actually have a 4 your old son and I assure you that they have no concept of life and death consequences. It`s sad that the woman has passed away in such a terrible way but the kids can`t be held responsible. They`re completely oblivious to the world around them. Honestly they were just as likely to ride right out into the street as to run into someone. Just chock it up to one of life`s terrible accidents.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Wow. This is remarkably stupid. In my mind there are just too many reasons why this series of events should not have taken place...

It was an accident
The girl was too young
The old woman was senile
The old woman could have been taken care of freely, why should you have to pay for emergency care?
The death happened months later, when she was 87 - probably of other causes.
The old woman`s son accepts it was an accident, as he is *probably not* senile.
The old woman`s son accepts that it is unlikely that the court will rule in his favor.
The son accepts that he is unlikely to be paid by the family of the kid, as few can.
The son accepts that it is silly to ask to be compensated for medical bills for a person who is already dead, least of all from the now 6-year old girl.
The son accepts that if there is any blame at all, which there isn`t, it should rest on the parents of the kid.
The judge throws out the case as it is more than a year old
0
Reply
Female 1,515
I don`t get it. In the article it says the Supreme Court Judge stated that since she is 6 NOW she can be sued...but she was 4 at the time of the accident and isn`t that the age that matters?

I honestly don`t think the children or the mothers should be sued. Honestly these kids are 4 it`s not like they were being speed demons on the sidewalk. And I`m pretty sure a 4 year old doesn`t intentionally run into an old lady. Just a bad luck situation.
0
Reply
Male 207
I fear for humanity.
0
Reply
Male 208
Sued? She should be sent to prison for Manslaughter!
0
Reply
Male 840
The judge "also wrote that Juliet`s lawyer presented to evidence as to lack of intelligence or maturity" as compared to the judge himself who presented a prima facie case of his own lack of intelligence.
0
Reply
Male 1,162
This is disgustingly hilarious. I mean, these people are monsters. Its sad that your grandma died because of this tragedy but the kid was 4 drating years old. You can`t argue that the 4 year old was cognitive of the consequences of his/her action. When you`re 4 years old, you don`t stop and think "hm, if I do this, maybe something bad will happen." We still have 20 year olds who can`t do that.
0
Reply
Female 635
aww kids at this age are so cute when they`re going around killing people :3
0
Reply
Male 505
"to come into violent contact with"

There you go, a definition of "hit".

In two sentences.
I came into violent contact with the car.
The car came into violent contact with me.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
I have to go... my fiance is complaining that I am spending too much time here and not enough time with him... Night!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
That would be applicable in this situation?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
So in other words you cannot provide a definition that goes against the common sense one that I have provided?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"If of course the lady`s kids paid the bills then they should get the bills paid. I highly doubt they are sueing solely for the costs. That is only IF the children were completely in the wrong."

That is exactly what I am saying. I also think that if the child "hit" the old lady then they are at fault.
0
Reply
Male 505
"Well genius, how would you define hit?"

How would you define set

There are multiple meanings and i would not make an assumption in a situation such as this.
0
Reply
Male 505
"Maybe that is the only was of getting the full damages? If it`s not then I agree, just sue the parents."

If of course the lady`s kids paid the bills then they should get the bills paid. I highly doubt they are sueing solely for the costs. That is only IF the children were completely in the wrong.

BUT the children should not be sued. The children should not be brought into court except as a last resort for serious criminal cases. Not for compensation.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Well genius, how would you define hit?
0
Reply
Male 505
"By using the word hit, I would assume that it was the childs motion, not the old ladies, that caused the two of them to come in contact."

Assumption. Luckily the courts don`t rely on that.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"What about the child. Sue the child! That`s what is happening here."

Maybe that is the only was of getting the full damages? If it`s not then I agree, just sue the parents.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"Ok, lets set up a hypothetical scenario using the word hit.

I was in a hit and run, i hit the cars windshield and rolled off.

The use of the word hit doesn`t define the situation. Was i running at the car? was i stationary? "

By using the word hit, I would assume that it was the childs motion, not the old ladies, that caused the two of them to come in contact.
0
Reply
Male 505
"for the parents to sue the other child`s parents"

What about the child. Sue the child! That`s what is happening here.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
"If an elderly person was out of control of their mind, and had little to no judgment (the mind of a child), and they got on the road in a car and ran over a kid on a bike -- would you want to press charges on the elderly person? "

I would press charges on whoever was responsible for that elderly person because they shouldn`t have been driving. But driving a car and driving a child`s bike are REMARKABLY different. A car can kill ANYBODY, not just fragile people. This is not an accurate reversal. Imagine that elederly person was driving a stupid little scooter thing that can`t even go above 10mph, and they managed to hit a kid and break his arm. Then that kid RANDOMLY dies in the hospital. That would be more accurate.
0
Reply
Male 505
"You ever lost a loved one?"

Yes multiple family members. I`ve also lost a best friend, a friend who i have literally know since birth, who was born in the same ward, on the same day. He and another friend were driving, the other friend crashed causing my best friend to die. At no point did i nor the family threaten legal action.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"So you`re saying the kids new better than riding their bikes because of the small chance of hitting someone"

No. I am saying if they knew better than to hit a person on their bike. Maybe they didn`t know how to ride correctly so as to be safe and not hit other people, in which case the parents shouldn`t have let them ride the bike there.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]You ever lost a loved one? Just curious, because I don`t quite think it is that easy to just forget about.[/quote]
Yes.

My grandad`s second wife died around 18 months ago, of bowel cancer in her late 60s. (Despite both those apparent black marks, the NHS did in fact treat her.)

My baby cousin died on the operating table around 12 years ago, aged 3. (We did not sue the doctor or the NHS.)

[quote]People are emotional beings, and regardless of the way you make it seem, not everyone can easily detach. [/quote]
I was not suggesting detachment. I was suggesting accepting that life is not always fair, and grieving for the loss of your loved one rather than seeking financial compensation which will never bring them back.
0
Reply
Male 505
"The kid hit the old lady. She did not hit the kid. It was not a two way collision. The kid ran into the old lady. Unless you can find evidence other wise, this is what the article says! "

Ok, lets set up a hypothetical scenario using the word hit.

I was in a hit and run, i hit the cars windshield and rolled off.

The use of the word hit doesn`t define the situation. Was i running at the car? was i stationary?

@almightybob

Your Honour Almightybob1;

I`d like to raise an appeal. The milk was given to my client willingly. Only after the aforementioned milk was consumed did Mr Johnson want it back. Furthermore the two (2) lego bricks were clearly designated to my client as he was building a spaceship at the time.

I rest my case.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Reganom crowded or not the kid still hit her. Point is they took her somewhere that she could potentially hit other people. Their decision. Not the old lady`s.

@AlmightyBob I agree that would be crazy. However I would think it was totally rational if one two year old hurt another two year old and caused them medical bills for the parents to sue the other child`s parents. If your child does something that causes someone else a financial loss you should cover it.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Ok, lets look at this from a different direction.

Assume this is the same category of two people. Just reverse it.

If an elderly person was out of control of their mind, and had little to no judgment (the mind of a child), and they got on the road in a car and ran over a kid on a bike -- would you want to press charges on the elderly person? Would you want the children of that elderly person to pay for the funeral costs if it was a kid whom got killed as a result?
0
Reply
Female 3,562
"Death happens. It probably wasn`t the doctors fault. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are rampant in hospitals and having an open wound from surgery allows for serious infection. HOWEVER she wouldn`t have been in there in the first place if the kid hadn`t hit her!"

What if she happened to visit a friend in the hospital, got sick just from being there and died? You can`t sue somebody for simply sending them INTO A BUILDING! The kids have NOTHING AT ALL to do with the fact that this woman died. All they`re responsible for is breaking her hip. But being an accident that the kids are too stupid to foresee, I don`t see how it was preventable.
0
Reply
Male 505
"If he kills someone it is still his fault. He did know better!" So you`re saying the kids new better than riding their bikes because of the small chance of hitting someone. Bearing in mind that you`ve already said this was a crowded area and that clearly they only hit one person.

Read the link properly. I will give you a copy paste of part

STAGE 0: EGOCENTRIC
REASONING

(preschool years - around age 4)


What`s Right: I should get my own way.
Reason to be good: To get rewards and avoid punishments.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
If the parents are responsible, they should be suing the parents.

The problem I have with this is not that the family are seeking reparations (although I very much dislike the fact that America`s litigation-happy culture is starting to infect the UK). The problem I have is that your judicial system considers it OK that you CAN take legal action against an infant.

Where does it end?
Johnson vs Smith (2020):
Judge ruled that the defendant, Mr Alan Smith (aged 3) did knowingly and whilst in full posession of his faculties, wilfully and maliciously upend the contents of Mr Mark Johnson`s (aged 3) milk bottle, on Thursday 4th May shortly before naptime. Furthermore, the defendant did then commit robbery, removing from Mr Johnson`s possession two (2) Lego bricks.

The defendant is sentenced to no less than fifteen (15) minutes on the naughty step, and confiscation of all sweets until after dinnertime.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"You haven`t been given any evidence that supports that. Nor have you been given any evidence that disproves that."

The kid hit the old lady. She did not hit the kid. It was not a two way collision. The kid ran into the old lady. Unless you can find evidence other wise, this is what the article says!
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"We don`t prosecute anyone."

Wrong word use, I meant persecute.

You ever lost a loved one? Just curious, because I don`t quite think it is that easy to just forget about. I study psychology, and I know a thing or two about bereavement. It takes time to get over, and yes it can cause mental dysfunction, anxiety, depression, and a host of other mental issues. To just say, "Oh well, Grandma got killed by a kid, life goes one!" doesn`t quite work the way you say. People are emotional beings, and regardless of the way you make it seem, not everyone can easily detach.
0
Reply
Male 160
This whole thing was an accident, a nasty one yes, but still an accident, everyone here in America is so quick to jump up and sue that we`re now holding a 4 1/2 year old legally responsible for something she didn`t intend to happen. Sure someone has to pay for the hospital bills, but a child? (yes on a technicality it`s the parents) Come on people, it would be one thing if they set out to do it, but it`s pretty obvious they didn`t. What this really shows is that America no longer considers children children, and just think that was BBC writing that story now everyone knows that we don`t hold our children in high esteem, way to go America... way to go... just keep making us look good to the rest of the world like that.
0
Reply
Male 505
"crowded area and should take responsibilty for it"

Was it a crowded area? The article says it was a street. It doesn`t even mention sidewalk though.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Reganom Morality has nothing to do with fault or even negligence. A serial killer can have under developed morality but he still knows what is right from wrong. If he kills someone it is still his fault. He did know better!
0
Reply
Male 505
"It was not the old ladies"

You haven`t been given any evidence that supports that. Nor have you been given any evidence that disproves that.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
I didn`t say it was the old ladies fault. I`m saying it`s NOBODIES FAULT! That doesn`t mean nobody has to pay money for funerals and medical bills! Heck, the woman is dead, so it`s not like she`s paying for anything because she`s dead. There were likely people in her life who took responsibility for her in some way, such as relatives. That responsibility happens to include paying medical bills. If there was nobody alive who can get stuck with the bill, that`s what we have a government for. I assume the government pays for people who have absolutely no relatives to be buried, rather then letting them rot in the street.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
They decided that it was ok for their kid to ride their bike (race) in a crowded area and should take responsibilty for it. Not poor old Grandma who has no say in the matter or her family who are probably stuck with medical bills from the acident!
0
Reply
Male 505
[quote">They know at 2 not to bite. They do it anyway sometimes, but they know it`s wrong[/quote">

4 year old morality



0
Reply
Female 1,101
""They do it anyway sometimes, but they know it`s wrong"
THEY DO IT ANYWAY, KNOWING IT`S WRONG, BECAUSE THEY`RE KIDS! Kids may know what IS right and what IS wrong, that doesn`t mean they know enough to not do those things. Knowing right from wrong isn`t any different to a kid than knowing up and down or left and right. It doesn`t mean anything serious to them. Besides, there`s no reason to believe these kids thought "I`m going to PURPOSELY run into that lady really fast, even though I`m told that`s wrong!" You assume the kids INTENDED to run into her. All the kid is REALLY guilty of is being too stupid to realize that they MIGHT run into somebody. Kids are good at being stupid like that."

Obviously you haven`t read anything that I posted and just like arguing. No, I don`t think it was intentional, but it was the kids fault. It was not the old ladies. THERFOR the kids parents should have to pay for the medical bills.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Death happens. It probably wasn`t the doctors fault. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are rampant in hospitals and having an open wound from surgery allows for serious infection. HOWEVER she wouldn`t have been in there in the first place if the kid hadn`t hit her!
0
Reply
Female 3,562
"They do it anyway sometimes, but they know it`s wrong"
THEY DO IT ANYWAY, KNOWING IT`S WRONG, BECAUSE THEY`RE KIDS! Kids may know what IS right and what IS wrong, that doesn`t mean they know enough to not do those things. Knowing right from wrong isn`t any different to a kid than knowing up and down or left and right. It doesn`t mean anything serious to them. Besides, there`s no reason to believe these kids thought "I`m going to PURPOSELY run into that lady really fast, even though I`m told that`s wrong!" You assume the kids INTENDED to run into her. All the kid is REALLY guilty of is being too stupid to realize that they MIGHT run into somebody. Kids are good at being stupid like that.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"NotTHATbored: Yeah, the old lady, or whoever was related to her and would have had to pay her bills anyway. Sure, the old lady couldn`t prevent it, but she can`t prevent being old either. She can`t prevent being fragile and unhealthy. She can`t prevent the fact that she`ll someday die. Death is not ALWAYS preventable. This was clearly an accident that was unforeseeable to most adults, never mind a child. If anything, they should be suing the doctors who failed to save their patient from an ordinary hip replacement surgery. But unlike the kids, the doctors can get consent forms from the patient so they can`t be held responsible. And that`s how it should be."

The fact that the old lady was frail, disabled, etc does not make the accident or her death more her fault. Yes, other things could have killed her, but the accident did. It also contributed not only to her death (funeral costs) but to the surgery costs and other hospital costs that she racked up.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Parents, if that is possible. Child if it is not. (If there is some obscure law that says you can only hold a parent responsible for so much financial damage or can`t hold them accountable in situation X, Y, or Z)
0
Reply
Female 3,562
NotTHATbored: Yeah, the old lady, or whoever was related to her and would have had to pay her bills anyway. Sure, the old lady couldn`t prevent it, but she can`t prevent being old either. She can`t prevent being fragile and unhealthy. She can`t prevent the fact that she`ll someday die. Death is not ALWAYS preventable. This was clearly an accident that was unforeseeable to most adults, never mind a child. If anything, they should be suing the doctors who failed to save their patient from an ordinary hip replacement surgery. But unlike the kids, the doctors can get consent forms from the patient so they can`t be held responsible. And that`s how it should be.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
You keep changing your mind. Who is at fault - the child or the parents?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"NotTHATbored: There`s a concept in law you`re clearly unfamiliar with called Reasonable Person. It`s used to determine things like negligence. And anyone can tell that the reasonable person criteria cannot be applied to a 4 year old child who is incapable of understanding the repercussions of their actions."

In that case, perhaps her parents should not have let her ride the bike! No, I`ve worked with kids before, they know enough at 4 years old not to run into each other. They know at 2 not to bite. They do it anyway sometimes, but they know it`s wrong. It`s usually not a big deal, but clearly in this case it is. I am not saying that the kid is a bad kid, but that they are at fault and should cover the medical bills.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]If you lost a loved one to a bicycle race, you would want justice too. [/quote]
If it was an adult, yes. If it was a child, no.

[quote]Oh wait, I forgot, this is I am bored. You don`t prosecute: ball players, little kids, or democrats who commit crimes like rape, murder, or fraud -- You only do that to rape victims, old people, republicans, or Christians. [/quote]
We don`t prosecute anyone. You must be confusing us with a law firm.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
NotTHATbored: There`s a concept in law you`re clearly unfamiliar with called Reasonable Person. It`s used to determine things like negligence.
And anyone can tell that the reasonable person criteria cannot be applied to a 4 year old child who is incapable of understanding the repercussions of their actions.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Oh wait, I forgot, this is I am bored. You don`t prosecute: ball players, little kids, or democrats who commit crimes like rape, murder, or fraud -- You only do that to rape victims, old people, republicans, or Christians.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"I don`t see the point of absolutely destroying a kid`s life because of a very un-preventable accident."

So you think that someone else should have to pay for the kids accident. That her parents hold no responsibility for allowing her to ride her bike there or for her hitting the old women? Who is responsible for those medical bills then? They old lady who had little or no control over the situation?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"That article didn`t have anything from the defendant`s, i find it worrying that you talk about proof when you`re making your decisions with none"

I have already stated that if there was different evidence it could change my mind. I am simply giving my opinion based on what I know.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
"Right, and there is nothing you can do about that old woman being dead."

Actually there isn`t a damn thing that can be done. People die. I`m sorry, you can`t prevent every death ever. You can`t sue people EVERY time some one dies. The old woman died because of an accident. If she died from tripping over a log, would you sue the forest service for allowing random logs to lay around? If she died from purposely jumping off a cliff, would you sue the land owners for not putting up a fence?
I don`t see the point of absolutely destroying a kid`s life because of a very un-preventable accident.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
" You could step outside your house and be hit by a random meteor from space right now, are you going to sue NASA about it?"

No but if someone was riding that meteor I WOULD sue them.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"But it`s not cruel to drag a child into a court case? A place where they have no real idea what is going on. To accuse them of killing an old lady. Of hurting an old lady and it`s all their fault. That`s perfectly humane?"

No one is saying that they killed the old lady we are saying hit her and that it was their fault. Big difference. She died of complications, but they are responsible for putting her in the hospital, so they should cover her medical bills.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
The thing is, something has to be done. Someone died. A real person. A person with a family, as evident by her family pressing the issue. A family that is going through a grief process.

If you lost a loved one to a bicycle race, you would want justice too.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"What exactly are you trying to differentiate here?
If grandma stepped onto the street without checking then ANY passer by could have knocked her down. Would that be negligence on the part of the passer by?"

Yes of course, if they ran into her and she didn`t run into them, they are at fault! You ran into them. If they run into you then it`s their fault. It says that the child hit her, not that they hit each other, or ran into each other.

"not go a reckless speed where they cannot slow down in time to hit something or someone that steps out infront of them

That happens every day and not at reckless speeds. If you were walking along and someone steps directly in your path, so directly that you hit them by the time you`ve registered they`re there it`s still your fault?"

Yes if you run into them and they are not running into you.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
"

There is no way that they will send the poor child to juvie! That would be cruel. They aren`t going to send the parents their either. There is no debter`s prision anymore that I know of. I just don`t think it`s fair that someone else`s family (kids, grandkids, cousins) should have to pay for an accident that they did not cause."

It`s not like they`re going to pat the kid on the back and send him on his way. This is a SERIOUS charge. And yes, you definitely can still go to prison for not paying debts. And even if that wasn`t the case, the parents will definitely lose custody of their child because they can`t pay that kind of money. It`s not fair that you have to pay medical bills for an accident, but that`s life. You could step outside your house and be hit by a random meteor from space right now, are you going to sue NASA about it?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"That`s perfectly humane?"

*ahem*

Somebody flippin died as a result of this. Don`t talk about humanity. Just don`t.
0
Reply
Male 505
There is no way that they will send the poor child to juvie! That would be cruel.

But it`s not cruel to drag a child into a court case? A place where they have no real idea what is going on. To accuse them of killing an old lady. Of hurting an old lady and it`s all their fault. That`s perfectly humane?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Because all of that is exactly what`s going to happen, one way or another."

Right, and there is nothing you can do about that old woman being dead. She should have not been in public anyway, her old ass should have been tucked away nicely in a retirement home.

Now, why would anyone want to bring suffering on a stable family? One that is loving and nurturing - don`t let a pesky thing like killing an old woman get in the way of that. Old people are a menace on society. It`s utter nonsense.

</sarcasm>
0
Reply
Female 3,562
Hell, the woman could have been 25 years old and in perfect health. I don`t care. You don`t charge some one with negligence just because you ran into them with a bike and they happen to die as a result. It`s perfectly legal for a 4 year old to ride a bike on the sidewalk, therefore there was NO crime committed. If it was so dangerous for kids to ride bikes on sidewalks it would be illegal.
0
Reply
Male 505
Cont.

That article didn`t have anything from the defendant`s, i find it worrying that you talk about proof when you`re making your decisions with none.
0
Reply
Male 505
Collision
Hit

What exactly are you trying to differentiate here?
If grandma stepped onto the street without checking then ANY passer by could have knocked her down. Would that be negligence on the part of the passer by?

"not go a reckless speed where they cannot slow down in time to hit something or someone that steps out infront of them"

That happens every day and not at reckless speeds. If you were walking along and someone steps directly in your path, so directly that you hit them by the time you`ve registered they`re there it`s still your fault?

"If she was in the bike lane they would have said so. I am not buying that unless you have proof."

That article didn`t have anyth
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Lblaxplaya20 No Big Deal!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"NotTHATbored, the kid doesn`t have the $10,000 or so that it costs. He`s 6. He`s going to go to juvenile hall, probably until he`s 21. Besides, assuming the parents will pay it (they`d have to "loan" the money to the kid), how do you know they have that kind of money just lying around? You think it`s right to send them to jail because they can`t pay $10,000 because they need that money to feed their kids? You think it`s right to force them to give up custody of those kids because they can`t pay those medical bills?
Because all of that is exactly what`s going to happen, one way or another."

There is no way that they will send the poor child to juvie! That would be cruel. They aren`t going to send the parents their either. There is no debter`s prision anymore that I know of. I just don`t think it`s fair that someone else`s family (kids, grandkids, cousins) should have to pay for an accident that they did not cause.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Unless of course her impairments meant that she wasn`t safe to be on the streets. Maybe she was staggering about due to imbalance. Another potential scenario."

I know, right? Why didn`t they counter sue for the woman being old? I would have. Old people don`t deserve to be in public.
0
Reply
Male 422
@NotTHATbored

Sorry, I completely misread your comment and didn`t notice the arguement you were in the middle of. My apologies.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
NotTHATbored, the kid doesn`t have the $10,000 or so that it costs. He`s 6. He`s going to go to juvenile hall, probably until he`s 21. Besides, assuming the parents will pay it (they`d have to "loan" the money to the kid), how do you know they have that kind of money just lying around? You think it`s right to send them to jail because they can`t pay $10,000 because they need that money to feed their kids? You think it`s right to force them to give up custody of those kids because they can`t pay those medical bills?
Because all of that is exactly what`s going to happen, one way or another.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@SarahofBorg GOD NO! I am not saying try the kid for murder, I am saying they should have to cover the old ladies medical bills!
0
Reply
Female 3,562
"So according to you I can knock a cripple over and not be responsible because they weren`t "safe to be on the street." Give me a break no court would say that the old lady is at fault because she had a disability. "

One day you`re walking along and you accidentally bump into a crippled person. That person breaks their hip and eventually dies from the surgery. That makes you a murderer? Does that mean you have no right to walk down the street, because you might accidentally bump into a person? You were being completely reckless and careless? Come on.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
If she was in the bike lane they would have said so. I am not buying that unless you have proof.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
In all of your scenarios Grandma would have to be running into them as well for her to be at fault. It would be a collision, not the kid hitting her. Now if she stepped out and they were going to fast to stop, that would still be the kids fault. Grandma doesn`t have a stop sign, she doesn`t have to look both ways. The biker however should excersize cation and not go a reckless speed where they cannot slow down in time to hit something or someone that steps out infront of them. Grandma doesn`t control how fast the bike is going or where it is going. She can`t be held responsible for getting out of the way.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
Forget about the kids, if you`re fragile enough to die from being hit by a child`s bike you`re probably going to die soon anyway. It`s hardly murder.
0
Reply
Male 505
Even if in fact it was a sidewalk could it have been a split path, for cyclists and pedestrians. Could Grandma have stepped into the cyclyists part of the path?
0
Reply
Male 505
"No you`ve given me crap about blind spots, parking spots, etc OR scenarios where the Grandma was running into the child as well as the child running into her. "

So it`s not at all possible that Grandma stepped onto the street (that is how it is defined in the article, the street) from the side, right infront of the children?

It`s not possible that Grandma could have moved to one side whilst they were going past, meaning she was hit?

It`s not possible that Grandma was stepping out of her house without looking into the path of the children?

Then it`s not possible that a bush blocked the view of the Grandma as she stepped onto the street without checking?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Why don`t we all just let other people take responsibility for our kids! We can let them race around public areas on their bikes and if they break something or hurt someone hey, who cares right?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Lblaxplaya20 First off, I am not the one who brought up blind spots. Second off, you have no idea who I am or my capabilities of raising a child. If this were my kid, I would take responsibility and pay for the medical bills. It`s not right that someone elses family should have to suffer financially because of my kid.
0
Reply
Male 1,287
stupid case
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"I`ve given you multiple scenarios with basically the same outcome all of which can be assumed from the facts presented in the story."

No you`ve given me crap about blind spots, parking spots, etc OR scenarios where the Grandma was running into the child as well as the child running into her.

"Unless of course her impairments meant that she wasn`t safe to be on the streets. Maybe she was staggering about due to imbalance. Another potential scenario."

So according to you I can knock a cripple over and not be responsible because they weren`t "safe to be on the street." Give me a break no court would say that the old lady is at fault because she had a disability.


0
Reply
Male 422
@notTHATbored

Are you seriously talking about "blind spots" and "merging lanes"? All that happened was two FOUR YEAR OLD KIDS were racing bikes down a sidewalk. So please do us all a favor and never raise a child.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Lblaxplaya20 well there is a very slim chance that your kid will break a window playing baseball. However, if they do you are still responsible for replacing the window. If you give your child the freedom to do something, even if it isn`t out of the normal, you are still responsible for them! The parents can`t expect the old lady to be responsible for their child or the medical bills that she caused!
0
Reply
Male 505
"Everything that I have seen suggests that the child is at fault"

You haven`t seen anything, anything at all. I`ve given you multiple scenarios with basically the same outcome all of which can be assumed from the facts presented in the story.

"Grandma`s "competancy" or her impairments/disabilities from age have nothing to do with if she is at fault or not"

Unless of course her impairments meant that she wasn`t safe to be on the streets. Maybe she was staggering about due to imbalance. Another potential scenario.
0
Reply
Male 422
@hoolahawk

First: Where are the grammar Nazi`s when you need them?
Second: Are you serious? The two kids, 4 years old at the time, wanted to race down the block. Any parent would have said yes to that. How did you expect the parents to answer?
Child: "Hey mommy, can Billy and I race down the block?"
Mom: " No Jack, there`s a 1/1000000 chance that you could ride into an old lady who could die months later from injuries that the accident caused. Then in 2 years when you`re 6, we might be sued and there`s a chance we could get an ignorant judge who probably just lost custody of his kids and would do anything to see a small child suffer."
Child: "Oh ok mom, that`s logical."
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"You do not know what happened"

I do know that the child hit her. She did not hit the child. I don`t know how many times I have to say this. THE CHILD HIT HER. If there was a blind spot and she did not see "Grandma", even then, the child is still at fault. Other people are not responsible for your blind spots. You are responsible for your blind spot. If you change lanes and merge into a car you couldn`t see, YOUR STILL AT FAULT.

Grandma is not at fault. Now if she was walking out into traffic or parked in an illegal corner spot as you have suggested and got "hit", then the law says it is her fault. Everything that I have seen suggests that the child is at fault. When you find counter evidence let me know.

P.S. Grandma`s "competancy" or her impairments/disabilities from age have nothing to do with if she is at fault or not. You can not discriminate against her and say that she was to blame for not being able bodied enou
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Naa, cause once you are over like 55 or so, socialized medicine stops treating you altogether.[/quote]

Thank you for so quickly demonstrating that you`re just peddling nonsensical propaganda. Now I can ignore everything else you write on the subject.

The oldest person I know personally who was treated on the NHS was 91 at the time. I`m sure there are older patients. My mother was 69 when routine testing showed early stage cancer. Surgery 2 days later. I know a dozen people over 60 who`ve had hip replacements. You`re talking complete twaddle.

By the way - the USA healthcare system costs more per person than the UK healthcare system.
0
Reply
Male 205
Oh come on everyone we all know what`s going on here the people are suing the child but it is the parents that are going to pay. I am sure they have to sue the child because of a weird way the law has been designed. But even though they are suing the child, in reality they are suing the parents because of the childs actions. We ALL know that this is just a pretense to be able to suit the parents!!!

And why not? The child cause injury to the person. The parents should have known better and been watch their kids to make sure this did not happen.

0
Reply
Male 7
You should place articles like this in a new category called "It Won`t Bring Them Back".
0
Reply
Male 703
Sounds like the kid had a pretty crappy lawyer to be honest. If you were trying to get a case dismissed on the grounds that the defendent was a kid who didn`t know better, wouldn`t the first thing you do be to show that they weren`t mature or intelligent enough to know better? Also, the judge had precedent, so his hands may have been tied regardless of his opinion.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]My point is, if that kid scratched up your new car, you would want her parents to paint your car.[/quote]
They are not suing the parents. They are suing the 6-year-old child.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"The parents yes, but would you then take the now 6 year old to court? The child was 4 when it occured, the child is being sued."

Yeah, I realize that, and I have watched enough Judge Judy to know that the parents will be the ones to pay. (my attempt to make light of the situation)
0
Reply
Male 505
"My point is, if that kid scratched up your new car, you would want her parents to paint your car. What is the difference when it is your grandmother? You should just shrug it off? "

The parents yes, but would you then take the now 6 year old to court? The child was 4 when it occured, the child is being sued.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"I am literally gobsmacked that anyone is trying to defend a legal system which permits suing a 6 year old child for negligence."

My point is, if that kid scratched up your new car, you would want her parents to paint your car. What is the difference when it is your grandmother? You should just shrug it off?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I agree with your link, but the truth is this:

we produce research in the health care system, when it is made social, that will cease to exist. Why? because there is no incentive to do research, cut costs by sticking with "what works."

If I want insurance as a conservative, I get a job that provides it; or I shop for it and pay for it.

If a democrat wants insurance, they make me pay for it, and everyone else`s.

That`s the thing, when this goes public, it is either going to cost a fortune, like in Sweden and Great Britain, or is going to "limit" treatment to only what is cost effective. Meaning, the insurance we do get will only cover preventative (and outdated) medicine, and other limited services. Since there won`t be an incentive to become a doctor, wait times will go through the roof for complex surgeries (like in Canada).

Yeah, you can show me benefits all day, but the costs to health care on a personal level far o
0
Reply
Male 505
The swedish health care is still often at the top of the tables. I didn`t say it was perfect. There are problems with every thing, nothing is truly perfect.

Problems with american health care

0
Reply
Male 505
"Government run health care is a joke. "

Swedish health care is amazing and is run by elected officials of the county councils.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Or the old lady should have been sued for disrupting a supposed race. Or for damaging the bikes."

Hell, or for just being "old and in public."
0
Reply
Male 505

"I know right, it should have been murder charges."

Or the old lady should have been sued for disrupting a supposed race. Or for damaging the bikes.
0
Reply
Male 505
@elkingo,

The first link is for certain situations. My grandmother underwent a masectomy at aged 65. Kept in hospital untill she recovered.

Whilst it`s not perfect i believe it is better for those that can`t afford medical insurance.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"I am literally gobsmacked that anyone is trying to defend a legal system which permits suing a 6 year old child for negligence."

I know right, it should have been murder charges.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Not only do they not treat the old; see here.

They also don`t treat cancer, and they don`t treat children,in some cases.

Government run health care is a joke.
0
Reply
Male 505
How could i have missed this! Thank you littlepete

[quote]on a Manhattan stree[/quote]

Taken directly from the article. Admittedly i haven`t read the case, nor know enough about it. But in the article there is no mention of the, being on the pavement (sidewalk). Which means that we and notTHATbored included, no even less about the case than we thought.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"If we had socialized health care like the rest of the civilized world, then people wouldn`t have to sue over things like this, now, would they?"

Naa, cause once you are over like 55 or so, socialized medicine stops treating you altogether.
0
Reply
Female 7,994
WTF!!! Sue a small child? there is nothing that can even make sense here. Apart from any other point- do we assume this child has assets? what are they sueing her for?
0
Reply
Male 505
@notTHATbored,

"She wasn`t acting in anyway that was illegal or not normal etc. Like I said I am not saying the kid did it intentionally but she did still run into her. "

How many times do i need to repeat this.

[quote]You do not know what happened[/quote]

Did the old lady walk onto the pavement without paying attention? If she did then i could have hit her and knocked her over by simply walking there.

"So pay for Grandma`s medical bills!"

You don`t even know if that is what they are solely sueing for. You don`t even know if they offered and the old lady declined. You don`t know if the old lady`s kids paid for the bills at all.

This all comes back to the point being, you don`t know enough, or really anything about this case.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Night all! I am off to Domino`s and Redbox!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Now there I will agree with you! Health care should not be able to rob anyone of financial security that they have worked hard to achieve! Hopefully we will get that soon! *Hides from another flame war*
0
Reply
Male 4,290
I am literally gobsmacked that anyone is trying to defend a legal system which permits suing a 6 year old child for negligence.
0
Reply
Female 803
@littlepete, didn`t you hear? In most places in the US, it`s not legal to ride your bike on the sidewalk because cyclists pose a threat to pedestrians.
0
Reply
Female 803
And death is almost always expensive in the US, whether it`s because of funeral costs or medical expenses. It happens every day, all across the US (and elsewhere, too). These kids should not have their future taken away from them because an old woman died. If she got an infection after surgery, it should be the hospital they`re after. Doctors have insurance for things like that, toddlers clearly do not.
0
Reply
Male 1,357
this is unbelievable. it said they were on the street. she should`ve been on the sidewalk.
0
Reply
Female 803
If we had socialized health care like the rest of the civilized world, then people wouldn`t have to sue over things like this, now, would they?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
It doesn`t matter if the kids college fund is cleared out. That is not a legal reason why they shouldn`t have to pay for the accident they caused. It`s sad, but it is more sad to think of the other family having to deal with the death and the financial reprocussions of the kids accident.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"In the end, the kids are going to end up paying. Where does that money that their parents owe come from, should they lose the case? Their kids` college funds? What, are they going to start a lemonade stand in wonderfully friendly NYC? Are the parents going to work extra hard to make up the money they lost for their kids (of course, this means just two more parents having less time to spend with their kids)? Yes, they deserve consequences, but the guilt that they ACCIDENTALLY killed an elderly woman as toddlers is enough."

So you think that the old ladies kids should have their children`s college funds robbed because they had to pay for the medical bills? NO WAY! Does it suck? Yes but stuff happens and legally it should be their responsibility to cover those costs.
0
Reply
Female 803
In the end, the kids are going to end up paying. Where does that money that their parents owe come from, should they lose the case? Their kids` college funds? What, are they going to start a lemonade stand in wonderfully friendly NYC? Are the parents going to work extra hard to make up the money they lost for their kids (of course, this means just two more parents having less time to spend with their kids)? Yes, they deserve consequences, but the guilt that they ACCIDENTALLY killed an elderly woman as toddlers is enough.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
for having money. (If they even do)
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"You seem to have a bug up an orifice that you`re so insistent these children should have to pay. My bug is that you agree with that miserable judge. And yes, I know that bad infections after surgery tend to come from the hospitals themselves. My grandmother ended up with a staph infection after her open heart surgery, which was indirectly the hospital`s fault. Would my parent`s have filed a malpractice suit if she had died? No, because they have better things to do with the money they have than file lawsuits."

I am insistant that their parents end up paying, not the children. I believe that people should be responsible for their children, they chose to have them knowing full well that they could not be responsible for themselves. Yes but your Grandma wasn`t sent to the hospital by someone else. I just think that Grandma`s kids deserve to have the medical bills paid for, regardless of how rich they are because this is CAPITALIST AMERICA, and we do not punish people f
0
Reply
Female 803
You seem to have a bug up an orifice that you`re so insistent these children should have to pay. My bug is that you agree with that miserable judge. And yes, I know that bad infections after surgery tend to come from the hospitals themselves. My grandmother ended up with a staph infection after her open heart surgery, which was indirectly the hospital`s fault. Would my parent`s have filed a malpractice suit if she had died? No, because they have better things to do with the money they have than file lawsuits.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"I know many elderly people that feel they are entitled to whatever they want because of their age, and don`t really care about others as long as they get what they think they deserve."

^Your bug?^
0
Reply
Female 1,101
She very well could be alive right now. Not that the kid meant to do her harm. It was an accident, one with big concequences.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"I repeat, what bug do you have? Was it your grandma that got hit? I am fully aware that hip replacements are a serious thing, but anything causes infection. Statistically speaking, old people need hip replacement surgeries more often than young people, and very simple things can break their bones. I know many elderly people that feel they are entitled to whatever they want because of their age, and don`t really care about others as long as they get what they think they deserve. This seems to be the case with this woman, unless it was their children that felt that way. So sorry you didn`t get any of your mother`s estate, I`m sure you REALLY needed it that much if you can pay to sue a child."

Why do you keep asking me if I have a bug? What is your bug? Yes infections are common, however when you have an open wound like one created from a surgery it is more likely to be serious. Not to mention that Hospitals are notorious for drug resistant bacteria/viruses/infections
0
Reply
Female 803
I repeat, what bug do you have? Was it your grandma that got hit? I am fully aware that hip replacements are a serious thing, but anything causes infection. Statistically speaking, old people need hip replacement surgeries more often than young people, and very simple things can break their bones. I know many elderly people that feel they are entitled to whatever they want because of their age, and don`t really care about others as long as they get what they think they deserve. This seems to be the case with this woman, unless it was their children that felt that way. So sorry you didn`t get any of your mother`s estate, I`m sure you REALLY needed it that much if you can pay to sue a child.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
As far as I know, the age of criminal responsibility in the USA is higher than 4.

So the precedent has been set that a child of 4 cannot be held responsible for deliberately killing someone but can be held responsible for unintentionally killing someone.

That looks weird to me.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
That is part of the risk that the parents take on when they let their kid ride around on a bike. They might hit someone or damage something and she did. So pay for Grandma`s medical bills!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Unless someone is breaking the law etc and is in a spot where they should not be they have a right to be there and not to be hit.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
It doesn`t matter what direction she was coming from or if there was a blind spot. If there is a blind spot when I am driving on the road and change lanes, I am responsible for my blind spot not the other driver.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"The woman died three months late, supposedly from injuries sustained from the accident and from the hip replacement, which she was probably going to get anyway. IF the parents offered to help in some form or another and the woman/her kids declined, that is the end of the story. It`s just not right to go off and sue someone for financial help after the fact. If this isn`t the case, they should have taken the PARENTS to court, not the toddlers that probably have no idea what`s going on, other than the fact that they hurt someone by accident."

You don`t know that. Hip replacement is a serious surgery and involves risks, like infection. AS I SAID. No I would not have chosen to sue the child, however if it was the only was to get the compensation for the medical bills then yes I would do it.
0
Reply
Male 505
"The article doesn`t say that. It simply says that the child hit her. It does not say that she walked into them. It DOES say in the article that the child hit her, not that she hit the child. Now if she hit the child that is different."

You`re right it doesn`t say that she walked into them. It also doesn`t say:

Which direction grandma was moving, if at all.
Whether grandma had just walked onto the pavement from a blind spot.
Whether the children had tried to avoid her.
Whether she had tried to avoid them.

There are a whole lot of things the article doesn`t mention, that is not grounds creating a scenario with no evidence.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"Who hit who doesn`t constitute guilt. If i am firing a gun at a target at a range, and someone walks past i`ve hit them with a bullet, still not my fault."

You would be breaking the rules by walking back there. Grandma wasn`t breaking any rules by walking around. She wasn`t acting in anyway that was illegal or not normal etc. Like I said I am not saying the kid did it intentionally but she did still run into her.
0
Reply
Male 351
drat you humanity, drat you.....
0
Reply
Female 803
@NotTHATBored, I never said that. What I said is that people need to get a f*cking grip. Was it YOUR grandmother that died because of a toddler hitting her with a bike? Is that the bug you have? The article makes it seem as though they are suing the CHILDREN and not the parents. That is wrong on so many levels; only a heartless b*tch would sue a toddler, regardless of who got hurt or why.

The woman died three months late, supposedly from injuries sustained from the accident and from the hip replacement, which she was probably going to get anyway. IF the parents offered to help in some form or another and the woman/her kids declined, that is the end of the story. It`s just not right to go off and sue someone for financial help after the fact. If this isn`t the case, they should have taken the PARENTS to court, not the toddlers that probably have no idea what`s going on, other than the fact that they hurt someone by accident.
0
Reply
Male 505
Who hit who doesn`t constitute guilt. If i am firing a gun at a target at a range, and someone walks past i`ve hit them with a bullet, still not my fault.

No the article doesn`t say anything about the defendants admitting racing. If there is another article that directly quotes claiming otherwise, then by all means link it to me.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"You don`t even know that much, you don`t know whether Grandma walked onto the pavement without looking and went into them side on. You don`t know whether grandma was walking towards them"

The article doesn`t say that. It simply says that the child hit her. It does not say that she walked into them. It DOES say in the article that the child hit her, not that she hit the child. Now if she hit the child that is different.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
The parents just deny that they consented to it. From what I understand.
0
Reply
Male 505
"Wrong I do know one thing. She hit Grandma, Grandma did NOT hit her."

You don`t even know that much, you don`t know whether Grandma walked onto the pavement without looking and went into them side on. You don`t know whether grandma was walking towards them.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@ Raganom they ADMIT to racing.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@kittehdee29 So you think that Grandma`s family should have to pay the bill because someone else hit her?
0
Reply
Male 505
@kitteh,

It`s not even been established that they were riding fast, nor that they were racing. Otherwise i agree with your point.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Wrong, once again the circumstances apply. If whilst you were reading your book you moved into the wrong lane, and someone hit you, you are at fault.

Like I said, it not paying attention matters if we are both at fault or hit each other. NOT just is the other car hits me.

"Were you parked around a blind corner, where a reasonably competant man"

Then I would be at fault because I was breaking the law.

"You keep ignoring the fact that i have pointed out. The main fact. You do not know anything about this case. Neither do i, but i`m not making judgment on the case. I am making judgement on the fact a child is being sued for something that she did when she was 4. "

Wrong I do know one thing. She hit Grandma, Grandma did NOT hit her.
0
Reply
Female 803
@notTHATbored, get a life. Seriously. True, the parents should have taught their kids that it`s dangerous for everyone to ride your bikes fast in a crowded area, but they were 4. Accidents happen, and it`s not right for everyone`s first reaction to be "SUE HIM!"
0
Reply
Male 505
cont.

Were you parked around a blind corner, where a reasonably competant man could not have seen you, nor avoided or predicted the accident? Had you pulled out without paying attention to the road?

You have listened to one parties side of the story, actually, you have listened to one fact and some claims from on side of the story.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"If she did die from THIS she must have been pushing 90 and already have problems with her hip."

See this is what happens when we have a society that values the young over the old. We think because she was old and couldn`t heal well that it is her fault! Or that her life wasn`t as important.

News flash, SHE DIED. So what if the kid feel a little guilty? A little guilt is good. Maybe she won`t run into another old lady!

Not that I think she is a bad kid. However her parents should pay for the damage that she did to Grandma. Intentional or not.
0
Reply
Male 505
"Also it does not matter if I am sitting in my car reading a book not paying attention, if someone hits me it is there fault legally. Now if we are both at fault (possibly because we were not paying attention) that is different. "

Wrong, once again the circumstances apply. If whilst you were reading your book you moved into the wrong lane, and someone hit you, you are at fault.

"Yes that is applied to the person who is negligent, not the other party"

No that it used to determine negligence.

You keep ignoring the fact that i have pointed out. The main fact. You do not know anything about this case. Neither do i, but i`m not making judgment on the case. I am making judgement on the fact a child is being sued for something that she did when she was 4.

"It doesn`t matter if someone hits me in their car at 5 mph. They still hit me!"

Were you parked around a blind corner, where a reasonably competant man
0
Reply
Female 243
Old people need to get some hobbies. Seriously. And they need to fire that judge. How can there be no proof that a 4 year old is "not mature"? I think being in that age group is the DEFINITION OF UNMATURE. I understand they are sad for their loss but I DOUBT that this woman really died becuase of this incident. If she did die from THIS she must have been pushing 90 and already have problems with her hip.
-Those people should be ashamed for trying to blame those kids. And that judge should be ashamed also for ruling her guilty. She probably doesn`t even understand death yet. And now she probably FEELS just as guilty because she believes she killed someone. This child is probably gonna be psycologicly messed up now.
0
Reply
Male 322
that`s it. i officially hate our judicial system.
i vote that from henceforth Batman shall be judge and jury in all cases. not executioner though, Batman doesn`t roll like that.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
To answer your question Reganom. Do I think the kid should be sued? Not really, unless it is the only way to hold her parents accountable for the medical bills. Which they are clearly responsible for.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Steelgrid her max speed is irrelevant. As is Grandma`s. I doubt either of them were going very fast but she did hit her! It doesn`t matter if someone hits me in their car at 5 mph. They still hit me!
0
Reply
Male 335
OMFG.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@NotTHATbored

You show me a parent that hovers over their child while they do everything to avoid everything and I will show you a parent deserving of an IAB post.

To bad. It is still their kid and they brought her there. They are responsible for her and her actions. NOT GRANDMA.

Also if someone walks into the street they are in fact breaking the law, so it makes sense that they are responsible.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
** physical impairment or disability!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"Actually the law does care about the intent, that is why there are varying degrees of crimes depending on intent. These "circumstances" i`m talking about are such things like the other person wasn`t paying attention. The other person was in a place they has no reason to be. The other person knowingly got in the way."

Those degrees involve criminal cases, not civil cases involving compensation. There is a big difference.

Also it does not matter if I am sitting in my car reading a book not paying attention, if someone hits me it is there fault legally. Now if we are both at fault (possibly because we were not paying attention) that is different.

"A potential defendant will be negligent by falling below the standards of the ordinary reasonable person in his/her situation"

Yes that is applied to the person who is negligent, not the other party. Also I am pretty sure that you can`t say Grandma was negligent for having a p
0
Reply
Male 2,700
And these comments about "Racing their bikes"....She was four FFS. how fast do you think she was going. Hell I doubt the bike was even missing training wheels.

At the MAX speed this little girl had to be going, she would have bounced of most people.

This may have been a public place, but if you really want to try and hold this CHILD accountable for neglegence, again how abotu the old lady that can (maybe) see all these kids on bikes doing a whopping 3-6 MPH, which is about the speed of someone walking briskly. I calll neglegence on her part for not paying attention while what ppretty much amounts to.....Crossing the road.
0
Reply
Male 505
@sylphies

In my view as a cyclist in London cycling on the road can be dangerous. I wear a high vis jacket, lights when dark, reflective disks on my bike, and i still don`t get noticed.
Whislt i agree that it is a difficult decision at times for an [quote]adult[/quote] to make at times, a child of 4 should never be on the road.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
@NotTHATbored

You show me a parent that hovers over their child while they do everything to avoid everything and I will show you a parent deserving of an IAB post.

Even if the parents were there. Even if they were watching. Do you think you could suddenly run the 30 feet (assuming that is a feasable supervising distance) and grab your child, stop the bike and save the day?

This is an unfortunate accident yes. Someone needs to pay the bills, i agree. But as far as a lawsuit? The old woman was just as neglegent as the (Cough cough) 4 YEAR OLD CHILD. Someone walks in the middle of the street and gets slammed by a car.....do we blame the driver for the pedestrian walking too damn slow in a place where dangers obviously are around.

This lady did NOT die from the impact. At a slow speed she was hit, lost her balance, broke her hip due to HER inability to pay attention. She did not die from this, she died from complications of the surgery. Must look further
0
Reply
Male 505
[quote]let alone having a race[/quote]

I for one would not want you to ever be on my Jury, with only 1 claim, not fact, not evidence, you have already made your decision.

Please explain to me why you believe The Children should be sued though?
0
Reply
Female 282
This i just like the entire "Where should bikers ride" argument. Pedestrians say the road, Motorists say the sidewalks.

From experience having to ride my bike to college, Motorists are not going to stop for you. Ever.

My bickering aside, the kids were drating toddlers. How fast could that bike have been going? maybe 10mph tops if they tried to full speed it? Sure the parents should have been more attentive but death by FRACTURED HIP? It wasn`t even a break, it was a FRACTURE. Meaning that if she stayed off it for a few weeks, it would have healed WITHOUT surgery.

I`m pretty sure that surgery today doesn`t require huge ass incisions to repair fractures, after all, when my mother got an operation for a herniated disc the only incision they made was in the front of her neck about an inch and a half wide. She probably died from an infection following the surgery, in which case she should be sueing the HOSPITAL.
0
Reply
Male 505
Actually the law does care about the intent, that is why there are varying degrees of crimes depending on intent. These "circumstances" i`m talking about are such things like the other person wasn`t paying attention. The other person was in a place they has no reason to be. The other person knowingly got in the way.

Why is the reasonably competant man irrelevant? Admittedly it is applied to the defendant, but in cases of negligence it is applied.

[quote]A potential defendant will be negligent by falling below the standards of the ordinary reasonable person in his/her situation

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781.[/quote]

0
Reply
Female 1,101
If your kid is not a skilled enough bike rider that they can avoid Grandma walking all of 2 miles per hour, then they shouldn`t be on the street period, let alone having a race. Grandma has the right to be there,physically "competant" or not.

If I hit a man in a wheelchair with my car. I can`t say, well if he could walk he would have been able to jump out of the way!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
** medical bills in which case they did the right thing. However if they did not, the courts should make them own up to their responsibility.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"That`s incorrect. It relies upon the circumstances."

What are these "circumstances" that you are talking about? The law doesn`t care if you cause someone harm on purpose or not. It just cares about responsibility and who caused the damages. If your kid accidentally breaks someones window, you still have to pay for it. It doesn`t matter if they were just trying to play baseball or some other normail kid thing. People are legally responsible for their childrens actions, including when accidents that are unintentional happen.

"Would "the reasonably competant man" have been able to avoid the children?"

That is irrelevant too. So what if she was "incompetant" or couldn`t move very fast? The kid still hit her. She did not hit the kid. You think because she was unable to get out of the way that it negates the kid running into her? No way!

Also you could be right. Perhaps they did offer to pay for medical b
0
Reply
Male 132
Wtf america? O.o
0
Reply
Male 505
[quote]You let your kid do something, then you should own it. It`s not the old ladies fault and her kids shouldn`t have to pay for it. If anything the parents should have apologized from the beginning and offered to help with the medical bills[/quote]

So you believe a 4 year old should be sued then? On top of which, at what point are we told that they didn`t offer to pay for the medical bills? Where are we told the damages that are being claimed?
0
Reply
Male 39,533
we`re only hearing the old ladie`s family side of the story. For all we know, she was chasing the kid and swinging her cane at him. One of those crabby old ladies...every neighborhood has one.
0
Reply
Male 505
[quote]In which case the person hitting, dropping, or leaving the tennis ball on the floor would be responsible, not the person falling. [/quote]

That`s incorrect. It relies upon the circumstances.

[quote]That is all speculation. None of which was mentioned in the article. Now if the old lady poped out of a door way without looking and ran into the kid that would be different. However she did not run into the kid, the kid ran into her. The child is at "fault".[/quote]

All the article says about the accident, was that she was hit. It doesn`t explain the events surrounding the accident. I`m not the one making a judgement here, you are. Would "the reasonably competant man" have been able to avoid the children?

0
Reply
Female 1,101
"I learned to ride a bike in a small neighborhood, not in a packed city"

This is not even relevant. It`s is the parents responsibility to find a place to teach their kids how to ride a bike, not Grandma`s.

My parents taught me in a school parking lot with no one in it. Because guess what? I didn`t belong riding around a bunch of other people!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"I did bust my head open on a pothole, I guess I should have sued the city."

No, because YOU ran into the pothole. The pothole did not run into you!

"I hate that such a large group of people in this country look at suing with the same glee as a chance to win the lottery."

Or maybe they are just trying to get this kid and their parents to take responsibility for the medical bills, which THEY caused.

You let your kid do something, then you should own it. It`s not the old ladies fault and her kids shouldn`t have to pay for it. If anything the parents should have apologized from the beginning and offered to help with the medical bills.
0
Reply
Male 602
I take it back...from the article:

"Ms Menagh - and later her son, acting as executor of her estate - sued the children, arguing they were "negligent in their operation and control of their bicycles". The estate also sued Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, saying they had consented to the race."

So apparently the Grandma was the one who started it. Crotchety old bitty. I don`t know what it`s like in New York with all them city folk, I learned to ride a bike in a small neighborhood, not in a packed city.

I did bust my head open on a pothole, I guess I should have sued the city. I hate that such a large group of people in this country look at suing with the same glee as a chance to win the lottery.

So now we`re gonna have 4 year olds that need bike insurance and a license to ride one, to protect from litigation. Way to profit from tragedy.
0
Reply
Male 560
I for one say god riddance to bad children. I hope she gets sent to the chair.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Why should all of Grandma`s savings have to go towards medical bills instead of her family? She worked hard for that money and it shouldn`t have to be spent on her medical bills that she obtained by fault of this child.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"A table tennis ball in the wrong time and place can be enough to make a person fall over."

In which case the person hitting, dropping, or leaving the tennis ball on the floor would be responsible, not the person falling.

Was Ms. Menagh capable to move out of the childrens way? Did infact Ms. Menagh come out of her house at the worst possible time, meaning neither party was able to react properly to the situation?

That is all speculation. None of which was mentioned in the article. Now if the old lady poped out of a door way without looking and ran into the kid that would be different. However she did not run into the kid, the kid ran into her. The child is at "fault".

"Does an accident mean that you can sue someone for something that is outside of their control."

It was under her parents control that she was allowed to ride in public and to participate in the "race". The old lady however, had no say
0
Reply
Female 2,674
T-Marley: I agree. I doubt Grandma`s last words were "Avenge me..."
0
Reply
Male 2,841
Only in america children are not punished for their crimes.
0
Reply
Male 505
A table tennis ball in the wrong time and place can be enough to make a person fall over.

Was Ms. Menagh capable to move out of the childrens way? Did infact Ms. Menagh come out of her house at the worst possible time, meaning neither party was able to react properly to the situation?

Does there always have to be One person responsible for an accident? Does an accident mean that you can sue someone for something that is outside of their control, in which they had no potential to avert the situation?

Even if someone is responsible, should a girl who is 6 be sued for something that occured when she was 4. You feel that a 4 year old should be held accountable in a court of law for their actions?
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Parents are responsible. You let a four year old loose on a bike in an urban area it might hit me, in which case I get a bruised shin and you get an annoyed glare. Or you might kill an old person. Different consequences.

The child is not to blame, obviously.
0
Reply
Male 602
So this woman at the end of her life dies, and her children decide to ruin the life of a 6 year old that hasn`t even began yet.

Do they really think a grandma would want that?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Do you think that the family should have to pay for her medical bills as the result of an accident caused by someone else? It doesn`t matter if it wasn`t intentional or if the person is young. Someone has to be responsible.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Reganom Well they had to have been going fast enough to knock her over.

"What is classified as racing exactly? Just because the article states racing does that mean they were speeeding around the place? I`ve honestly never seen a 4 year old going that fast on a bike, except on the youtube videos where they`re going down the hills.

"Are you saying a 4 year old should have been riding on the road instead of on the pavement?"

I am saying that if they weren`t skilled enough to avoid people, then they should not be riding around in a public place where other people are. I am saying that they should be at home practicing or in a school parking lot. Somewhere, ANYWHERE, but around other people.
0
Reply
Male 505
@notTHATbored.

What is classified as racing exactly? Just because the article states racing does that mean they were speeeding around the place? I`ve honestly never seen a 4 year old going that fast on a bike, except on the youtube videos where they`re going down the hills.

Were the parents being negligent? Or was it just an accident? Are you saying a 4 year old should have been riding on the road instead of on the pavement?
0
Reply
Male 25,417
Omly in america!
0
Reply
Male 2,516
LOL @Burni, nice comeback :-P
0
Reply
Male 2,516
WTF is wrong with you people... two kids were racing and they hit an old lady, it happens, it was her turn to die.

My great grandma slipped and fell and died of complications from hip surgery. How`s that any different than had she been knocked off by random kids outside. You can`t keep blaming people for stuff that would`ve happened sooner or later just because they were there by chance.

"I`m suing you for hitting my fist with your face"
0
Reply
Female 2,120
She was actually four, so it`s even worse.
0
Reply
Male 1,222
Cant believe the comments, you people make me sick
It was an accident, a kid that age would never do it on purpose.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"As far as the parents being sued, only if they were negligent (not supervising the child on the bike)."

How is it any better if the parents were watching them? They let them race around a public place where they know that people are. That seems very negligent to me.

The old lady`s family should not have to use their money or money from her estate to cover the costs of her medical care. Sorry but that is the kids parents responsibility. The kid ran in to the old lady and the parents allowed for their children to be in a situation where that was possible. The old lady did not let the kids race their bikes in a public place, their parents did!
0
Reply
Male 1,057
And your other argument:

"As far as the parents being sued, only if they were negligent (not supervising the child on the bike)."

So if the parents were NOT supervising the kids they should be liable, but if they WERE supervising the kids and the kids cause damage they get off?

Please. If one of those kids ran into my car, and the parent said `well I was watching him so I`m not liable and he`s a kid so he`s no liable - have a nice day` I should just say OK???
0
Reply
Male 1,057
@halfpint: "I mean a real true accident, like this"

How is this any different from any other type of `true accident` (whatever that means). It`s not an accident if a car runs her over, but it is if a bike does? It`s an accident if someone of diminished mental capacity (child or otherwise) does it, but if they have their wits it isn`t? How about the old lady? Maybe she was delusional or maybe she saw those bikes coming and stepped out in front on purpose.

How exactly do you define a "TRUE" accident? And why can`t someone be liable?
0
Reply
Female 83
Only in New York...(sigh)
0
Reply
Female 2,761
The child shouldn`t be sued at all.

As far as the parents being sued, only if they were negligent (not supervising the child on the bike).

I don`t know the details but I`m assuming this is not a situation that should have a lawsuit period.

Are we going to start suing for accidents now? (I don`t mean the kind that you were negligent and an accident happened, I mean a real true accident, like this!)
0
Reply
Male 1,057
For everyone generalizing about the age of responsibility, and holding the parents responsible, please remember that this all varies from state to state.

Most times, parents are only liable for the WILLFUL misconduct of a child, not for a true accident.

This case brings in questions like `should the kids have known that racing bikes on the street could have caused damage?` and `did the parents allow the conduct and should have known better?` And actually would you be making the same arguments for or against if there were property damage of a car instead of personal injury? Same argument for hitting an old lady versus a toddler? Same argument for hitting someone head on, or in the back?
0
Reply
Male 541
"Juliet`s lawyer had presented no evidence she lacked intelligence or maturity."

Here`s some evidence: she`s 6.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Steelgrid you but you could also argue that the parents are negligent for letting their kid ride in a public place if they are not skilled enough to avoid hitting people who have every right to be there. Someone has to pay for the medical bills. Why should it be ther old ladies family?
0
Reply
Female 723
Seriously? Accidents happen. Sue for negligence, but don`t render the family incapable of moving forward from this.
0
Reply
Female 1,380
FML I just submitted this like an hour ago from the new york times damnit :( lol
0
Reply
Female 31
A 6-year-old child has been sued for something they did when they were 4.
0
Reply
Male 24
In USA coffe sues you for drinking it!!!
0
Reply
Male 244
This sucks... she didn`t die from the impact but from unrelated causes. Most 5 year old kids can`t even wipe themselves well, let alone out maneuver a wobbly old lady. There`s a link in a facebook book support page for the girl now: We-Support-Juliet-Breitman
0
Reply
Female 612
I don`t know how I feel about this. The child was extremely young, but the woman died because of them. They KILLED her, though they did not know it at the time. Obviously, that`s not just something you can let go. But one would think the mere knowledge that something they did caused a woman to die would be nearly enough punishment for a kid. They have to live with that their entire lives, and how will it affect them when they are old enough to understand it fully?

But really, I don`t think suing is going to help anyone. Anyone know how much they`re going to be sued for?
0
Reply
Male 749
Kid`s fault; sue the parents.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
I agree with sbeelz. That`s an awful lawyer.
The child wasn`t even 5... when I was 5, I wanted to be a dinosaur when I grew up...
0
Reply
Male 417
Now, let`s go sue McDonald`s for making America fat!
0
Reply
Male 2,700
I say, if you are to old to hear, see, move out of the way of a CHILD riding a bike and speeds of ohh saaaaaay, MAYBE 10mph, you should not be in an area where there ARE bikes. If the woman can see the bikes all around her and see the appearently inherant dangers, it is up to her to be responsible enough to keep an eye out, pay attention to your surroundings, and be ready to take a 2 foot sidestep.

This IMHO is no different than a person complaining about what is on the radio or TV then refusing to change the channel. The child`s parent should sue for the negligence of the old woman for putting her child through such trama as to stand there like a deer in headlights.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Meh. Someone has to be responsible for the old ladies medical bills (which I am sure were substantial if it took 3 months for her to die). It should be the kids parents.
0
Reply
Male 199
Child shouldn`t be sued, parent`s who were watching (or NOT watching) should be held accountable for their children`s actions.

Also, enough with this "seriously America" malarky. There are stupid people in the world, just because the press in America likes to blow everything out of proportion doesn`t make America any less intelligent than any other country. There are smart people here, there are dumb people here. I guarantee you`ll find the exact same in any other country, not just America.

Also, stop saying "America". There is no country called America. There isn`t even a continent with the name "America". There`s North and South America, and there`s the United States of America.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
Yeah, read the article last night. This is a clear case of laws from many years ago (in this case 1934 I think) not being updated to mesh with current times.

Plus I also think sometimes people interpret laws without reason or sense. As if to say just because one 4 year old is smarter than another, all 4 year olds are the same??!

0
Reply
Male 178
That`s what old people do best. They die. Get over it.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
Sounds like the kids have a lousy lawyer. The judge ruled that they could be sued because their lawyer presented no evidence that the kids lacked the capacity to make better decisions, essentially. It should not have been hard for the lawyer to find literature in developmental psychology to show that four year olds have an extreme deficit in reasoning and decision making.
0
Reply
Male 812
...... MURKA!
0
Reply
Male 39,533
parents are responsible for their children. Hold them accountable.

and for the parents out there who are gonna read that and cry "you can`t watch a kid 24/7" I say Tough-Tittie! You had the kid. YOU are responsible for everything it does. If parents were held accountable, they`d do a better job parenting.
0
Reply
Male 430
WTF it was an accident.
0
Reply
Male 11,739
The judge is a jackass. There was another judge of equal stupidity locally this week. Apparently anyone who can`t work at McDonald`s can be a judge.
0
Reply
Male 307
Wait... I though if you were under seven(or was it eight?) that you were immune from charges of right from wrong, since you know... three year olds really haven`t learned not to pick up a tack stab someone with it like a paper donkey or even how to take a poo on their own.
0
Reply
Male 1,064
Seriously New York. What the hell.
0
Reply
Male 670
okay, well sue the parents instead. i`d be pretty pissed if my grandma died from some dumbass kids who hit her.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Link: 6-Year-Old Child Sued In New York [Rate Link] - Seriously America. What the hell.
0
Reply