Wednesday, December 15, 2010 1:59:47 PM
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.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 5:25:59 PM
@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.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 4:52:57 PM
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.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 4:32:48 PM
@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.