Citing cases dating back as far as 1928, a judge has ruled that a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence.
“A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street,” the judge wrote. He added that any “reasonably prudent child,” who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there. The crucial factor is whether the parent encourages the risky behavior; if so, the child should not be held accountable.
This is really not as controversial as some people are making it sound.
Oh really? And how do arbitrary age markers set - to admission on PRESUMPTION - a good gauge for that?
I think it's legitimate.
She did die, after all - yes, not *directly* related to her injuries but it's quite common for one injury to open the door to many other ailments that lead to death in the elderly. Aside that - it DID fracture her hip and force her to go through surgery. *That* is a liability in itself - regardless of whether or not she eventually died.
Sidewalks, by the way, are NOT for biking on - they are for WALKING on.
I support the action - NOT necessary against the youth but their parents (who it should be directed against) to recoup the medical bills and other such costs that arose.
To suggest that this child or her parent couldn't be held liable for the injuries THEY caused would, then, lead to other situation in which a child - injured on a playground at school or in a fight - might not have legitimate legal recourse.
These other incidences between children happen *all the time* - and often lead to negotiations which might involve one parent paying the medical bills for the injured child if so ordered or decided.
If you've dealt with (directly or indirectly) commons issues such as: pets injuring others, your children injuring other children - and so on - and you feel those common issues are valid - then you should, also, support this ruling (I certainly do - and I've paid my share of dental and other bills).
Sidewalks, by the way, are NOT for biking on - they are for WALKING on.
Huh. So if you're not even 5, and you're unlucky enough to live in the loony bin that is New York, you're old enough to be found to be negligent in civil court and held accountable for that negligence.
Okay, then!
As far as I'm concerned, the appropriate response to this ruling was to thank the judge on behalf of pedophiles and credit card companies across New York for clarifying the point at which children can make conscious decisions for which they can be held responsible.
/thread
...or consent to sex.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?