• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York child sued for woman's death after bike crash

Andalublue

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,101
Reaction score
12,358
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Compensation culture passes a new milestone as 4-year-olds become fair game for litigation lawyers...

BBC News - New York child sued for woman's death after bike crash

My attitude would be, ¡f they're old enough at 4 to be liable for any damage they cause, they are old enough to be financially responsible for the reparations. Not their parents. Them and only them.
 
Really, suing children! What the **** is wrong with these people.
 
Why couldn't they just sue the parents for not properly watching the kids, instead of suing a CHILD for this bull**** about being "negligent in the operation and control of their bicycle." Sigh...

People can be so dumb.
 
So let's say there will be a settlement in this case, and the child, and not her parents, is being sued, how can the child legally sign the settlement as a child cannot legally sign a contract?

An 87 year old woman dies. The story said nothing about there being a connection between the accident and her death.

I didn't understand what the child was being sued for, and how long it would take her to pay it off as I am sure she has a high paying job.

None of this makes sense and the judge needs a break from his job to re-evaluate his outlook on things.

A 4 year old cannot make the connection between cause and action, and how fast could they have been going? A 4 year old is not on a 10 speed bike with a high top speed.

Crazy stuff.
 
It does not matter they are suing the kid as the parents will be held legal in whatever-if anything- happens.

So look at it as the parents are being sued.
 
Mason66 said:
So let's say there will be a settlement in this case, and the child, and not her parents, is being sued, how can the child legally sign the settlement as a child cannot legally sign a contract?

An 87 year old woman dies. The story said nothing about there being a connection between the accident and her death.

I didn't understand what the child was being sued for, and how long it would take her to pay it off as I am sure she has a high paying job.

None of this makes sense and the judge needs a break from his job to re-evaluate his outlook on things.

A 4 year old cannot make the connection between cause and action, and how fast could they have been going? A 4 year old is not on a 10 speed bike with a high top speed.

Crazy stuff.
Click to expand...

As noted in the other thread on this, this was not about whether the child did anything wrong. This was a threshold issue, simply to address the claim that the child could not legally commit a negligent act. The court said that a child over four could conceivably be capable of such. This is not out of the ordinary at all, nor is it a deviation from long standing precedent.
 
RightinNYC said:
As noted in the other thread on this, this was not about whether the child did anything wrong. This was a threshold issue, simply to address the claim that the child could not legally commit a negligent act. The court said that a child over four could conceivably be capable of such. This is not out of the ordinary at all, nor is it a deviation from long standing precedent.
Click to expand...

I see, so precedent exists that 4-year-olds can be held responsible for committing a negligent act, does it? Are you saying that this 'threshold' issue will not lead to any negative consequences for the child? Is it just a matter of setting, or reinforcing, legal precedent?
 
Andalublue said:
I see, so precedent exists that 4-year-olds can be held responsible for committing a negligent act, does it? Are you saying that this 'threshold' issue will not lead to any negative consequences for the child? Is it just a matter of setting, or reinforcing, legal precedent?
Click to expand...

Hey look at the bright side.. at least the kid was not arrested and charged with man slaughter and put in jail for X years when convicted.... They still have some standards over there :)
 
Andalublue said:
I see, so precedent exists that 4-year-olds can be held responsible for committing a negligent act, does it? Are you saying that this 'threshold' issue will not lead to any negative consequences for the child? Is it just a matter of setting, or reinforcing, legal precedent?
Click to expand...

1) Yes.
2) It could, but by no means is it certain.
3) Yes.
 
apdst said:
One word, "lawyers". They're the scum of the Earth.
Click to expand...

Then I wonder why the Republican party did not do something about it when they had absolute power... 6 years ... oh yea, the lawyers paid them off :) Does that mean the Republicans are cum of the Earth too? And yes the same applies for the Democrats.
 
Juliet's lawyer had argued Juliet was too young to be held negligent.

The judge disagreed, ruling Juliet's lawyer had presented no evidence she lacked intelligence or maturity.
Click to expand...

This is the most ridiculous part of the whole article.

Being 4 years old is not evidence that one lacks maturity?

I agree with whoever said that if the little girl is old enough to be sued for her actions, she's old enough to be solely responsible for paying the settlement. I'm sure the $4.19 in her piggybank will make the scumbag son feel a lot better over his mom dying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom