- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Really, suing children! What the **** is wrong with these people.
One word, "lawyers". They're the scum of the Earth.
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.
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?