Support NeoGAF

[Tacitus_]

Oh America you so crazy

 

[krae_man]

I see 4 year olds getting sued on Judge Judy all the time. Usually for scratching up cars because their parents are idiots and leave them outside unsupervised.

 

[Dude Abides]

Good. Your fucking brats shouldn't be riding their bikes on the sidewalk.

And people marvel at how America has drowned in its own litigious nature and inability to deal with reality.

The only people who marvel about that are idiots who make too much of a few sensational stories they read in the news.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

I would assume the parents insurance would be required to cover medical bills for the victims family among other things. IMO, it doesn't matter to me what your age if you kill one of my parents I'm killing you and/or one of your parents. The point is I'd be pretty enraged and saddened to lose someone in my family. Having to fully pay all the medical bills and funeral costs because of someone elses fault is like a slap in the face. "HAHA, I'm 4 and I killed your grandma and made you pay for it."

You'd be "enraged and saddened." Justice is supposed to be blind, buddy. The court decides who is at fault for an accident and decides fairly how they should compensate the victim, not makes you feel better by letting you indulge in "an eye for an eye" bullshit.

 

[NeoUltima]

But my law class said...AHHH

 

[Fisticuffs]

I would assume the parents insurance would be required to cover medical bills for the victims family among other things. IMO, it doesn't matter to me what your age if you kill one of my parents I'm killing you and/or one of your parents. The point is I'd be pretty enraged and saddened to lose someone in my family. Having to fully pay all the medical bills and funeral costs because of someone elses fault is like a slap in the face. "HAHA, I'm 4 and I killed your grandma and made you pay for it."

ok, psycho.

 

[dark10x]

Good. Your fucking brats shouldn't be riding their bikes on the sidewalk.

Where should they be riding then? In the street?

Why not just fucking ban them while we're at it?

 

[zoku88]

Where should they be riding then? In the street?

Why not just fucking ban them while we're at it?

Actually, yes. I think in many places, you're not actually supposed to ride bikes on the sidewalk. (A lot of people ignore this, though.)

 

[dark10x]

Actually, yes. I think in many places, you're not actually supposed to ride bikes on the sidewalk. (A lot of people ignore this, though.)

That's correct. We're talking about a 4 year old on a tricycle, though.

I always ride in the street and that is the proper place, but when training your kid to ride a small bike, it's definitely not safe.

 

[Plywood]

I would assume the parents insurance would be required to cover medical bills for the victims family among other things. IMO, it doesn't matter to me what your age if you kill one of my parents I'm killing you and/or one of your parents. The point is I'd be pretty enraged and saddened to lose someone in my family. Having to fully pay all the medical bills and funeral costs because of someone elses fault is like a slap in the face. "HAHA, I'm 4 and I killed your grandma and made you pay for it."

You're coming off as really crazy.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

Damn, if your so frail that getting knocked into by a 4 year old is a life or death situation, and your family can't maturely handle your possible death, maybe you should just stay inside. I feel bad that the old lady had to go out that way, but something was bound to get her. I blame the doctors, should have just put a cast on that hip. They were probably just trying to milk the insurance company by doing an invasive surgery on someone so old.

 

[Dude Abides]

Where should they be riding then? In the street?

In the park? Out in the country somewhere? On these things called "bike paths"? It's illegal to ride bikes on the sidewalks and for good reason.

 

[zoku88]

That's correct. We're talking about a 4 year old on a tricycle, though.

I always ride in the street and that is the proper place, but when training your kid to ride a small bike, it's definitely not safe.

When I was taught how to ride a bike, I was taught to ride in empty spaces in the park (in the grass, lol).

Afterwards, when I had proper balance, I rode in the street. I don't recall riding on the sidewalk much. It's pretty unsafe to ride bikes on sidewalks.

Anyway, she was on a trike. If she were riding on the street, she would have gone slow enough so that other drivers could see her. I would also assume, this being Manhattan, that drivers would be used to bikers.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Damn, if your so frail that getting knocked into by a 4 year old is a life or death situation, and your family can't maturely handle your possible death, maybe you should just stay inside. I feel bad that the old lady had to go out that way, but something was bound to get her. I blame the doctors, should have just put a cast on that hip. They were probably just trying to milk the insurance company by doing an invasive surgery on someone so old.

Any old person is a single fall and broken hip away from possible deadly complications. Also you appear to know fuck-all about broken hips and hip replacements.

 

[watatatow]

Parents should be held responsible in this case, but I guess they had to cover orphans somehow.

 

[besada]

Here in Canada this shit would have never become grounds to sue someone.

In Canada you can sue your mother for injuring you before you were born, including in such cases as car accidents.

 

[samus i am]

Hip replacements are extremely invasive and it is not uncommon to lose the patient.

 

[Barrett2]

Threads like this are always so bizarre. It's sad how brainwashed society has become against litigation in a general sense that the notion someone would be held financially responsible for allowing their kid to break the law by riding a bike on a sidewalk and run into an old lady causing her to die is some horrible injustice against the world.

Have you people heard of insurance, or thought about why it exists?

 

[Joel Was Right]

This is disgusting

 

[PrivateWHudson]

Any old person is a single fall and broken hip away from possible deadly complications. Also you appear to know fuck-all about broken hips and hip replacements.

That's the point. And any 4 year old is a potential unguided missile. That's life, get used to it.

Also, would a cast have killed the old lady? If not, it appears that I know more than her doctors.

 

[Repgnar]

Parents should be held responsible in this case, but I guess they had to cover orphans somehow.

The article mentioned that the parents can't be held responsible because they were only supervising which is too vague a term or something. Any gafyers wanna clear this up? Isn't that what a supervisor is there for, to make sure stuff is done right and claim responsibility if anything bad happens? Would make more sense if the parents were getting sued for the medical damages.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Hip replacements are extremely invasive and it is not uncommon to lose the patient.

Really any surgery with a person that old is going to be subject to a much higher chance of complications. The procedure it self is moderately straight-forward and has been around forever at this point.

Spoiler

Both of my hips are artificial, AND ARE AWESOME. For a young person incredibly easy to recover from.

 

[Dali]

This reads like an Onion article. It's absurd.

Children are children. They do this stuff; sometimes a tragedy happens but it happens because it's a damned child who doesn't know better.

Trying to judge the "intelligence" of a 4 year old? It doesn't matter how well she spells, the child is not /rational/ in anything like the way a teenager or young adult is.

Even if the child in question is a holy terror and a brat, you cannot hold a 4, 5, or even 10 year old to the same standards.

That's the problem; the law is now, in the minds of people, a means to extract blood from a stone. Forget "justice". Now if a child runs into someone and there's a fatality, people don't back up and deal maturely with a very sad incident - they look for a way to extract something from someone over it even if the subject in question is a child.

That's why kids have parents to supervise. The kid isn't going to jail and has no assets to take, so pretty much the parents are going to take the hit as they should. When I was little my parents were very clear to me that the sidewalk was for walking and I lived in a spacious suburb where it's a lot less likely to catch an old lady walking out of an apartment building. I thinks it's great that these parents are going to learn common sense the hard way.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Also, would a cast have killed the old lady? If not, it appears that I know more than her doctors.

Do you have any fucking clue about the nature of her hip fracture? Did the neck of her femoral head snap? Is there a fracture down the center of the femoral head? Is there serious damage to the hip cartilage? You cannot fix that shit with a fucking cast. Any attempt to fix those will require surgical intervention.

And yes, she could die from any number of things with a cast because, CONGRATULATIONS, you just made her bedridden.

 

[Barrett2]

The article mentioned that the parents can't be held responsible because they were only supervising which is too vague a term or something. Any gafyers wanna clear this up? Isn't that what a supervisor is there for, to make sure stuff is done right and claim responsibility if anything bad happens? Would make more sense if the parents were getting sued for the medical damages.

The article doesn't say that. Both of the parents are being sued.

The article only said that simply because parents were supervising their kids, that does not automatically remove liability from falling on the kids as well as the parents.

 

[StuBurns]

This is fairly disgusting. I can't say I know what age a person should really be accountable for their actions, I think it depends on the 'crime', but this is absurd.

 

[Dude Abides]

The article mentioned that the parents can't be held responsible because they were only supervising which is too vague a term or something. Any gafyers wanna clear this up? Isn't that what a supervisor is there for, to make sure stuff is done right and claim responsibility if anything bad happens? Would make more sense if the parents were getting sued for the medical damages.

The article is not all that clear and it doesn't sound like the reporter completely understood the legal issues. Two possible answers, however:

Generally a child isn't held to the same standard as an adult, but there is an exception if the child is engaging in an adult activity. It sounds like the girl's lawyer was arguing that riding the bike was not an adult activity because the mom was "supervising," and the judge was basically saying that term has no legal meaning here.

The girl's lawyer may also have been arguing that the girl should be held to a lower standard of reasonableness than she otherwise would by virtue of the mother's supervision - i.e. the girl was trusting her mother to keep her from doing anything that was unreasonably dangerous - and the judge didn't buy that either.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

Do you have any fucking clue about the nature of her hip fracture? Did the neck of her femoral head snap? Is there a fracture down the center of the femoral head? Is there serious damage to the hip cartilage? You cannot fix that shit with a fucking cast. And yes, she could die from any number of things because, CONGRATULATIONS, you just made her bedridden.

Wow, and old person being bedridden from an ACCIDENT, who'd of thunk. Whatever happened to old people being content to sit on the porch in a rocking chair? Going out into the real world, you have to assume the risks. Kids are going to ride their bikes, dogs will get loose, a passer-by may stumble.

 

[Mr. B Natural]

 

[zoku88]

Why would that argument not apply to, for example, getting shot?

 

[Jeramii]

 

[CharlieDigital]

Wow, and old person being bedridden from an ACCIDENT, who'd of thunk. Whatever happened to old people being content to sit on the porch in a rocking chair? Going out into the real world, you have to assume the risks. Kids are going to ride their bikes, dogs will get loose, a passer-by may stumble.

Say you're carrying your newborn and a woman's dog is pulling her on a leash and bumps into you, causing you to stumble and drop your newborn and he fractures his skull then dies of complications in three weeks. You'd just say "Eh, no worries, I knew the risks when I was going out there. Don't worry about it; I'll just make another one?"

And really, what you're saying is this:

So you think people that are in their late 80s should have less rights than those of a different age?

 

[shuri]

Whats with hips and old people, and why do old people die from this?

 

[TheOrangeKid007]

If I am 87 and die from something like this I would hope my family would be okay not needing someone else's money to help cope. Just to live 87 years should be reward enough and I would imagine the family was coming to terms with the fact the lady was going to pass pretty soon.

I don't know anything about the law but is there any precedent for negligence on the old lady's family for not putting her in a home so she would not be subjected to the dangers of the outside world. She was pretty frail. It is sad someone lost their mother but that child will live the rest of her life knowing that as a child she lead to someone's death. If that child lived to 87, that would be 80+ years of that.

 

[Freshmaker]

A 'reasonably prudent child'? Okay, asshole. How many 'reasonably prudent' children have you known at age 4? Were your children always prudent at age 4 on? I imagine they were with all the beatings you were probably giving to them.

Uh, yeah... When I was 4 I knew enough to not ram people with my trike.

If I am 87 and die from something like this I would hope my family would be okay not needing someone else's money to help cope. Just to live 87 years should be reward enough and I would imagine the family was coming to terms with the fact the lady was going to pass pretty soon.

So someone pushes your grandmother down, she breaks her hip and dies of complications, and your response would be "LOL, she was going to die within a decade anyway. No harm done." WTF?

 

[StopMakingSense]

Whats with hips and old people, and why do old people die from this?

Older people, esp. women, tend to have weaker hip joints due to weakening bone structure. The femoral head, in particular the neck, is very susceptible to damage during falls. THe only way to fix this is with surgery, and any surgery involving an old person can lead to bad complications.

You don't have to be a "frail" old person to suffer significant hip damage.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

Say you're carrying your newborn and a woman's dog is pulling her on a leash and bumps into you, causing you to stumble and drop your newborn and he fractures his skull then dies of complications in three weeks. You'd just say "Eh, no worries, I knew the risks when I was going out there. Don't worry about it; I'll just make another one?"

And really, what you're saying is this:

No, I wouldn't sue. I'd be heartbroken, but wouldn't sue. If the dog attacked us that would be different, but a bump, no way. I should have been holding the baby more securely, or had the baby in a carrier. Baby's are fragile and I took every precaution with ours, and so should old people. Maybe she should have been using a walker outside of her home if her balance wasn't so great anymore.

I'm not saying that rights should differ according to age, I'm saying that people of any age need to know what their limitations are, and live within their limitations. And also, shit happens.

 

[CharlieDigital]

I don't know anything about the law but is there any precedent for negligence on the old lady's family for not putting her in a home so she would not be subjected to the dangers of the outside world. She was pretty frail.

This argument is pretty ridiculous. A newborn is pretty frail as well. If I'm walking out of the hospital with my newborn and some kids are running around and bump into me and I stumble, it's negligence on my part?

I'm not saying that rights should differ according to age, I'm saying that people of any age need to know what their limitations are, and live within their limitations. And also, shit happens.

Okay...

Whatever happened to old people being content to sit on the porch in a rocking chair?

So when you're 87, I hope you voluntarily commit yourself to a home. Clearly, that's where all old people belong, not in the general populace! You're only looking out for the old people right? Forget about freedom and rights; who needs those when you're 87? You should just stay the fuck out of the way.

 

[quickwhips]

I think they should run the kids over with bikes for an eye for an eye thing. 87 year old ladies will need to ride the bikes though.

 

[Mr. B Natural]

No, I wouldn't sue. I'd be heartbroken, but wouldn't sue. If the dog attacked us that would be different, but a bump, no way. I should have been holding the baby more securely, or had the baby in a carrier. Baby's are fragile and I took every precaution with ours, and so should old people. Maybe she should have been using a walker outside of her home if her balance wasn't so great anymore.

I'm not saying that rights should differ according to age, I'm saying that people of any age need to know what their limitations are, and live within their limitations. And also, shit happens.

Yeah, but money.

 

[Mad Max]

Say you're carrying your newborn and a woman's dog is pulling her on a leash and bumps into you, causing you to stumble and drop your newborn and he fractures his skull then dies of complications in three weeks. You'd just say "Eh, no worries, I knew the risks when I was going out there. Don't worry about it; I'll just make another one?"

Still, holding the dog responsible would be quite retarded.

 

[Shanadeus]

This argument is pretty ridiculous. A newborn is pretty frail as well. If I'm walking out of the hospital with my newborn and some kids are running around and bump into me and I stumble, it's negligence on my part?

I'd say no, and it's the same for an old person.

But you wouldn't sue a kid running around and making you drop your newborn to death for manslaughter, nor would you sue the parents unless they somehow told the kid to go push that baby out of your arms.

And I doubt the parents told their 4 year old to hit the old woman in this case.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Obviously this is an edge case which aligns with current case law and makes people think about things.

The real thing that needs to be discussed is where do people think a line should be, age-wise, for children being held liable for their actions?

 

[StopMakingSense]

I'd say no, and it's the same for an old person.

But you wouldn't sue a kid running around and making you drop your newborn to death for manslaughter, nor would you sue the parents unless they somehow told the kid to go push that baby out of your arms.

And I doubt the parents told their 4 year old to hit the old woman in this case.

You are confusing legal domains here. You don't sue for manslaughter, thats a criminal case, this is a civil matter. Also, negligence is not malice but still an area of legal exposure.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Still, holding the dog responsible would be quite retarded.

I used a dog because he used that as an example, but let's say it's a bunch of kids playing football in the street and they throw the football and it hits your newborn's head causing brain damage.

You're okay with that? You say "Ah, my bad" and that's that?

 

[dskillzhtown]

The article doesn't say that. Both of the parents are being sued.

The article only said that simply because parents were supervising their kids, that does not automatically remove liability from falling on the kids as well as the parents.

I would think in the end the parents will be held liable, the case against the 4-year old won't stand up. Then other judges will point, laugh and mock at the judge in this case.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

This argument is pretty ridiculous. A newborn is pretty frail as well. If I'm walking out of the hospital with my newborn and some kids are running around and bump into me and I stumble, it's negligence on my part?


Okay...

So when you're 87, I hope you voluntarily commit yourself to a home. Clearly, that's where all old people belong, not in the general populace! You're only looking out for the old people right? Forget about freedom and rights; who needs those when you're 87? You should just stay the fuck out of the way.

Only if I want to live forever and can't deal with the fact that I may *gasp* get hurt and possibly die at 87.

In this case it's the family that's suing, so I hold no contention toward the old lady, she was probably fine that it was her time to go. The family are just being douches.

 

[TheOrangeKid007]

So someone pushes your grandmother down, she breaks her hip and dies of complications, and your response would be "LOL, she was going to die within a decade anyway. No harm done." WTF?

Explain to me where I said, LOL. Please also explain where I said "No harm done". I said it was sad that she died.

 

[CharlieDigital]

In this case it's the family that's suing, so I hold no contention toward the old lady, she was probably fine that it was her time to go. The family are just being douches.

Because you can talk to her beyond the grave and get her opinion, right?

Only if I want to live forever and can't deal with the fact that I may *gasp* get hurt and possibly die at 87.

Going out into the real world, you have to assume the risks. Kids are going to ride their bikes, dogs will get loose, a passer-by may stumble.

So you believe that we should end all personal injury litigation because once you leave your house, you accept the responsibility that you may die and that you don't live forever? Death and injury are fair game?

 

[Dude Abides]

I'd say no, and it's the same for an old person.

But you wouldn't sue a kid running around and making you drop your newborn to death for manslaughter, nor would you sue the parents unless they somehow told the kid to go push that baby out of your arms.

And I doubt the parents told their 4 year old to hit the old woman in this case.

That's not a good analogy. Riding your bike on the sidewalk is dangerous to other people (that's why there are laws against it). If you cause danger to other people, and someone gets hurt as a result, you have to pay to compensate for their injury. What is the problem with this?