Support NeoGAF

[StopMakingSense]

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?

But they were children just having fun! And she was such a weak and frail OLD PERSON. GODDAM WHY IS SHE SO OLD.

 

[reaver18]

She was 87. Was her death really the result of a broken hip?

Anyways, what are they going to get out of suing a 4 year old? Are they looking for jail time, monetary damages, shit is so ridiculous.

right. big deal she was 87, woulda croaked in a few years anyway. this is a case of the family trying to make some money off their deceased grandma.

this is the most ridiculous thing ever. how can a 4 year old be held liable for anything?

 

[Mudkips]

Yes? This is how people die. We don't just not wake up one day. "Dying of old age" isn't a real thing.

Why you could wake up dead tomorrow.

 

[entremet]

Ridiculous.

 

[CharlieDigital]

But they were children just having fun! And she was such a weak and frail OLD PERSON. GODDAM WHY IS SHE SO OLD.

I mean, the implications are amusing.

Your wife is in a crosswalk and someone runs the red light and hits your wife. Not their fault; your wife should have reacted faster to that drunk guy driving 70mph in a 35 running a red light. And I mean, after all, she accepted the risk that she might die by crossing the street not to mention leaving the house in the first place!

Guy is chasing his dog that got off the leash and shoves your daughter out of the way and she hits her head on a concrete post. Not his fault. Clearly, your daughter should have been wearing a helmet. This wouldn't have happened if she were wearing a helmet when she left the house!

 

[PrivateWHudson]

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

Because I'm giving her the benefit of doubt and don't want to call a dead old lady a douche.

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?

Hey, that's why we have judges. Some cases are going to be people getting hurt/dying to true neglect, and others due to people just doing what they do. In this instance, I disagree with the judge. Kids ride bikes and throw balls. Dogs run.

If lightning strikes a tree and the branch falls on my head I'm not going to sue. If a property owner neglects to remove a dead tree and the wind breaks a branch off and it hits me in the head I would sue.

Just because you can sue doesn't always mean that you should.

EDIT: LOL at CharlieDigital comparing kids riding their bikes to a drunk driver running a red light.

 

[JGS]

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.

Well, from an insurance angle that is correct. If a parent was doing the job of a parent, they aren't negligent. If they were telling their kid to ride toward the old lady , perhaps as a marker, then they would be negligent. Otherwise, they can't stop their kids from doing everything nor can they stop physics. Further, their kids could have been just as likely to be hurt. Normally this would be chalked up as a unfortunate circumstance.

Insurance wouldn't cover the kid either because the liability rest with the parents. We had this when minors stole their parents car and wrecked.

If they find the child guilty, there are no assets to attach to so the child will be scott free anyway. It's only if it tracks back to the parents that this becomes a big issue unless the kids are millionaires or something.

The error imo is in this statement:

“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

I don't think a 4 year old can be reasonably prudent when riding a bike. I also think it could be argued that parents condoning a race between 4 year olds is asking for trouble and work that angle althought that would be tough too.

If the child was riding the bike accurately and was allowed to ride where she was riding it & knew the law regarding it (which again a 4 year old would not know), then there's no negligence in my opinion. There may be liability though depending on right of way, speed, etc...

If the parents have some type of Homeowners policy, it will often pay out a no questions asked medical claim of 1-5,000. Otherwise, I don't know how the claimants expect to collect from this without adding the parents which they apparently can't.

 

[CharlieDigital]

EDIT: LOL at CharlieDigital comparing kids riding their bikes to a drunk driver running a red light.

Hey man, your post:

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.

Going out into the real world, you have to assume the risks.

Oh, you wanted to add exceptions?

 

[Dude Abides]

EDIT: LOL at CharlieDigital comparing kids riding their bikes to a drunk driver running a red light.

Both are negligent and breaking a law intended to prevent precisely the type of injury that occurred.

 

[Angry Grimace]

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 are fucking insane.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Both are negligent and breaking a law intended to prevent precisely the type of injury that occurred.

PrivateW must think he's judge and jury of what is right and what is wrong; he gets the draw the lines of what's worthy of litigation and what is not. The law is not blind, apparently, old people should know better than to leave their houses without body padding and their helmets and walkers. If someone knocks them over and they die from complications from the injuries? Their fault! If an old person gets hit by a car? Driver's fault, clearly!

I think we should make a law that makes it a legal requirement. I mean, old people should know better, right? If they leave their house without their cane or walker, padded gear, and a helmet, they deserve whatever happens to them!

 

[The Technomancer]

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.)

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....hahahaha

The only streets I'll ride my bike on are those with no traffic. If there are cars parked on the side, and/or multiple busy lanes in say...a downtown area, or most of my university, there's no way in hell I'm letting some asshole sideswipe me.

I don't care if its against the law. I'm careful, and I've never hit a pedestrian, but I've been hit by a negligent driver twice and had many more close calls.

 

[rabhw]

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

Maybe not directly, Canadians prefer to use the "human rights violation" lawsuit as an indirect way to receive monetary compensation.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Obviously a tough case for everyone involved.

But I do have an observation from the "conservatives show yourself" thread. In there, there seemed to be some movement against minimum ages for various things. "Why should you have to wait until 21 to drink, 18 to smoke, etc?" It should be based on other abilities and mental capacity on a case-by-case basis, etc.

Well in this case, those normal minimums were thrown out. The legal system and judge deemed so far that the child has the capacity to understand that their actions were irresponsible and thus can face the consequences of those actions. But of course I'm not saying everyone shares those views. And I personally don't agree with it. Any charges or civil penalties should be on the parents only, not the child.

That is one thing I think we have gotten right. It is simply easier and more uniform to make a standard "of age" age. I just think everything should be 18 for the fact that you should be done with high school, have skills to function in a society and be on your own out of the purview of your parents (especially if you're in college) and the fact that you can now vote, serve, etc. But get rid of those minimums and you run into things like these and make things like these infinitely more complex.

 

[Mad Max]

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?

That really depends on the age of the children, and if they did it intentionally or not. But if the case was similar to the one in the OP it would make a lot more sense to hold their parents responsible. Not that it would even be possible to sue children like this here in the Netherlands, so in reality I wouldn't even be able to make that decision.
Also there is a significant difference between a 87 year old woman and an infant in this case.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Just to be clear, I think suing the 4 year old is a bit ridiculous as well, precedence or not. But I do believe that the parents should be held responsible to some degree. At the least, for the cost of care, medical bills, funeral services (this alone can be $10,000+), etc.

I just think it's ridiculous that folks are saying that the old lady should have done this or that or that somehow (lol at the suggestion that it's her fault for not leaving the house with a walker), there is no fault here.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

Both are negligent and breaking a law intended to prevent precisely the type of injury that occurred.

I'm pretty sure bike/sidewalk laws are to prevent older children/adults from riding at unsafe speeds that would take out any able bodied person. 4 year olds don't get up the speed, or have the weight to be very destructive. Sometimes a sidewalk is the only safe place for a young kid to ride their bike. Do you really want to deprive kids from learning how to ride a bike just because someone late into their twilight years died from surgery? Monster.

Anyway, it's probably a law made by a bunch of old people. If 4 year olds had their way old people wouldn't be allowed to freely roam the sidewalks, and the injury would have been prevented as well.

 

[Freshmaker]

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

Then you said, "No biggie since she was going to die within a decade anyway".

 

[PrivateWHudson]

PrivateW must think he's judge and jury of what is right and what is wrong; he gets the draw the lines of what's worthy of litigation and what is not. The law is not blind, apparently, old people should know better than to leave their houses without body padding and their helmets and walkers. If someone knocks them over and they die from complications from the injuries? Their fault! If an old person gets hit by a car? Driver's fault, clearly!

I think we should make a law that makes it a legal requirement. I mean, old people should know better, right? If they leave their house without their cane or walker, padded gear, and a helmet, they deserve whatever happens to them!

And you must think that all judges are above reproach and shouldn't be criticized. And yes, if you can't withstand the impact of a 4 year old on a bike or have the reflexes to dodge said incoming child, then maybe you should take precautions.

That said, I don't know the whole story and this is all a knee jerk reaction. Was she turned around and everyone was screaming for her to look out because the kid was out of control, but her hearing aid wasn't turned on? I don't know. Was she turned around and the parents made no attempt to warn her...sue the parents.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Really, the one question that can be debated reasonably here is at what age should a child be held liable for their actions/negligence?

"Dude, come on" is not a legal argument. Besides, this is just a hearing to decide wether or not a lawsuit can proceed. A judge isn't going to just throw out an established precedent in this case.

 

[gutter_trash]

we are now in a generation where kids are not aloud to play outside anymore, not aloud to bike, skate or just be kids

kids now are forced to be sheltered to the confines of their balcony and yard

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm pretty sure bike/sidewalk laws are to prevent older children/adults from riding at unsafe speeds that would take out any able bodied person. 4 year olds don't get up the speed, or have the weight to be very destructive. Sometimes a sidewalk is the only safe place for a young kid to ride their bike. Do you really want to deprive kids from learning how to ride a bike just because someone late into their twilight years died from surgery? Monster.

No, if I had my way, kids could ride their bikes on the sidewalks, but adults would be allowed, nay, encouraged, to knock them over. Thus, children would get an early introduction to the harsh ways of the world and realize that setting foot outside is taking your life in your hands with no recourse.

 

[zoku88]

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....hahahaha

The only streets I'll ride my bike on are those with no traffic. If there are cars parked on the side, and/or multiple busy lanes in say...a downtown area, or most of my university, there's no way in hell I'm letting some asshole sideswipe me.

I don't care if its against the law. I'm careful, and I've never hit a pedestrian, but I've been hit by a negligent driver twice and had many more close calls.

There are plenty of people around here who ride on streets. If they can do it, you can too.

You're not allowed to ride on sidewalks for good reason.

we are now in a generation where kids are not aloud to play outside anymore, not aloud to bike, skate or just be kids

kids now are forced to be sheltered to the confines of their balcony and yard

This has nothing to do with that. She was doing something illegal for anyone. Bikes should not be ridden on sidewalks. I'm not saying the girl should be sued. The parents should definitely be punished for not teaching their child correctly, though.

I'm pretty sure bike/sidewalk laws are to prevent older children/adults from riding at unsafe speeds that would take out any able bodied person. 4 year olds don't get up the speed, or have the weight to be very destructive. Sometimes a sidewalk is the only safe place for a young kid to ride their bike. Do you really want to deprive kids from learning how to ride a bike just because someone late into their twilight years died from surgery? Monster.

Anyway, it's probably a law made by a bunch of old people. If 4 year olds had their way old people wouldn't be allowed to freely roam the sidewalks, and the injury would have been prevented as well.

I learned to ride a bike in a park. Other kids can too. Learning to ride a bike on a sidewalk isn't necessary.

 

[captive]

I mean, the implications are amusing.

Your wife is in a crosswalk and someone runs the red light and hits your wife. Not their fault; your wife should have reacted faster to that drunk guy driving 70mph in a 35 running a red light. And I mean, after all, she accepted the risk that she might die by crossing the street not to mention leaving the house in the first place!

This is just absurd exegeration. speeding and running a red light is different from riding a trike on a sidewalk.
But to go along with your absurd example, the the husband should sue the car!

Guy is chasing his dog that got off the leash and shoves your daughter out of the way and she hits her head on a concrete post. Not his fault. Clearly, your daughter should have been wearing a helmet. This wouldn't have happened if she were wearing a helmet when she left the house!

again, sue the dog!


also some of you need to check yourselves, riding bikes on sidewalks may be illegal where you live, but it is not illegal everywhere.

 

[CharlieDigital]

And you must think that all judges are above reproach and shouldn't be criticized. And yes, if you can't withstand the impact of a 4 year old on a bike or have the reflexes to dodge said incoming child, then maybe you should take precautions.

Nah, I think that in this case, there's legal precedence and, as I said above, at the least, the parents should be held financially responsible for any out of pocket medical bills and the funeral bill. Any additional financial remittance should be up to a jury to decide.

What I find fault with is this belief that somehow, there is no grounds for litigation here or that anyone that would file for litigation is insane because she was old or that she should have been out in public with her walker (as you suggested) or that she accepted the risk of dying as soon as she left her front door.

That's absurd

 

[CharlieDigital]

This is just absurd exegeration. speeding and running a red light is different from riding a trike on a sidewalk.
But to go along with your absurd example, the the husband should sue the car!

again, sue the dog!

Well, first, you should read my actual views on this.

Then, you should read what I was responding to:

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.

Going out into the real world, you have to assume the risks.

 

[Dude Abides]

This is just absurd exegeration. speeding and running a red light is different from riding a trike on a sidewalk.
But to go along with your absurd example, the the husband should sue the car!

again, sue the dog!


also some of you need to check yourselves, riding bikes on sidewalks may be illegal where you live, but it is not illegal everywhere.

I find your equivalence between children and animals/inanimate objects interesting. I would like to purchase a young child, keep it in a cage, and teach it such tricks as it is able to learn. When it reaches age 13 I will have it put to sleep. Do you know where I might procure such a child? I'm willing to pay up to $100.

Also, it is in fact illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk on East 52nd Street in Manhattan, so nobody need check themselves.

 

[itsinmyveins]

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?

According to law, does that include tricycles?

Nah, I think that in this case, there's legal precedence and, as I said above, at the least, the parents should be held financially responsible for any out of pocket medical bills and the funeral bill. Any additional financial remittance should be up to a jury to decide.

Makes me wonder, would a universal health care system alleviate some of the pressure on courts when it comes to claims that relates to medical bills and etc?

 

[captive]

I find your equivalence between children and animals/inanimate objects interesting. I would like to purchase a young child, keep it in a cage, and teach it such tricks as it is able to learn. When it reaches age 13 I will have it put to sleep. Do you know where I might procure such a child? I'm willing to pay up to $100.

It makes about as much sense as suing the child in this case. Just sue the parents, why even name the child?
But in Charlie Digital's examples, you wouldn't sue the dog or the car now would you? No you wouldn't, you would sue the driver and the dog owner.

Also, it is in fact illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk on East 52nd Street in Manhattan, so nobody need check themselves.

thats fine. Whats the penalty? a $150 fine? Also i'd like to know how much it is enforced? Doesn't change the fact that the family would be suing regardless of whether it is illegal or legal to ride a bike on the sidewalk.

 

[zoku88]

According to law, does that include tricycles?

I don't know off the top of my mind, but I see no reason why the law would discriminate between different types of non-motorized bikes.

 

[Burli]

I could be a dick and say that if you can die from being hit by a four year old on a tricycle that you're liable to get fucked up sooner or later.

 

[CharlieDigital]

But in Charlie Digital's examples, you wouldn't sue the dog or the car now would you? No you wouldn't, you would sue the driver and the dog owner.

You did read my post right? You do understand what I was responding to, right?

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.

Going out into the real world, you have to assume the risks.

 

[antonz]

7 years old has generally been the accepted age of reason where a child can begin to be accountable for right and wrong decisions.

4 years old is just outright insanity.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

CarlieD...You keep bringing this up:

Going out into the real world, you have to assume the risks.

But have taken it out of context. I'm talking about the risks of normal everyday life. Kids playing, dogs running, rain making the sidewalk slippery, lightning striking during a storm. Not people doing neglectful things, just life happening. And stand by the statement that maybe she was the one being neglectful. If she had a balance problem, or a vision problem that she couldn't see the kid coming, or a hearing problem that she couldn't hear the warnings, then she should have corrected those, or lead a lifestyle that would have insulated her from life happening around her.

I don't put any blame on someone who isn't old enough to wipe their ass without assistance.

 

[itsinmyveins]

I don't know off the top of my mind, but I see no reason why the law would discriminate between different types of non-motorized bikes.

Take a wild guess, man.

 

[CharlieDigital]

maybe she was the one being neglectful...or a vision problem that she couldn't see the kid coming, or a hearing problem that she couldn't hear the warnings...she should have corrected those

So in essence, a blind or deaf person is not afforded the same rights as other individuals when it comes to personal injury litigation? It is the fault of the injured for walking on a sidewalk when they should know better because the individual has a disability and/or impairment?

 

[zoku88]

Take a wild guess, man.

The main problem with riding vehicles on sidewalks is that pedestrians are ill equipped to handle things that are not in front of them.

That problem exists regardless if the person is riding a trike or a "real" bicycle.

Imagine, for example, someone riding a trike on a downward slope. It would be dangerous in any case, no?

EDIT: The other problem is that the rider has less control of a vehicle.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I don't put any blame on someone who isn't old enough to wipe their ass without assistance.

What about someone who is too old to wipe their ass without assistance?

 

[CharlieDigital]

What about someone who is too old to wipe their ass without assistance?

Clearly, she shouldn't be out and about walking! I mean, it's a fucking jungle out there.

 

[captive]

You did read my post right? You do understand what I was responding to, right?

jesus fuck, yes i read it, yes i've read his posts too, whats your goddamn point? You made analogies and in your analogies directly equated to this situation you would not sue the dog or the car. You would sue the owner or the driver, did you read that? did you? Really? because you keep quoting me for no good reason.

 

[zoku88]

jesus fuck, yes i read it, yes i've read his posts too, whats your goddamn point? You made analogies and in your analogies directly equated to this situation you would not sue the dog or the car. You would sue the owner or the driver, did you read that? did you? Really? because you keep quoting me for no good reason.

But that's dumb. Cars lack sentience.

And dogs can be put down when they attack people.

Are you saying that kids either: 1) lack sentience or 2) should be put down?

 

[PrivateWHudson]

What about someone who is too old to wipe their ass without assistance?

So then we agree! ...both were unable to be at fault. No suit needed.

 

[itsinmyveins]

The main problem with riding vehicles on sidewalks is that pedestrians are ill equipped to handle things that are not in front of them.

That problem exists regardless if the person is riding a trike or a "real" bicycle.

Imagine, for example, someone riding a trike on a downward slope. It would be dangerous in any case, no?

EDIT: The other problem is that the rider has less control of a vehicle.

So what if those kids were running and bumped into her? That could very well result in a similar situation. Obviously they shouldn't be racing and the parents should have stopped them. Even so, to me this is quite clear; unfortunate and a tragedy but an accident nontheless.

 

[Count Dookkake]

So then we agree! ...both were unable to be at fault. No suit needed.

I haven't agreed to shit. Just a question.

 

[Dude Abides]

It makes about as much sense as suing the child in this case. Just sue the parents, why even name the child?
But in Charlie Digital's examples, you wouldn't sue the dog or the car now would you? No you wouldn't, you would sue the driver and the dog owner.

You can't sue cars or dogs. You can sue people. Children are people. In a case like this, you sue both the parent and the child in case the claim against one of them is dismissed. In this area there seems to be some confusion as to who would be liable, so you don't take chances, and you sue both. Later, the judge rules on whether one or both can be sued.

thats fine. Whats the penalty? a $150 fine? Also i'd like to know how much it is enforced? Doesn't change the fact that the family would be suing regardless of whether it is illegal or legal to ride a bike on the sidewalk.

I've lived in Manhattan more than 6 years and I've never seen someone riding a bike on the sidewalk, not even a delivery guy. Presumably because people realize you're not supposed to, and you'd get yelled at pretty quickly.

 

[zoku88]

So what if those kids were running and bumped into her? That could very well result in a similar situation. Obviously they shouldn't be racing and the parents should have stopped them. Even so, to me this is quite clear; unfortunate and a tragedy but an accident nontheless.

Being an accident doesn't absolve people from blame, especially when the accident occurs under illegal conditions.

Furthermore, if I ran into someone and hurt them, why I not be to blame? Clearly, if some kids did that, at least their parents should be to blame?

 

[CharlieDigital]

You can't sue cars or dogs. You can sue people. Children are people. In a case like this, you sue both the parent and the child in case the claim against one of them is dismissed. In this area there seems to be some confusion as to who would be liable, so you don't take chances, and you sue both. Later, the judge rules on whether one or both can be sued.

Or, take it in a different direction: the family isn't suing the tricycle, they're suing the operator of the tricycle!

 

[PrivateWHudson]

So in essence, a blind or deaf person is not afforded the same rights as other individuals when it comes to personal injury litigation? It is the fault of the injured for walking on a sidewalk when they should know better because the individual has a disability and/or impairment?

Would a blind or deaf person be killed by a 4 year old on a bike? I'm talking about people knowing their limitations.

The parents were responsible for knowing their child's limitations, but unfortunately this isn't about the parents' neglect.

 

[Amory]

Try those little bastards for murder one. Lock em up in their playpen and throw away the key.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

I haven't agreed to shit. Just a question.

Well it depends...

Is she incapable of wiping her ass due to undeveloped/lost mental capacity? If so, she should be supervised as well (for her own safety, and the safety of others).