4 year old being sued?

[tboy]

I think you hit the nail on the head sg: the kids are being named as being the at fault party under the direction supervision of the mother. I think somewhere along the way the grandma's lawyers will be producting evidence that suggests that the mother(s) are actually liable for the damage of the children.

Otherwise, as I suggested earlier, the judgement would be worthless because the 4 yr old has no assets. I mean, other than her bike, her barbies, and her collection of stuffed animals.

 

[HOF]

EXACTLY

Hof: my reference to the WSIB commercials is the ones that state: there is NO such thing as an accident. Any "accident" can usually be prevented by a little more attention to the situation.

Now in this case, Grandma should be able to safely walk the sidewalk without fear or need to have good reflexes. Therefore she cannot be held responsible in any way shape or form. Then, where does the responsibility lie? Well, with the parents for not paying enough attention to what their kids are doing.

HOF: now I thought we were going to have an adult conversation but out you come with the insults? Dude, I would expect that from fuji, Rubfucker or one of the other dweebs but you? come on.......

Now for the sake of discussion: your grandparents would want you to forgive unconditionally the kid and their parents but NOT a teen street racer. So, what you're saying is age is the only determining factor in your forgiveness? Isn't that a little hypocritical?

Let's compare the two:
Teen/Car: he should know better (don't race, don't drive too fast, watch where you're going)
Child/bike: they should know better (don't ride your bike on the sidewalk, watch where you're going, don't ride too fast)

Sorry, but your "forgiveness" of the child and the parents IS indicative of the problem with today's youth. You'd outright forgive them for KILLING an elderly woman.

BTW: SG? she died of complications of the surgery/treatment why else would they be able to bring suit against anyone if she died of unrelated causes?

OK, Hof: here you go:

"Accident: Law . such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought. "

And HOF, you can argue my opinion being wrong all you want, but I'm legally right, at least in New York State.........

Tboy

If I were intending to insult you, I would and you would know it; you can't recognize sarcasm?

Accident taken from the Meriam Dictionary:

Definition of ACCIDENT

1
a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>

2
a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought d —used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation

3
: a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>

Examples of ACCIDENT

• <LI class=vi-learners>He was injured in an accident at work. <LI class=vi-learners>The accident happened when her car slid on a patch of ice. <LI class=vi-learners>Investigators are still trying to determine the cause of the accident. <LI class=vi-learners>Their meeting was an accident. <LI class=vi-learners>It is just an accident that they arrived when they did.
• She says that her pregnancy was an accident

Of course you went right for the point that would validate your opinion, but accidents can and do happen.

Please don't spin my words to suit your needs or attempt to put words in my mouth. Forgiveness is divine My opinion is that the children and their parents did not go intending to injure anyone; therefore, imo there is no intent.

If a child or elderly person, ran/stepped into traffic against the lights and you struck them and they died, would that be an accident? act of god? of your fault?

Indicative of today's youth? What exactly do you believe should happen to the 4 year old?

Maybe the child should go to Bedford Women's Prison in NY?
Maybe the child should go to Goshen Youth Prison in NY?

Hell, why not give the children and their mothers an lethal injection?

That's sarcasm if you're wondering.

You're absolutely entitled to your opinions; however, common sense is required at times.

 

[Hell FirE]

Ridiculous laws.

I heard if a thief comes onto your property at the intention of breaking in and slips and falls just outside your door, he can sue you . Is that true?

 

[tboy]

Ridiculous laws.

I heard if a thief comes onto your property at the intention of breaking in and slips and falls just outside your door, he can sue you . Is that true?

I've heard that too as you as a homeowner must maintain a safe environment. Now there could be some legal arguments that this safe environment is only necessary to make it safe for those invited or authorised to be on the premises (ie: guests, meter reader, mail man etc).

In the US generally they are allowed to shoot first and ask questions later but up here, we are allowed reasonable means of protecting ourselves, we can't just shoot them.

Yes, accidents occur but most if not all can be prevented which is the premise of the WSIB commercials.

One doesn't have to show intent in order to be responsible. Taken from your post directly:

an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance

Carelessness or ignorance shows negligence and I believe this is what the judge ruled on.

See, using your road racer example, the driver didn't intend to hurt someone but often that is the result of their actions. Which is probably why we have a "careless driving" charge on the HTA. As the judge stated in his ruling, the child should have been taught or known that they "should look both ways before crossing the street" therefore have some knowledge what is safe and what is unsafe to do on their bicycle.

See, YOU see a BIG difference between racing a car on a road, or racing a bicycle on a sidewalk, I don't. Racing is racing and it is unsafe no matter what the speed or vehicle or driver.

As for "indicative of today's youth" yes, it is exactly indicative of what kids today get away with. Now what MY parents did was way ovecommunity but if I raced my bicycle on the sidewalk? I wouldn't be riding it for a month. So many parents these days think it is positively marvey to see their brood running madly through the aisles of the grocery store, restaurant, or sidewalk, but I don't. What should the punishment be? Definitely take away the bike. Teach the child that what they did was terrible and that by doing so, she severely injured an elderly woman.

I would bet any amount of money that the parents in this case are not looking at the fact that what their kid did was terribly wrong, but the audacity of the fact that their daughter is named in the suit. Same as this thread, I think people are missing the point.

Hopefully this case will make more parents stand up and take notice that if they let their kids do whatever they want, there will be consequences to them, not just to others that might get hurt as a result of their (lack of) parenting skills.

 

[SillyGirl]

In the US they are allowed to shoot first and ask questions later but up here, we are allowed reasonable means of protecting ourselves, we can't just shoot them.

That's a big generalization, Tboy...gun laws here vary widely from state to state.

In NY, for example, you can't shoot someone who has broken into your home unless you feel you are in imminent danger. You can't shoot them unless they are actually in the home, and your right to shoot ends as soon as they go out the door, you can't chase them out into the yard and shoot them.

As far as being sued by an injured burglar, I've heard of cases like that too, and it just seems ridiculous. :roll:

 

[tboy]

,,,,,,

In the US generally they are allowed to shoot first and ask questions later but up here, we are allowed reasonable means of protecting ourselves, we can't just shoot them.

......


....

ok, I fixed it.....but more to the point: we're not allowed to shoot anyone ANYTIME even if we feel we're in imminent danger......

Even with various states and even cities with diverse gun laws, you have to admit, as a whole, the US is MUCH more gun prone than any other part of the world....(other than those parts that are at war that is....but then only by a slight margin )

 

[SillyGirl]

ok, I fixed it.....but more to the point: we're not allowed to shoot anyone ANYTIME even if we feel we're in imminent danger......

Even with various states and even cities with diverse gun laws, you have to admit, as a whole, the US is MUCH more gun prone than any other part of the world....(other than those parts that are at war that is....but then only by a slight margin )

No argument there, but most places aren't the Wild West you seem to think we are.

I guess I can understand the perception....guns only make the news when they're used criminally or treated irresponsibly. No one wants to read about the people who take safety seriously and don't let the toddler near the weapon.

 

[lagavulin]

Without reading this whole thread, I suspect that at the bottom of it all
INSURANCE
the child is probably covered under a home insurance policy of the parents

(you would be surprised at what you are covered for in a home insurance policy, it is a whole lot more than fire and disaster)

the judge simply said you can sue, it is a long way from proving anything

but it gets some deep pockets from the insurance company into the game

without the deep pockets a lawsuit is just like a thread on the internet, a lot of talk that goes no where