Judge allows 4 year old to be sued

[Rota]

Ok, have a go at Devils Advo. Let's get it on...
Ok, even IF the parents tried their best to control and supervise the 4 year old kids, hey, kids don't always listen. So the parents get sued because their 4 year old kid did not listen to them? Let's put this in more better edumacated terms... after all, I are edumacated a little. Is a 4 year old capable of making rational decisions? For the most part, no. Is a retard or crazy person capable of making rational decisions, not really. In the court of law, if a crazy or mentally retarded person would have accidently hit the 87 year old lady, could they be sued? What is the mentally retarded person had a guardian at the time. And that guardian tried to stop the retard but the retard went running away like greased lightening, arms flailing, and hit the lady. Does the guardian get sued? Same should apply to a 4 year old. A 4 year old is basically mentally retarded. As in a very underdeveloped brain thus not able to make rational decisions or even act rationally.

Since I agreed with Fallbreeze, would you care to make a similar rebuttle to my post?

[japanpimp]

Since I agreed with Fallbreeze, would you care to make a similar rebuttle to my post?

Well, you and FB-Snizzle basically said the same thing. So what I said to FB argues your points as well. So feel free to argue my response to FB.

[Hussein]

this is how screwed up the american system is. we blame it on everyone to avoid it on ourselfs

[Rota]

Well, you and FB-Snizzle basically said the same thing. So what I said to FB argues your points as well. So feel free to argue my response to FB.

I already did...

The parents should be allowed to be sued. It's their responsibility. The old woman is certainly not liable for any medical bills.

Why is a 4 year old racing on the streets of Manhattan?
When I was 4, I treated all adults as authority figures, not as speed bumps. Why did the parents not indoctrinate some sort of respect for elders. Rather than focusing on winning the race, the children should have stopped. I respect that children have the attention span of a gnat and should not be expected to act "reasonably" all the time. Maybe they weren't mature enough yet to even think to yield to pedestrians. If that's the case, then the parents should not be allowing them to ride around the streets.

There are plenty of bike/jogging paths in NY they could go. On those paths, the other people are reasonably aware of bike traffic. An average pedestrian on a Manhattan sidewalk is not reasonably expected to be on the lookout for a speeding bike that might come out of nowhere.

The parents are responsible, for not teaching the children correctly, or not chaperoning them correctly. I don't care which you choose, but it's the parents fault, either way.


It's already been said, but the OP was poorly worded. The children aren't being sued, they are just being named in the suit because they are the transgressors. The actual target of the suit is the parents that have money and are liable. The title was deceptively worded to be attention grabbing, and that's fine. But, the opening post was a fail. You know the girl isn't really being sued, JP. Even if she was, there's no risk of jail time in a lawsuit. She's not being criminally charged. I hope you were just failing at trying to be funny, and not truly being that naive.

Why do you think the old woman is liable for being in the way of children on a sidewalk made for pedestrian traffic like herself?
Why do you think the parents aren't responsible for the teaching/chaperoning of their children?
Why do you think the parents should not be allowed to be sued?
Why do you think the child is being sued, when it's clearly the parent being sued?
Why do you think there is any risk of juvenile hall, when there are no criminal charges?

NOONE is blaming the child, or holding the child liable. It's the guardian of the child that is liable, just like the guardian of any mentally disabled person would be responsible for similar transgressions.


Your condescending rebuttal to Fallbreeze didn't really address what I said in my post, I can't use it as a substitute reply to me. You will need to actually make a separate post to rebuke the points I made.

[Fallbreeze]

Ok, have a go at Devils Advo. Let's get it on...
Ok, even IF the parents tried their best to control and supervise the 4 year old kids, hey, kids don't always listen. So the parents get sued because their 4 year old kid did not listen to them? Let's put this in more better edumacated terms... after all, I are edumacated a little. Is a 4 year old capable of making rational decisions? For the most part, no. Is a retard or crazy person capable of making rational decisions, not really. In the court of law, if a crazy or mentally retarded person would have accidently hit the 87 year old lady, could they be sued? What if the mentally retarded person had a guardian at the time. And that guardian tried to stop the retard but the retard went running away like greased lightening, arms flailing, and hit the lady. Does the guardian get sued? Same should apply to a 4 year old. A 4 year old is basically mentally retarded. As in a very underdeveloped brain thus not able to make rational decisions or even act rationally.

All right, I agree with every point that Rota just brought up. Plus, as he mentioned earlier, there were other more appropriate places a child that young could have gone cycling, that would have taken the parents very little time and effort to take them to. And, yes, in the case where someone with mental incapacity has a guardian who does something like that, they can be sued. Especially if the guardian does not take the necessary steps in restitution. And, there is not going to be a medically and legally acknowledged person of mental incapability without a guardian.

[japanpimp]

Your condescending rebuttal to Fallbreeze didn't really address what I said in my post, I can't use it as a substitute reply to me. You will need to actually make a separate post to rebuke the points I made.

Will do. And it was not condescending. You or FB should take what I said that way at all.

[japanpimp]

I already did...

Why do you think the old woman is liable for being in the way of children on a sidewalk made for pedestrian traffic like herself?
No
Why do you think the parents aren't responsible for the teaching/chaperoning of their children?
I never said they arent. They are. But parents cannot be expected to have 100% control over their kids all the time.
Why do you think the parents should not be allowed to be sued?
This is the main issue here. Should they or shouldn't they? If the parents were unwilling to provide compensation for that their kids did, then yes, victim should be able to seek damages.
Why do you think the child is being sued, when it's clearly the parent being sued?
Of course not Rota. C'mon, give me SOME credit... I know I am a retard but I am not that retarded.
Why do you think there is any risk of juvenile hall, when there are no criminal charges?
See above.

NOONE is blaming the child, or holding the child liable. It's the guardian of the child that is liable, just like the guardian of any mentally disabled person would be responsible for similar transgressions.
Agreed. I cannot argue that. Even if the parents did everything they possibly could yet their kids caused an accident that resulted in property or personal damage, then the parents should bear responsibility. Now, if a kid is playing with fireworks unknown to the parent and burns down an entire village... does the parent flip the bill? Does the parent go to jail? What then? It is really case by case and varying degrees of circumstances..

All right, I agree with every point that Rota just brought up. Plus, as he mentioned earlier, there were other more appropriate places a child that young could have gone cycling, that would have taken the parents very little time and effort to take them to. And, yes, in the case where someone with mental incapacity has a guardian who does something like that, they can be sued. Especially if the guardian does not take the necessary steps in restitution. And, there is not going to be a medically and legally acknowledged person of mental incapability without a guardian.

See my comments to Rota above. They address some things. I am not disagreeing with you two. But what do you think in the case of my fireworks example?

[Rota]

Will do. And it was not condescending. You or FB should take what I said that way at all.

Okay.
I accept that your intent was not to be condescending. It's very hard to hear "tone" in plain text. It's very easy to imply or infer the incorrect tone. Sarcasm is a perfect example of a commonly misinterpreted tone.

Why do you think the parents should not be allowed to be sued?
This is the main issue here. Should they or shouldn't they? If the parents were unwilling to provide compensation for that their kids did, then yes, victim should be able to seek damages.

There would be no suit if the parents had been willing from the start. I guess the mere existence of the lawsuit is proof that they wanted to avoid being responsible for their child.

I guess we all agree. The parents aren't responsible for the specific actions of their child. But, they are liable for the resulting damages caused by their children. This incident could have been avoided with better supervision from the parents.

[japanpimp]

Okay.
I accept that your intent was not to be condescending. It's very hard to hear "tone" in plain text. It's very easy to imply or infer the incorrect tone. Sarcasm is a perfect example of a commonly misinterpreted tone.


There would be no suit if the parents had been willing from the start. I guess the mere existence of the lawsuit is proof that they wanted to avoid being responsible for their child.

I guess we all agree. The parents aren't responsible for the specific actions of their child. But, they are liable for the resulting damages caused by their children. This incident could have been avoided with better supervision from the parents.

Well, I think we are on the same page. But I think we need to be careful not to draw a conclusion because we don't know some stuff that happened. Perhaps the parents DID try to offer compensation but the "Estate Owners" thought it was not enough.
And should guardians ALWAYS be liable for damages caused by those they supervise? As in the case of the fireworks?

[Rota]

The fireworks is not quite the same. The parents provided the bike to the girl that hit the old woman. I would say liability in the fireworks example lies with the person who put the explosives in the hands of the child.

1) Did the parents give it to them for play? Parents responsible
2) Did the parents leave the fireworks unsecured in the house? Parents responsible
3) Did the parents leave the fireworks reasonably secured in the house, but the child broke into the secure area and stole them? Child responsible depending on age, if they are old enough to be reasonably aware of the consequences or not.
4) Store clerk sold to underaged children? Store's fault or clerk's fault, depending on whether the stores training program reasonably teaches about selling explosives to minors.
5) The kid found the fireworks? Fault lies with the person that left them out if that can be determined.
6) Other? I'm sure there's plenty of other ways to get fireworks, but the liable person will usually be the person that made it possible to put the fireworks into the unsupervised hands of children.

If the kids were being supervised while they launched bottle rockets or whatever, then it's the liability of the supervisor. In most cases, the liability will boil down to the guardian.