A 4-year-old is now able to be sued

[IDrinkaRum]

At least according to the judge in this case.

Two 4-year-old children (a boy and a girl) were racing their bikes (bikes had training wheels on them and the mothers of the two children were supervising them) and whilst on said bikes, they ran into an elderly woman, causing her to fall, fracture her hip, get surgery, and ended up dying 3 months after surgery.

Woman's family decided to sue the children and the parents of said children for negligence.

I don't mind the woman's family suing the parents. But why are they suing the kids? What are they going to be getting from the kids? Their crayons? Barbies? GI Joe dolls? WTF?

[blas87]

This is a whole new level of entitlement and what the fuck.

Ok, so some kids ran into your granny and she got hurt and she died. Ok fine, sue the parents. But the kids? Really?

How in the world can you sue someone who can't even write their own name yet and probably still eats crayons?!

[blas87]

It's the prinicple of the matter. The link specifically says that the children were being sued along with the parents.

It should be the parents on behalf of the children.

[blas87]

It's an awfully shitty thing to do to a 4 year old. The parent is responsible for the child. I don't believe the injury is what killed the old woman, but if suing is what they want to do, they should be suing the parents for not paying closer attention or not preventing the accident.

Any judge with any common sense would throw out a lawsuit against a 4 year old. Children cannot defend themselves, let alone in a court of law. That's ridiculous. That's just being over-the-top sue happy to go after small children.

[Ladeeda]

The judge only ruled that the girl is OVER 4, being 3 months away from her fifth birthday. Only children 4 years and younger cannot be sued.

The judge didn't just make this up for the fun of it.

[Greenday]

I think you might need to edit that. Judge said children under 4 can't be considered negligent, but four and up can be.

[Ladeeda]

Mr. Tyrie “correctly notes that infants under the age of 4 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence,” Justice Wooten wrote in his decision, referring to the 1928 case. “Juliet Breitman, however, was over the age of 4 at the time of the subject incident. For infants above the age of 4, there is no bright-line rule.”

The Infants Aren't Capable of Neglicence rule occured over 80 years ago.

[Greenday]

The Infants Aren't Capable of Neglicence rule occured over 80 years ago.

I'm pretty sure a disctrict judge doesn't have the authority to change a law like this. It'd probably have to be at least at the Superior Court level.

[Andara Bledin]

I have a slightly different question: Why the hell are the papers releasing the names of minor defendants?

^-.-^

[Ladeeda]

Yeah, and he DIDN"T change it. He ruled that since the child was only 3 months from her fifth birthday, she was OVER 4 years old.

[Eisa]

Well, she's still under 5....

Very WTF.

[Ladeeda]

Well, she's still under 5....

Very WTF.

She's OVER 4. That's the point.

[Plaidman]

I have a slightly different question: Why the hell are the papers releasing the names of minor defendants?

^-.-^

Dont'cha know? These two are the next evil masterminds of the universe. Lex Luthor, the Joker, Magneto, Green Goblin, F.O.W.L, Ernst Blofeld with SPECTRE all bow and worship these two monsters. The world MUST know these two names, so that we may beware their deadly bikes of decapation, their tainted poison girl scout cookies, and the worst of it all, the biohazard of Girl COOTIES!

THE WORLD IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

[draco664]

I have a slightly different question: Why the hell are the papers releasing the names of minor defendants?

^-.-^

If I had to guess, I'd say that it's because it's a civil suit. They haven't been criminally charged.

I'm really not sure what the plaintifs hope to accomplish. The kids don't have any assets to speak of, no income to get a percentage of, and they can't be evicted from their home.

They are opening themselves up to retaliation from the 4chan part of the web though.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm really not sure what the plaintifs hope to accomplish. The kids don't have any assets to speak of, no income to get a percentage of, and they can't be evicted from their home.

They are opening themselves up to retaliation from the 4chan part of the web though.

If the kids are found liable, I suspect their parents, as guardians, will end up footing the bill. As far as I can tell, they're shotgunning just to see what they can make stick.

And I do hope the 4chan part of the web lets them know that it's still not cool to pick on kids. It really sucks that their grandmother is no longer with them, but ruining the lives of a couple of kids who probably haven't even started school yet is not the answer.

^-.-^