Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 23,813
Location: Pacific Northwest

30 Oct 2010, 2:22 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyreg ... terstitial

How the heck do you sue a four year old when they don't have any money? 8O



ASS-P
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,980
Location: Santa Cruz , CA , USA

30 Oct 2010, 1:30 pm

...Well , to be literal , of course it's their parents who are being sued...



BloodYeti
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 114

30 Oct 2010, 2:09 pm

The children should have known better, because four years old is a reasonable age to understand that you can't slam your bike into a person, especially an older one. Plus, the mothers apparently weren't paying that much attention if they managed to race their bikes into her. It's clear that regardless of the cause of death (which may have been unrelated, but a broken hip is essentially a kiss of death once you're elderly), they did enough damage for her to have probably gotten some pretty significant medical bills. And just because she died doesn't mean that the bills disappear; it means that the estate has to pay them. It may be more than they can afford.

I don't know. I guess a little part of me says that kids are kids, but for the most part, I believe that this is perfectly logical, really.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

02 Nov 2010, 3:26 pm

The terms, "guardian ad litem," "litigation guardian," and, "next friend," are all used where a person such as a parent or a public trustee stands in the place of an infant (in the legal sense) in litigation.

Children are, from the moment of their births, legal persons with the capacity to sue and be sued.


_________________
--James


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,006
Location: Northern California

02 Nov 2010, 4:21 pm

Since negligence falls to the "reasonable man" standard, I don't think any jury is ever going to award damages in this case. The judge has merely said the plaintiff can have their day in court. He hasn't ruled what will happen on that day. It sounds like this one hasn't come up before, since the only court precedence set is that someone under 4 cannot be sued. That this case even exists is just ... weird.


_________________
Mom to an amazing AS son, who recently graduated from the university (plus an also amazing non-AS daughter). Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


oddone
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 352

02 Nov 2010, 4:41 pm

Is it possible there's an insurer involved and suing the 4 year old is a way to make the insurer liable?

Things like this have happened with motor insurance claims.

Otherwise it's pointless as the four year old presumably has no money and the debt will be discharged long before they do.



billybud21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 666
Location: Crossroads of America

11 Nov 2010, 2:18 am

Hey it makes as much sense as the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are individuals.


_________________
I don't have one.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Nov 2010, 10:53 am

League_Girl wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=1&no_interstitial

How the heck do you sue a four year old when they don't have any money? 8O


To stop them from what ever it is they are doing that causes the suit. A law suit does not necessarily mean a payment. It may also produce an injunction.

ruveyn



BroncosRtheBest
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 375

11 Nov 2010, 5:11 pm

We already knew that 10 and 12 year olds could be sued (see RIAA's entire body of legal work), so why not four-year-olds?



MONKEY
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,896
Location: Stoke, England (sometimes :P)

11 Nov 2010, 7:00 pm

LOL what would a 4 year old pay if they were sued? Sweets?


_________________
What film do atheists watch on Christmas?
Coincidence on 34th street.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Nov 2010, 7:24 pm

MONKEY wrote:
LOL what would a 4 year old pay if they were sued? Sweets?


There are law-suits to enjoin as opposed to seek damage payments.

ruveyn



Tory_canuck
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,373
Location: Red Deer, Alberta, Canada

13 Nov 2010, 1:27 am

In Canada, the guardians of minors under the age of eighteen are legally liable for the wrongs of the kid. The kid is named in the lawsuit as a defendant in the style of cause on the statement of claim and all other foregoing legal documents but it is the parents who the damages are collected from.


_________________
Honour over deciet, merit over luck, courage over popularity, duty over entitlement...dont let the cliques fool you for they have no honour...only superficial deceit.

ALBERTAN...and DAMN PROUD OF IT!!


Friskeygirl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,865

13 Nov 2010, 2:36 am

Its insane and rather frivolous suing 4 year olds, the blame lays squarely on the idiot mothers, WTF were they thinking



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,343
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

13 Nov 2010, 12:35 pm

Hey Friskeygirl, welcome back.



YoshiPikachu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 722
Location: Minnesota

18 Nov 2010, 12:25 am

OKI I could not read all of it because it is making me angry. How the f**k do you sue a 4 year old? That is BS!


_________________
Proud mother to Hannah and Joseph.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

18 Nov 2010, 12:24 pm

Tory_canuck wrote:
In Canada, the guardians of minors under the age of eighteen are legally liable for the wrongs of the kid. The kid is named in the lawsuit as a defendant in the style of cause on the statement of claim and all other foregoing legal documents but it is the parents who the damages are collected from.


That is by no means the general case. There is considerable variation by jurisdiction and by area of law.

At common law, liability only attaches where the parents or guardians (as the case may be) have acquired a contractual obligation (for example, agreeing to be liable in enroling their children in a recreation program), or have themselves a duty of care to the defendant (for example, as the occupier of property on which an injury is done to the defendant by conditions created by the child). Statute can, of course, modify this, but the statutory imposition of liability on parents is a rather novel circumstance, and I am aware of few examples.


_________________
--James