The Americans sued a 4 year and nine month old

To be fair if we step back a bit, a 4 year old who should have been closely supervised by parents wasn't and as a result she crashed into, and KILLED somebody.

Thats a pretty big deal right?
 
[TW]Fox;17680348 said:
To be fair if we step back a bit, a 4 year old who should have been closely supervised by parents wasn't and as a result she crashed into, and KILLED somebody.

Thats a pretty big deal right?
Click to expand...
 
[TW]Fox;17680348 said:
To be fair if we step back a bit, a 4 year old who should have been closely supervised by parents wasn't and as a result she crashed into, and KILLED somebody.

Thats a pretty big deal right?
Click to expand...

Yes its a big deal, but if anyone should be held accountable it would be the parents of the children. As like you said they clearly were not in control of what she was doing.

But then think of it from another point of view, if the girl would have run into me on her bike at 4, I might have a bruised shin, an apology from the parents and be on my way. The age of the lady was a serious factor in her death.
 
I suspect its just the way the law works - they have to name the child in the case but in reality its the parents in trouble. Lets face it, she isnt going to appear in court to answer questions or have to pay any money, is she? That'll be...

.... the parents.
 
Yes but the guy isn't taking the parents to court for negligence he is suing the child. Yes the parents will pay but its all a bit backwards don't you think?
 
Pathetic.

Lets speculate. It's more fun that way.

Nowhere does it say that the kids were out of control. Maybe the old woman suddenly stepped into the way and didn't notice? Maybe, just maybe she died because she was really quite old? Maybe the girl is a cold hearted killer, and should be punished according to US law for dangerous cycling? I don't know or care. It just seems like another attack of Yank stupidity to me. Of course the girl was too young to be negligent. She was under 5 years old or crying out loud. :rolleyes:
 
she was 87 and died 3 month later. Kid was 4. probably hardly hit her being no more than a toddler. not even in school.

i dont think anyone should be charged. at most the parents.
 
It turns out accidents don't just happen.

Apparently if the kid was under 4, they couldn't be sued for negligence, but as they are over 4 they are apparently old enough to know better...
 
The child is incapable of negligence but the parents are not. One would have thought the judge was able to understand this but no doubt a higher authority will overturn his ruling.
 
BluZiff said:
But then think of it from another point of view, if the girl would have run into me on her bike at 4, I might have a bruised shin, an apology from the parents and be on my way. The age of the lady was a serious factor in her death.
Click to expand...

What's sometimes referred to as the "thin/eggshell skull" rule would apply here, essentially you take your victim as you find them so it's an irrelevance if someone else would have walked away from the accident relatively unscathed. I'd agree though that it seems likely if they'd hit a younger person the effects would have been less severe.

I'm surprised the child is named at all in the case, I would have expected it to simply to be labelled as "Estate of Mrs Menagh vs Child X" or similar. I don't think it's particularly useful to name children in cases where the child is below the generally assumed age of criminal responsibility, however this is a civil action and secondly is in America so the age is different (according to Wikipedia if there's no state based limit then common law is 7 years old).
 
Guys seriously, can't we just read the story properly?

Nobody is being charged with anything. It is a civil case.

And yes, the parents are also named:

The estate also sued Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn
Click to expand...

I suspect that in civil cases in the US you must name all parties involved when you file a suit. The children were, obviously, involved and thus named, but the real point is the parents.

Or we could just rant about how backward it is, I guess.
 
[TW]Fox;17680348 said:
To be fair if we step back a bit, a 4 year old who should have been closely supervised by parents wasn't and as a result she crashed into, and KILLED somebody.

Thats a pretty big deal right?
Click to expand...

Yup.

I suspect there is a bit more to it too tbh... they're obviously not going after her pocket money so more likely the kid has a trust fund etc...

A 4 year old knows right from wrong, if a 4 year old kid breaks another 4 year old kids toy or something then the parents will likely pay for a new one and take it out of the 4 year old's pocket money.

It wasn't the old woman's fault she was run into, her estate has now incurred medical bills, funeral costs - she's suffered an earlier death. If the kid who ran into her recklessly does have say a million or so in a trust fund then it isn't completely unreasonable for the estate to try and recuperate some costs from the kid. Obviously the parents do have a large amount of responsibility too here though they are also being sued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom