I don't think the kid intentionally mowed down the old biddy.
You could argue it was her fault at least in part, she was clearly very frail and incapable of avoiding danger. She should have had a carer.
The Americans sued a 4 year and nine month old
- Thread starter stickman1
- Start date
I don't think the kid intentionally mowed down the old biddy.
You could argue it was her fault at least in part, she was clearly very frail and incapable of avoiding danger. She should have had a carer.
It's a suit for negligence. If it can be argued that the woman would not have died but for having been hit by the child, where the child had a duty of care to the woman, then there is a case. The duty of care thing is trivial, as you have a duty of care to other users of the pavements. If the only reason the woman died is because of having been hit by the girl, then that's clear cut too.
I'd be looking at mitigation here - could the old woman have avoided the girl herself? Could the doctor's actions have contributed? Etc.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
And guess what! Thats what a court of law is for, guys.
The court will decide all of this.
Yes, every single American is suing this girl, and it's all of their faults.
Tikkabhuna said:
To an extent, this makes sense. I feel that having an arbitrary cut-off line, through which people of under a certain age cannot be held accountable, is not right. It does not take into account differing levels of maturity, child geniuses or, for that matter, adult retards (in the clinical sense of the word). By simply stating that the child should not be held responsible as she is too young is not sufficient to let her off as innocent. The lawyer had to show that, due to her youth, she was not capable of making the correct decisions about safe cycling, and therefore cannot be held responsible. Clearly he did not do this.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 9,970
- Location
- Poland
Dont be a tard, they aint any worse than the morons in this country.
[TW]Fox;17680348 said:
She died 3 months after having surgery. She survived the bike crash which led to the surgery. Surely she hasn't survived the surgery if we are nit picking here
It's the hospital they should think about suing if anybody 
(The rolleyes are not for you Fox, just at the stupidity of it all 
)It would be difficult. She's dead.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
She died 3 months after having surgery. She survived the bike crash which led to the surgery. Surely she hasn't survived the surgery if we are nit picking here
Risks for basically any operation are HUGE when you get to that age, not moving for an old person can be dangerous frankly, recovering is exponentially harder. Though I don't know what she had done, I was just thinking some of that isn't true if it was a finger being reattached or something, but things like general anesthetics, being on a ventilator all have risks attached, not to mention the risk of infection which older frailer people are far less capable of fighting off.
You'd need to know more, if she died of post operative infection she might have been in agony and hanging on for 3 months then died, or she might have been in a coma and finally died 3 months later, its not at all clear.
As has been stated, its a suit in general agains the family, the court to me seems to want to decide if the kid is held accountable or JUST the parents who were ALSO NAMED.
The parents lawyers managed to not bring any evidence or even try to prove the kid does/doesn't know right from wrong, they brought a birth cirtificate proving she was over 4, when the legal mandate is that only those under 4 are excluded in case of negligence.
I would say the lawyer is the one to be talked about here, incapable of doing his job, didn't know what the law was and made no attempt to prove she didn't know racing her bike was wrong.
Its VERY likely a kid around that age knows the basics of right or wrong, don't steal, don't poop in the middle of the kitchen, etc, etc, but translating what she's been told to ALL situations means she might well not know racing her bike is wrong.
At that age we start to learn right from wrong, but usually its trial and error not critical thinking of whats potentially dangerous, its probably very easy to prove that, ergo, lawyer will next get sued by the parents.
She died 3 months after having surgery. She survived the bike crash which led to the surgery. Surely she hasn't survived the surgery if we are nit picking here
If the surgery was as a result of the crash, then any claim against the hospital will have to be very solid, and may only mitigate the claim against the child.
They can countersue the estate.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
The worlds gone mad.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
It was an accident, I can't believe you just said that. So a child at 4 has common sence to what an adult should have or teenager? are you on drugs?
Bloody Americans!