SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Oct 29 2010 01:29 pm

Pretty fucking please, tell me I don't live in the same world where this is conceivable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?no_interstitial

Posted: Oct 29 2010 01:53 pm

To be fair, the article never mentions that she /is/ being sued. Only that she /can/ be sued.

But yea, the whole thing is pretty much lame. It's a shame that old woman died, but she was 87, also it was clearly an accident (and the girl was 4).

Posted: Oct 29 2010 01:56 pm

I just read this story on Yahoo.

Apparently two 4-year old kids were racing their bikes, under adult supervision, when somehow one of them struck an 87 year old woman. The old woman broke her hip, and died 3 weeks later.

Now obviously this is a horrible situation. But I must confess that I agree with the ruling. Of course it's not the 4 year old who is going to be paying the price, but the parents. The parents obviously allowed the kids to be racing in an unsafe fashion, and thus, I believe they should be held accountable.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

I just read this story on Yahoo.

Apparently two 4-year old kids were racing their bikes, under adult supervision, when somehow one of them struck an 87 year old woman. The old woman broke her hip, and died 3 weeks later.

Now obviously this is a horrible situation. But I must confess that I agree with the ruling. Of course it's not the 4 year old who is going to be paying the price, but the parents. The parents obviously allowed the kids to be racing in an unsafe fashion, and thus, I believe they should be held accountable.

I agree that the parents should be held accountable, but that should specifically exclude the child. What I mean by this is that the child should not grow up with a legally owed debt.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 02:27 pm

GPFontaine wrote:

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

I just read this story on Yahoo.

Apparently two 4-year old kids were racing their bikes, under adult supervision, when somehow one of them struck an 87 year old woman. The old woman broke her hip, and died 3 weeks later.

Now obviously this is a horrible situation. But I must confess that I agree with the ruling. Of course it's not the 4 year old who is going to be paying the price, but the parents. The parents obviously allowed the kids to be racing in an unsafe fashion, and thus, I believe they should be held accountable.

I agree that the parents should be held accountable, but that should specifically exclude the child. What I mean by this is that the child should not grow up with a legally owed debt.

I'll agree with that. I'm unclear on the legalities of such things. I would assume that any debted owed by the child is legally owed by the parents. I'm not sure what happens when the child turns 18......does she inherit the debt? Or is it wiped clean?

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

I just read this story on Yahoo.

Apparently two 4-year old kids were racing their bikes, under adult supervision, when somehow one of them struck an 87 year old woman. The old woman broke her hip, and died 3 weeks later.

Now obviously this is a horrible situation. But I must confess that I agree with the ruling. Of course it's not the 4 year old who is going to be paying the price, but the parents. The parents obviously allowed the kids to be racing in an unsafe fashion, and thus, I believe they should be held accountable.

I agree that the parents should be held accountable, but that should specifically exclude the child. What I mean by this is that the child should not grow up with a legally owed debt.

I'll agree with that. I'm unclear on the legalities of such things. I would assume that any debted owed by the child is legally owed by the parents. I'm not sure what happens when the child turns 18......does she inherit the debt? Or is it wiped clean?

I'm not sure, but at 4-5 it shouldn't even be the kid's fault if the parent was allowing the action.

Now, if the kid were say to run up to a stranger and punch them in the nuts, I would blame the kid because it isn't even an action that could be supervised. But riding bikes? That is the parents responsibility.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 02:36 pm

Am I reading this wrong?

"The ruling by the judge, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, did not find that the girl was liable, but merely permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward.

The suit that Justice Wooten allowed to proceed claims that in April 2009, Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, who were both 4, were racing their bicycles, under the supervision of their mothers, Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, on the sidewalk of a building on East 52nd Street."

Posted: Oct 29 2010 02:36 pm

It's the old lady's own fault she died. If she had drank more milk during her life, her bones wouldn't have been so weak and she wouldn't have broke her hip and eventually died. So she's largely "responsible" for her death as well.

I'm sick of people being "held responsible" for every damn thing that happens.

30 years ago, you know what would have happened in this situation? People would have shrugged, lamented that it's unfortunate that such accidents happen, AND THEN MOVED THE FUCK ON. No lawsuit. Not even a thought of a lawsuit.

Joined: Sep 17 2010 Posts: 156

While I totally disagreed with the first half what you just said Syd. There is no way it's the old lady's fault. I do agree that there shouldn't be a lawsuit here. The only error I can see is if the area itself, where the racing was conducted if that's a reasonable area to be racing around on a bike then I don't see any issues at all. Regardless the kids are definitely not at fault here.

Quote:

The suit that Justice Wooten allowed to proceed claims that in April 2009...

So it seems there is a case being filed.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 03:00 pm

GPFontaine wrote:

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

I just read this story on Yahoo.

Apparently two 4-year old kids were racing their bikes, under adult supervision, when somehow one of them struck an 87 year old woman. The old woman broke her hip, and died 3 weeks later.

Now obviously this is a horrible situation. But I must confess that I agree with the ruling. Of course it's not the 4 year old who is going to be paying the price, but the parents. The parents obviously allowed the kids to be racing in an unsafe fashion, and thus, I believe they should be held accountable.

I agree that the parents should be held accountable, but that should specifically exclude the child. What I mean by this is that the child should not grow up with a legally owed debt.

I'll agree with that. I'm unclear on the legalities of such things. I would assume that any debted owed by the child is legally owed by the parents. I'm not sure what happens when the child turns 18......does she inherit the debt? Or is it wiped clean?

I'm not sure, but at 4-5 it shouldn't even be the kid's fault if the parent was allowing the action.

Now, if the kid were say to run up to a stranger and punch them in the nuts, I would blame the kid because it isn't even an action that could be supervised. But riding bikes? That is the parents responsibility.

I would think the debt would be suspended until they were 18, or the parents responsibility. But I think that anything that you child does is your responsibility.

Even your "punch stranger in the nuts" example GP, that child wasn't parented well enough to know not to walk up to someone and punch them, that lies with the parents in my opinion.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 03:09 pm

Natsu wrote:

There is no way it's the old lady's fault.

I disagree. A person's medical history should absolutely be involved in these kinds of decisions.

If I'm walking down the street smoking, which is my legal right, and I walk by an elderly man with emphysema, and he chokes to death on my smoke, isn't that just as much his fault, for living a life that led to emphysema?

If a man with cirrhosis walks into my bar, I serve him drinks, and he dies, am I fault for serving him the drink that killed him? Or is it his fault for being an alcoholic?

Posted: Oct 29 2010 03:11 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

I'm sick of people being "held responsible" for every damn thing that happens.

30 years ago, you know what would have happened in this situation? People would have shrugged, lamented that it's unfortunate that such accidents happen, AND THEN MOVED THE FUCK ON. No lawsuit. Not even a thought of a lawsuit.

While I do agree that we've become far too sue-happy in this day and age, this is a pretty clear cut case of someone being killed due to a parent's negligence.

If your girlfriend/wife was pregnant and someone's kid injured her due to a lack of discipline or proper supervision and she lost the baby, wouldn't you want compensation/vengence? I sure as hell would.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 03:12 pm

I don't think that a child can accrue any sort of debt, save for informal ones (like a friend loans them five bucks). I'm not sure that there's legal precedent for them doing so. I'm definitely with Syd, though, on this one. It's not like the lady was some spring fucking chicken in the first place, and I'm relatively certain she had an idea there were kids coming and said, "Fuck it, I guess they'll move out of the way." Who's to say she wouldn't have died three months afterwards regardless? Our country is officially filled with a ton of litigious pussies and assholes.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 03:18 pm

aeonic wrote:

I don't think that a child can accrue any sort of debt, save for informal ones (like a friend loans them five bucks). I'm not sure that there's legal precedent for them doing so. I'm definitely with Syd, though, on this one. It's not like the lady was some spring fucking chicken in the first place, and I'm relatively certain she had an idea there were kids coming and said, "Fuck it, I guess they'll move out of the way." Who's to say she wouldn't have died three months afterwards regardless? Our country is officially filled with a ton of litigious pussies and assholes.

Have you ever spoken to an 87 year old? They usually can't remember know their own names, let alone be cognizant of fast-moving objects around them.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 03:46 pm

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

aeonic wrote:

I don't think that a child can accrue any sort of debt, save for informal ones (like a friend loans them five bucks). I'm not sure that there's legal precedent for them doing so. I'm definitely with Syd, though, on this one. It's not like the lady was some spring fucking chicken in the first place, and I'm relatively certain she had an idea there were kids coming and said, "Fuck it, I guess they'll move out of the way." Who's to say she wouldn't have died three months afterwards regardless? Our country is officially filled with a ton of litigious pussies and assholes.

Have you ever spoken to an 87 year old? They usually can't remember know their own names, let alone be cognizant of fast-moving objects around them.

Perhaps the octagenarians that I've met have been more persipicacious than the ones you have. If that's the case, though, is it really that big a fucking loss? Old people die. Kind of comes with the whole mortality thing.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 04:40 pm

"She died three months later of unrelated causes. "

Just looked like a few people didn't read that part.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 04:40 pm

Let's just set a precedent so kids can't ride their bikes outdoors anymore.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 04:48 pm

ToGdor wrote:

"She died three months later of unrelated causes. "

Just looked like a few people didn't read that part.

I admit I did misread that. I thought it said "related causes."

It still doesn't change my viewpoint that the parents should be held accountable for injuries caused by their children, though. A reasonable person should realize that people walk on public sidewalks, and therefore it may not be the best place for young children to be racing their bikes.

I think it's notable that they were "racing" their bikes, not just riding them. If you're riding your bike and someone steps out in front of you, that's an accident. But racing in a public place is a reckless activity. The parents should have put a stop to it.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 06:06 pm

In my day, we all rode our bikes on the sidewalk. You know why? We didn't want to get hit by cars.

In fact, in Paperboy, if you wander into the street, you get hit by a car.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 29 2010 07:29 pm

A little known fact is that if a kid is negligent, the parent is -not- responsible for paying the damages. So if the 4 year old loses, they're on the hook for the judgment.

Assuming there is one, of course, and I doubt there will be. Again, the ruling is that the kid -can- be sued, not that the kid can be sued successfully. I doubt any judge or jury would find the child liable for this. And even if they did, if the parents have any sort of brains at all, they'll walk right next door if they lose and file for bankruptcy on behalf of their child.

So there's really no reason to sue this kid other than to be vindictive.

And Syd, I dunno if your argument is serious, but it's stupid regardless. You're basically saying the elderly have no right to walk on the sidewalk. This was not a woman who was in such poor shape that the mere sight of a bicycle would make her faint and die. She got creamed by a kid riding a bike, because the kid was careless, and a death resulted. You need to be held responsible for that.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 07:48 pm

I say give the kid a medal. She's just making sure the Social Security she'll pay into is still around when she's 87.

Joined: Sep 17 2010 Posts: 156

Whether Syd is being serious or not. In certain circumstances i can see what's he's say about the old lady's physical state mattering, but in general she has to be able to live life, and she does have increased risk for being old (she might slip and fall or whatever) that's a risk she takes on. If she goes to a Nascar event and has a heart attack, I wouldn't blame nascar. That said, in this case she isn't responsible for other people hitting her out of the blue. It's a sad story all around.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 29 2010 09:23 pm

Natsu wrote:

Whether Syd is being serious or not. In certain circumstances i can see what's he's say about the old lady's physical state mattering, but in general she has to be able to live life, and she does have increased risk for being old (she might slip and fall or whatever) that's a risk she takes on. If she goes to a Nascar event and has a heart attack, I wouldn't blame nascar. That said, in this case she isn't responsible for other people hitting her out of the blue. It's a sad story all around.

If she went to Nascar and had a heart attack, that's bad luck.
If she went to Nascar and got hit with a car, Nascar is responsible.

You're not allowed to run over people on your bicycle, and if you do, you're responsible for the injuries they suffer.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 09:43 pm

Children shouldn't able to be found guilty of negligence, except in extreme circumstances.

Also, four year olds have tiny legs. How fast could she possibly have been going?

Posted: Oct 29 2010 10:54 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Also, four year olds have tiny legs. How fast could she possibly have been going?

Ha, great point. When my daughter was four and using training wheels, she wouldn't even do the "stand up and pedal". Pretty sure I could walk right next to her the whole way.