SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 29 2010 11:03 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

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

Liable. Not guilty.

And I don't think a 4 year old should be held liable, no. Or will in this case.

But without question, if an older child does something negligent, they should pay for it. A 10 year old breaks a window with a baseball, he should have to pay for the window.

Posted: Oct 29 2010 11:11 pm

Yeah, that makes sense as more of a life lesson thing. "You break the window, your buying a new one" Not exactly, "See your ass in court tike"

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 30 2010 12:20 am

Rydog wrote:

Yeah, that makes sense as more of a life lesson thing. "You break the window, your buying a new one" Not exactly, "See your ass in court tike"

As I said above, though, suing a kid is a dick move that's unlikely to do anything but make you look like a dick. You won't get any money out of it unless the parents decide to be decent people (most are, but it's not required of them), and the kid can just declare bankruptcy to be free of the debt if it really comes to it.

There's a big difference between bringing a suit and winning it, and between winning it and being able to collect any sort of judgment.

Posted: Oct 30 2010 02:22 am

Whatever happened to accidents being, you know accidents? Shit happens, no reason to sue anyone. let alone a small child.

This kid is gonna have major paranoia growing up.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

UsaSatsui wrote:

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.

The injuries the woman suffered it states in the article where not the cause of death.

Therefore you can sue for getting hit with a bike but that's it. I could hardly see it being jail time or even a huge fine for shit like that.

I got hit by a bicycle when i was 4.. you know what i did? Went to hospital, got my broken nose fixed and the kid apolgised.

End of discussion.

Posted: Oct 30 2010 06:15 pm

Well, obviously the kid's not legally of the age where they can be held accountable for something. I mean, from what I get from the story, the suit may be "against" the child for whatever stupid legal reason is necessary, but clearly the parents would be the ones liable. Same thing if your kid breaks property in a store right? The parents pay for it.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 30 2010 06:19 pm

Alowishus wrote:

The injuries the woman suffered it states in the article where not the cause of death.

Therefore you can sue for getting hit with a bike but that's it. I could hardly see it being jail time or even a huge fine for shit like that.

Okay, then. The injuries suffered in the crash are what's at stake.

And who said anything about a fine or jail time? This isn't a crime. It's a civil suit.

Quote:

I got hit by a bicycle when i was 4.. you know what i did? Went to hospital, got my broken nose fixed and the kid apolgised.

So what? That's not the same situation. On top of that, apparently someone paid for it. Maybe it was their parents who felt an obligation to do so. Maybe it was yours who waived their right to collect and paid for it themselves. That doesn't mean that (assuming all circumstances were the same) the kid who hit you wasn't legally responsible for your injuries. It just means nobody decided to enforce it.

Seriously, you hurt someone else, you pay to fix it. Is this such a foreign concept? Is this something we don't want to teach kids?

I just want to make this clear. I don't think the kid should be sued. I just think it's appropriate that she could be. I think her parents need to man up and pay the bills. I'm very curious as to what the hell happened here, and why it went this far along this path.

Quote:

End of discussion.

Oh, gee, sorry, I didn't realize it was over. Rolling Eyes

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 30 2010 06:24 pm

SoldierHawk wrote:

Well, obviously the kid's not legally of the age where they can be held accountable for something. I mean, from what I get from the story, the suit may be "against" the child for whatever stupid legal reason is necessary, but clearly the parents would be the ones liable. Same thing if your kid breaks property in a store right? The parents pay for it.

FunFact: If your kid (or you) accidentally breaks something in a store, you do not have to pay for it. Even if there's signs and stuff. It's considered the cost of doing business, and don't worry, the shopkeeper has insurance. He won't be taking a loss. (If you do feel some responsibility to do so, like I do, don't pay the full price. Ask to reimburse the cost of the item. Why should he profit from your mistake?)

But no, in general, children are responsible for their own torts. The parents usually pay, because the kid can't and most parents are the responsible type. But the law can't compel them to.

If a parent is teaching or encouraging reckless behavior, however, the parent can be held liable.

Posted: Oct 30 2010 06:39 pm

Fun Fact: A child can't enter into a legal contract. That means that if you sell a child a soda, they drink it, bring the empty can back, and ask for their money back, you are legally compelled to give it to them. At the dawn of the industry age, if a child was orphaned by mine and factory mishaps, the parents' debtors would often try and trick the children into assuming responsibilities for the debts. Furthermore the funeral homes who took the parent's body would run an expensive funeral and again, try and get the kid(s) to assume the debt. The courts eventually caught wise to these shenanigans and enacted laws to protect children. These laws have never been amended.

I believe there's also a law that it's illegal for an establishment to deny room and board to a minor, regardless of whether or not they have any means of paying.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 30 2010 07:15 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Fun Fact: A child can't enter into a legal contract. That means that if you sell a child a soda, they drink it, bring the empty can back, and ask for their money back, you are legally compelled to give it to them.

Funner Fact: They actually can't do that with a soda. Contracts with minors are "voidable at the option of the minor", with the exception of necessities like food and clothing. However, if the kid wanted to return a stereo system or something similar, they're obligated to do so (this is why you never will be able to buy a car from a dealer when you're under 18. I read about a case where a car dealer was forced to accept back a wrecked car from a minor.)

Posted: Oct 31 2010 02:07 am

That's fascinating. I had no idea about the implications of the 'minors entering into a contract' deal.

Posted: Oct 31 2010 02:41 am

What kind of monster would try to make a minor pay for their parents funeral?

Posted: Oct 31 2010 08:39 am

Does anyone even know what they would sue for? I'm late to the party but everyone seemed to have touched on many of the points I was going to bring up. I know it's been awhile for most of us but bikes with training wheels typically aren't able to go that fast. Uneven pavement makes your back tire spin plus the percieved ability of the 4 year old to get to a dangerous speed is ridiculous. I've had kids I was babysitting charging me with there bikes and I would stop them with my hands.

Plus this lady died 3 months later of unrelated causes. Are they just suing for the medical bills? Pain and suffering? The 87 year has passed on so how do we know her level of pain and suffering. Did she have insurance? Did she have previous hip issues, prior surgeries?

The fact that the sidewalk is wide enough for two children to race bikes on seems to signify that there was adequate room to step aside. Did she not try to? Was she not paying attention? What would have happened if the children were just having a foot race and this happened (as I'm pretty sure they could run much faster then these bikes were going)? Is the block downhill? Is it uphill? There are far too many questions and the pure trivial nature of this potential civil suit just makes me feel that reform is necessary.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 31 2010 12:26 pm

Douche McCallister wrote:

Does anyone even know what they would sue for? I'm late to the party but everyone seemed to have touched on many of the points I was going to bring up. I know it's been awhile for most of us but bikes with training wheels typically aren't able to go that fast. Uneven pavement makes your back tire spin plus the percieved ability of the 4 year old to get to a dangerous speed is ridiculous. I've had kids I was babysitting charging me with there bikes and I would stop them with my hands.

Plus this lady died 3 months later of unrelated causes. Are they just suing for the medical bills? Pain and suffering? The 87 year has passed on so how do we know her level of pain and suffering. Did she have insurance? Did she have previous hip issues, prior surgeries?

The fact that the sidewalk is wide enough for two children to race bikes on seems to signify that there was adequate room to step aside. Did she not try to? Was she not paying attention? What would have happened if the children were just having a foot race and this happened (as I'm pretty sure they could run much faster then these bikes were going)? Is the block downhill? Is it uphill? There are far too many questions and the pure trivial nature of this potential civil suit just makes me feel that reform is necessary.

Answering all these questions is exactly why we have the legal system in the first place. That's the point of a lawsuit, to go over all these issues and determine if there's fault.

Joined: Sep 17 2010 Posts: 156

Quote:

If she went to Nascar and had a heart attack, that's bad luck.

I'm not saying by chance she had a heart attack at nascar and she could have equally had it sitting quite, in a rocking chair, at home. I'm saying, that her heart attack was caused by the atmosphere nascar created. But i'm not blaming nascar, because that's her choice and accepted risk. She knew her physical state, and she knew what to expect of the area. She agreed to these risks and circumstances. In a sense, given her physical condition, it's her fault for putting herself in harm's way.

The point of this example being sometimes the old lady is responsible for knowing her own health adn limitations, and what circumstances she puts herself under. If sudden loud roaring cars, adn cheering fan can be an issue for her. Then she needs to be careful where she decides to go.
That said going across a random sidewalk. Then unexpectedly being hit by a random bike is not really her fault it wasn't a "bike racing zone".

Quote:

I read about a case where a car dealer was forced to accept back a wrecked car from a minor.)

That would suck.

Posted: Oct 31 2010 08:22 pm

When your key witness is dead for unrelated reasons, unless the plantiffs had to take on the debt from the surgery, what are they even entitled too? An apology?

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 31 2010 08:56 pm

Douche McCallister wrote:

When your key witness is dead for unrelated reasons, unless the plantiffs had to take on the debt from the surgery, what are they even entitled too? An apology?

The cost of the medical bills from the accident.

Posted: Nov 01 2010 12:44 am

What are they billing her estate for, not keeping her alive?

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Nov 01 2010 01:21 am

Blackout wrote:

What are they billing her estate for, not keeping her alive?

You think just because you kick it, your bills go away?

When you die, your estate is responsible for paying off your final debts, as much of them as it can, anyways, and then distributing it to the heirs.

Posted: Nov 04 2010 04:38 pm

Okay, I'm late to the party as well, but I thought this might be an interesting idea to bring up:

Being Canadian, I only know the Canadian law, so bear with me if this doesn't apply in the U.S, but where I'm from, a bicycle is legally considered a vehicle.
For this reason, they are meant to stick to roads and designated biking paths, not on sidewalks.

Also, if you hit someone with your car, you (or your insurance) typically pay the damages done to the person you hit.

Do you think this might be a factor in their judgment of the case?
Just thought I'd ask.

Joined: Sep 17 2010 Posts: 156

I'm sure everyone's happy to have honey, even if it's at the end of the party. In regards to the 4 year old, I would imagine even in Canada they wouldn't get in trouble, but perhaps the parents if they were deemed negligent.

Posted: Nov 05 2010 04:40 am

honeygirl wrote:

Okay, I'm late to the party as well, but I thought this might be an interesting idea to bring up:

Being Canadian, I only know the Canadian law, so bear with me if this doesn't apply in the U.S, but where I'm from, a bicycle is legally considered a vehicle.
For this reason, they are meant to stick to roads and designated biking paths, not on sidewalks.

Also, if you hit someone with your car, you (or your insurance) typically pay the damages done to the person you hit.

Do you think this might be a factor in their judgment of the case?
Just thought I'd ask.

Hrrrm, interesting point...

I do remember seeing an episode of COPS where they arrested a guy for DUI while he was on a bike, they said something to the effect of it is a crime to operate a class (whatever) motor vehicle while under the influence and he got all sorts of pissed, fuck you, do you see a motor on this bike?! Laughing

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

honeygirl wrote:

Okay, I'm late to the party as well, but I thought this might be an interesting idea to bring up:

Being Canadian, I only know the Canadian law, so bear with me if this doesn't apply in the U.S, but where I'm from, a bicycle is legally considered a vehicle.
For this reason, they are meant to stick to roads and designated biking paths, not on sidewalks.

Also, if you hit someone with your car, you (or your insurance) typically pay the damages done to the person you hit.

Do you think this might be a factor in their judgment of the case?
Just thought I'd ask.

If it were an adult, sure, why not... but we are still on the idea that it is a child.

If the mental capacity isn't present to determine right from wrong in this situation, does it matter if it was a bike, plane, or train? The kid wouldn't know the difference other than "oh, bike fun" or "oh, plane fun" or "oh, yay choo choo!"

For the same reason that you can't go after someone who is mentally challenged enough that they need a guardian or belong in a psyc ward, a 4 year old should be off limits.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

UsaSatsui wrote:

Alowishus wrote:

The injuries the woman suffered it states in the article where not the cause of death.

Therefore you can sue for getting hit with a bike but that's it. I could hardly see it being jail time or even a huge fine for shit like that.

Okay, then. The injuries suffered in the crash are what's at stake.

And who said anything about a fine or jail time? This isn't a crime. It's a civil suit.

Quote:

I got hit by a bicycle when i was 4.. you know what i did? Went to hospital, got my broken nose fixed and the kid apolgised.

So what? That's not the same situation. On top of that, apparently someone paid for it. Maybe it was their parents who felt an obligation to do so. Maybe it was yours who waived their right to collect and paid for it themselves. That doesn't mean that (assuming all circumstances were the same) the kid who hit you wasn't legally responsible for your injuries. It just means nobody decided to enforce it.

Seriously, you hurt someone else, you pay to fix it. Is this such a foreign concept? Is this something we don't want to teach kids?

I just want to make this clear. I don't think the kid should be sued. I just think it's appropriate that she could be. I think her parents need to man up and pay the bills. I'm very curious as to what the hell happened here, and why it went this far along this path.

Quote:

End of discussion.

Oh, gee, sorry, I didn't realize it was over. Rolling Eyes

Well since you decided to roll your eyes at me, i'll just point out that "end of discussion" signified the end of the story and what i think is appropriate action and not the end of the thread.

The situation is sort of similar hence why i brought it up. Both being underage and injury occurring. No my parents didn't pay for it nor did the other kids parents. The thing most of you Americans hate paid for it... NHS or healthcare.

Which begs the question, if healthcare was readily available would this problem have been avoided?

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Nov 06 2010 06:15 pm

Alowishus wrote:

Which begs the question, if healthcare was readily available would this problem have been avoided?

Honestly, probably not. In this case, it would probably be the insurance company filing the suit.

In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that insurance was behind the whole thing.