Oct 29, 2010 -- 4:14PM, Christianlib wrote:

And PLEASE everyone, note:  The judge did not decide THE CASE, he decided there was legal precedent for it to proceed.

 

If the plaintiff wins the case against the 4 year old, it will be even more interesting what is decided to be the award to the plaintiff from said 4 year old...dont you think?

Oct 29, 2010 -- 4:06PM, whirlgirl wrote:

"Sue the parents, fine (although, I think suing for anything other than the cost of medical bills would be wrong), but what the heck are they suing a 4-year old for?"

 

 

Probably so they could get to the parents' deep pockets most efficiently under their state's laws.

 

Which, to me, is shady. Go after the parents, but not the kid.

Oct 29, 2010 -- 4:54PM, TemplarS wrote:

Oct 29, 2010 -- 4:43PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Which, to me, is shady. Go after the parents, but not the kid.

Of course it is shady, these are tort lawyers here.

From the article:  In Ms. Menagh’s case, however, there was nothing to indicate that Juliet’s mother “had any active role in the alleged incident, only that the mother was ‘supervising,’ a term that is too vague to hold meaning here,”

In other words, making a case against the mother might be tough.  The kid was actually riding the bike, so it's going to be a lot easier case to make.

Shady but shrewd.

Nothing in America is an accident anymore.  How dare these mothers take their kids out to play, why can't they sit in front of the TV like every other kid in the country, where they won't bother anybody?

What cracks me up is Justice Wooten's words, 

“A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street,” the judge wrote. He added that any “reasonably prudent child,” who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there. The crucial factor is whether the parent encourages the risky behavior; if so, the child should not be held accountable.

How many four year olds are reasonably prudent?

The supervisory parent is responsible, yes.

A four-year-old is not.

I become more and more convinced that practicing law makes people into total idiots...

Oct 29, 2010 -- 4:54PM, TemplarS wrote:

Oct 29, 2010 -- 4:43PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Which, to me, is shady. Go after the parents, but not the kid.

Of course it is shady, these are tort lawyers here.

From the article:  In Ms. Menagh’s case, however, there was nothing to indicate that Juliet’s mother “had any active role in the alleged incident, only that the mother was ‘supervising,’ a term that is too vague to hold meaning here,”

In other words, making a case against the mother might be tough.  The kid was actually riding the bike, so it's going to be a lot easier case to make.

Shady but shrewd.

Nothing in America is an accident anymore.  How dare these mothers take their kids out to play, why can't they sit in front of the TV like every other kid in the country, where they won't bother anybody?

Templar--you are a "trip"--how dare you make sense???