Post Reply
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View You can start suing 4-year-olds now
4 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2010 - 4:22PM #11
Lonesentinel
Posts: 2,423

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?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2010 - 4:31PM #12
whirlgirl
Posts: 606

"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?"


 


The deep pockets are the parents--who are also named in the suit.


The children won't have any judgments against them.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2010 - 4:43PM #13
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,034

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.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2010 - 4:54PM #14
TemplarS
Posts: 6,562

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?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2010 - 5:00PM #15
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,034

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?




"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2010 - 5:00PM #16
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Oct 29, 2010 -- 3:29PM, Lonesentinel wrote:

Hmm...4 years old - hmmm...what could a 4 year old learn from being sued in court?



Not to kill old ladies.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2010 - 5:06PM #17
Mlyons619
Posts: 16,336

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...

"No freedom without education"
            --Thomas Jefferson

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition"
            -- Monty Python
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2010 - 7:03PM #18
REteach
Posts: 14,169

I am inclined to believe that an 87 year old with a hip fracture deserves financial remuneration. Her greedy relatives don't. 

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2010 - 7:14PM #19
jane2
Posts: 14,295

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???

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2010 - 8:25PM #20
TemplarS
Posts: 6,562

Oct 29, 2010 -- 5:06PM, Mlyons619 wrote:


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






Idiots, no, these people are, as I said, very smart in their own way.


Jackasses, yes.


Look, if I thought they cared one bit about actually helping people or society, it would be different. Here's a true story about liability and such things:


I used to live in this community, where the kids had no place to ride their skateboards but in the streets. Very unsafe.  Now, we had a community association, and a few parents went to the association board and tried to get them to build a skateboard park for the kids.  Well, the association board was happy and willing to help- until the %&^$^  lawyer nixed the deal.


Seems if a kids gets run over while skateboarding in the street, too bad, kid, SOL, it's an accident.  But if the association builds a park, and a kid gets hurt there- well,  f__k me, now the association is LIABLE.


Jackasses.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook