New York Judge Rules 6-Year-Old Can Be Sued 799
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the court-is-more-interesting-than-kindergarten-anyway dept.
from the court-is-more-interesting-than-kindergarten-anyway dept.
suraj.sun sends this snippet from Reuters:
"A girl can be sued over accusations she ran over an elderly woman with her training bicycle when she was 4 years old, a New York Supreme Court justice has ruled. The ruling by King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten stems from an incident in April 2009 when Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, both aged four, struck an 87-year-old pedestrian, Claire Menagh, with their training bikes. Menagh underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died three months later. In a ruling made public late Thursday, the judge dismissed arguments by Breitman's lawyer that the case should be dismissed because of her young age. He ruled that she is old enough to be sued and the case can proceed."
Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, a pair of four year olds on their bikes. Accidentally hit an old lady.
And they're going to sue the four year olds?
Okay guys. It really IS time to kill all the lawyers.
*Grabs a gun*
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I would have intentionally rammed my bicycle into anyone at the age of 4 years and 9 months I would have received, at a minimum, corporal punishment.
Of course today that would probably get my parents sent to jail.
Old enough to be sued - old enough to vote (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're old enough to be sued you should be old enough to vote and vice versa. People who have grievances with a child should sue the guardian or supervisor of the child. In most cases the problem with a child should probably be dismissed as an accident. (Children are little walking accidents after all.)
Re:Ruling != Legislating (Score:3, Insightful)
Article 40 of the Convention of Children's Rights says:
"Governments are required to set a minimum age below which children cannot be held criminally responsible and to provide minimum guarantees for the fairness and quick resolution of judicial or alternative proceedings."
When the article was written, I am pretty sure that the signers didn't envision that 'tis of thee would set that minimum age at *four*. That's just ridiculous. 14 is the common standard, as far as I can tell.
Weird. And then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Haul 6 year old girl into the court.
2. ???
3. Justice!
It's bizarre. If they judge her, then what?
She can't be sent to prison, has no income to pay a fine, and I doubt very much she can be made to perform community service. So I'm just wondering.
Also, there's this:
But running around is what 4 year old children do. I think pretty much everybody has noticed that young children have some problems with fine motor control and are ocassionally running into people while playing. They're children, they haven't completely figured it yet. What are the parents supposed to do, keep them on a leash?
Pardon my language and lack of depth, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's shit like this, America.
Re:Ruling != Legislating (Score:5, Insightful)
Exercise judicial review of incompetent legislation?
Exercise judicial assessment of a meritless suit?
The position of "judge" is not a clerical one, tasking the person to do whatever they're assigned to do. As the title implies, it's a job that calls for the exercise of "judgment".
Re:What happened to accidents? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What is the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
So as long as I only murder sufficiently old people, I really shouldn't be held accountable by the legal system?
No but hows about we wait until the individual is old enough to understand the concept of life and death before we take them to court for murder. 4-6 years is NOT old enough.
Re:Wait what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Okay guys. It really IS time to kill all the lawyers.
Is this the problem with the lawyers, or is this a problem with the judge?
I never understood how the justice system is supposed to deal with insane judges. All these talk of checks and balances, but I see nothing to stop an insane judge making years of peoples' life hell for making judgment like this.
Yeah, eventually the ruling may be overturned in higher courts (assuming it is not the judge in the highest court making insane rulings!), but years of your life would be ruined, assuming you don't get any other permanent harm done to you.
How much money would the parents of these kids waste because of this insane ruling? Would they be financially ruined even if eventually they "prevail", such as finally lucky enough to encounter a sane judge? Would these money wasted mean these kids will never have a chance to have a decent education?
Re:Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What if it wasn't accidental?
The kid was 4!!
Re:What is the point? (Score:1, Insightful)
Hey everyone, it's Captain Hindsight here to save us! Thanks Captain Hindsight!
Re:Supposed to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Use his brain. Four year olds can't by any
> stretch of the imagination be held accountable.
I think you underestimate the power of imagination.
But the main point is, you're right. We all think it's crazy to pin a woman's death on a toddler riding a bike with training wheels.
We also think it's crazy to blame the victim, an 87 year-old woman who may not have had full situation awareness and may have lacked the agility to evade a collision.
It's also hard to blame the mom - she let her kid ride a bike, which I think our culture considers benign.
The truth is that this was an accident. What's broken here is that somebody has decided to sue unwitting participants for an accident best blamed on happenstance and chaos.
Re:Wait what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless the parent aimed that 4 year old at the old lady, there wasn't anyone responsible. A 4 year old simply doesn't have the brain complexity to form a criminal level of intent.
Re:Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
No 4 year old can be expected to be reasonable though. The age of reason is closer to 7. It looks like the judge fails the reasonable adult test.
Re:Wait what? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, traditionally in our court system young minors cannot have responsibility for their actions because they lack the cognitive capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. Their brains simply haven't developed enough, it's not a case of 'parents didn't teach them right', it's just plain-old physically impossible. Now I could understand holding the parents responsible: they should have ensured there was a safe play environment, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening here.
You left off part. (Score:5, Insightful)
... walking into someone by accident WHEN YOU ARE FOUR.
Remember, this is an age group that still pees or poops itself when out playing.
Re:Ruling != Legislating (Score:4, Insightful)
This is slashdot, we're computer nerds. Guys here seem to think about law as "orthogonal", cause-and-effect, etc.
Guess what guys: it's not. It's quite subjective. That's why there are appeals.
Re:Wait what? (Score:3, Insightful)
The car analogy is as inevitably stupid as it is inevitable.
Re:What is the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a nice thought, but no, not all life has the same value. You want proof? Talk to a doctor about requirements for organ transplant recipients. Young before old, no druggies or drunks, no one with uncurable conditions, or even lasting illnesses. If all life was of equal value, then it'd simply be a matter of "who started needing the replacement first."
Then there's the legal system. Self-defence makes murder legal. Hmm. But if your life is worth the same as your would-be killer, you should be just as liable for his death as he would have been for yours.
I could go on, but it should be obvious by now that by any measure, different lives have different values.
Age of consent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait what? (Score:0, Insightful)
The kid was almost five. I've seen five year olds do, or attempt to do, some pretty destructive acts of mayhem *on purpose*.
I'm pretty sure the worst thing I did when I was five was letting the air out of a car tire, but I certainly knew right from wrong, knew it was wrong, and did it *because* I knew it was wrong.
Five year olds do know right from wrong, and can be held accountable for their actions. The lawsuit might get to the first hearing and reveal the truth of what happened, but I would not expect anything else to come of it.
Also granted, I was an edge case. At age six, I was already reading Marlowe and Shakespeare, playing Mozart sonatas on the piano, tinkering with electronics, growing plants in a terrarium, and trying to figure out the ideas in high school math books. But this is mostly because I was bored and cooped up in a house with stuff like a grand piano and a good library, not because I was especially smart. If I'd been allowed to ride my bike in the street I'm sure I would have been out there doing that, beating up five year olds and stealing cigarettes from 7-11, like a normal six year old kid.
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, a pair of four year olds on their bikes. Accidentally hit an old lady.
And they're going to sue the four year olds?
Okay guys. It really IS time to kill all the lawyers.
*Grabs a gun*
Would you like to explain exactly what problem you see in this? The accident caused serious injury, which means the family of the old lady probably is now facing a large medical bill. Do you think they should have to pay that, rather than having the parents of the kids pay it?
Re:Pardon my language and lack of depth, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Shit like what? A lady died. I don't think it's completely insane for the family of the victim to want to be heard in court. They lost a loved one. The kid and the parents just have to appear and account for their actions. I know I'd be a bit fed up if I lost someone and it was quickly dismissed as being just something that happens. It's not like the courts are going to send the kid to prison, and I doubt there will be any significant financial penalty. Yes, people get absurd amounts of money for stupid reasons, but that's not the norm.
As for suing the child, it's likely an easier case to prove. The child ran into the old lady. It's a fact. If they sued the parent that was watching the child, it's not so clear cut. My idea of proper supervision and your idea of proper supervision could vary by a great deal. It makes for a disturbing headline, but logically I think it makes perfect sense.
Re:What is the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, though a small child running into most people would be one of the minor annoyances that happens all of the time, results in a talking-to, and everyone moves on. In this case, the woman was unfortunately fragile enough that the result, which normally would be harmless, was actually deadly. Should the child, who clearly already doesn't know not to run into people, be held responsible at age 4 for not knowing that elderly people are incredibly fragile and get potentially fatal complications easily?
The poor elderly lady's life may have the same value, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same durability. A 40 year old friend of mine was sucked under the wheels of a big-rig and survived, while my grandmother died due to having a very curable disease but for which the surgery would have killed her. Considering that healthy 4 year olds still use plastic cups, it's unfortunate but not surprising that the destructive force of large toddlers mixes poorly with the elderly.
Of course, that's why this is being litigated in Civil court, and not Criminal court.
Re:What is the point? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Pardon my language and lack of depth, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm Norwegian and recently spent 8 days in the US... During that time I had the chance to actually see how a tiny part of the US actually is.. (for a tourist anyway :p).
Security at the airport was a -hell- of a lot less time-consuming and annoying compared to the one in Amsterdam...
Going through customs and having my passport checked? Took less than a minute...
Me: "Yep, here for blizzcon and spending way too much money on stuff I dont really need *grin*"
Guy behind counter: "Oh, the gaming convention? Have fun, and dont forget to sleep!"
People in general? Friendly and didnt run into any idiots during my stay...
Cars: Fecking huge, and silly... Though comfortable they were! ;)
Internet at hotel: Slow as dogshit... how they can legally call it broadband I dont understand.. 3-4kb/sec upstream is painful when you are uploading pictures at a meg a pop :p
Money?
Please for $deity's sake get rid of the myriad of coins.... Pennies?... really?.... pennies?
And stores dont accept large bills?... meh... I came over with ten 100 dollar bills and had to visit a bank to break it up into 10s and 20s to actually be able to spend it on anything... that is just silly... even the hotel couldnt split em...
I'm sleepy and cant remember anything else at the moment but overall it is a nice country to be in for the most part. ;)
Random stupidity that makes the news completely blanket out that for large parts of the world though. As most dont visit they base their view on the media coverage alone... which is mildly put unfortunate
Re:Ruling != Legislating (Score:5, Insightful)
You must live in Louisiana. In English Common Law you follow precedent unless you can satisfactorily distinguish the instant case from prior cases. If you use your personal "judgment" to adjudicate that is judicial activism. Judicial review of incompetent legislation is usually handled by the Supreme Court of any state unless there is an egregious violation that the court needs to correct. Legislation is not at issue here so I'm not sure why you think the judge should have done this. Judicial assessment of a merit-less suit, I'll assume you mean failure to state a claim, is a job for the trial court. This was an interlocutory appeal to decide who could be sued. The judge could only decide that issue and could not, sua sponte, decide the case should go away.
Judges do judge, but they can only adjudicate very specific issues within a very strict rule set. They cannot do whatever they want. Judge's may decide only the issue that is before them. Dismissing the case was outside the scope of his authority.
Re:Some Important Clarifications (Score:4, Insightful)
The only useful post in this whole slew of comments.
I find it hilarious that so many comments are all like, "ONLY IN AMERICA. OUR COUNTRY IS RETARDED, THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM, etc"
They are complaining about ignorance or perceived stupidity in society, only to be revealing their own lack of understanding of the situation. Of course I'm complaining about their own ignorance probably reveals my own. All this ignorance and complaining will probably create some sort of infinite loop or black hole where no sane discussion can escape. Ah slashdot.
Re:Weird. And then what? (Score:3, Insightful)
That all depends on if they were taught to have one or not.
The brain is a very plastic organ and while there are physical limits to how quickly it can develop the current conventional wisdom is nowhere near those limits.
In general, if a child is expected to behave responsibly and this expectation is backed up with both positive and negative reinforcement that child will become more responsible at an earlier age than a child that does not receive that reinforcement.
If you give a child an excuse for irresponsible behavior, regardless of what the excuse is, the child will very quickly learn to milk that excuse for everything it is worth and then some.
Re:Wait what? (Score:4, Insightful)
The kid was almost five. I've seen five year olds do, or attempt to do, some pretty destructive acts of mayhem *on purpose*.
No, you haven't. Not in the sense that you would do something 'on purpose'. They don't have the part of the brain that you would use to make such a decision. That's why we don't hold them accountable for those decisions in criminal courts.
NB: we actually didn't hold kids accountable before we knew they were actually lacking brain parts. We did so because we had already figured out that for whatever reason, kids didn't make the same decisions as adults given the same inputs. In the last 20 or so years, we have now come to understand WHY that is, i.e., the missing brain matter.
Re:Some Important Clarifications (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like the 6 year old girl has any money to cough up to pay damages. Why are they bothering with her anyway? Does including the child on the list of defendants make it easier for them to claim from the parents?
There are various ways in which a parent may be liable for the negligence of a child, but the child's negligence must first be proved. In order to prove the child's negligence, the child must be a party to the suit. The plaintiff can then seek damages from the parent.
There may also be a separate claim of negligence on the part of the parent that is not dependent upon the negligence of the child. For example, if the child was not negligent because a reasonable child of 4 would in fact happily race her bike down a Manhattan sidewalk, then it may be argued that the parent was liable for giving the child the bike in the first place. The argument would be that a reasonable adult would not give a bike to a four year old to ride on a Manhattan sidewalk because a reasonable adult would judge that the risk of the child causing an injury is too great.
yay sociopaths (Score:4, Insightful)
They're kids? (Score:1, Insightful)
Keeping them locked and / or chained is the way to do.
If a dog attacks and eventually kills someone it is put down. A child is not unlike a dog.
Re:Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but I find It interesting that the judge uses the term "a reasonable child", because the legal standard is "a reasonable person". In most jurisdictions, children under 6 - 7 have no duty of care - an obligation to act with reasonable care in acts that could foreseeably harm others. Above this age, until the age of majority, they are judged by the standard of a "reasonable person of like age, intelligence, experience and under like circumstances".
A judge who believes a 4 year old can reasonably foresee when her actions could foreseeable harm others is a judge who has never spent any time with a 4 year old. Maybe he has heard about them, or seen one in pictures?
To be held responsible, at a minimum, a person first has to be self aware - able to recognize themselves as an individual and to learn, self reflect and make choices. This generally doesn't develop in children until sometime around age 2, but is not fully developed until somewhat later. Welcome to the "terrible twoes". The process of learning how to behave as an individual in a society only BEGINS with self awareness. To make responsible personal choices, a person also requires cultural, spacial and temporal awareness. That is, they need to be able to recognize the values of their society, have a sense of their physical environment (distance, speed, relationships between objects, possibly a concept of property, etc.) and they need to be able to reflect on past events, observe the current and foresee/predict cause and effect at it pertains to the immediate future. Many 4 year olds if given a choice of ice cream right now, or going to Disneyland next week, are going to choose ice cream because next week might as well be 10 years.
It would be unconscionable (unreasonable) to ask a 4 year old to cross a busy street on her own. She lacks the ability to judge distance, time, speed, inertia, force, etc. as they pertains to her own safety. How could you possibly expect a 4 year old to make the same judgments in the context of another person's safety? And even if the girl made the careless choice to risk hitting the old lady, is she able to recognize the difference between running into a 12 year old, a tree, a moving car or an 87 year old lady? Each has different implications. A four year old is simply not capable of recognizing these implications and making reasonable choices.
Re:Wait what? (Score:3, Insightful)
YOU would have responsibility because you are developmentally an adult. You are able to grasp cause and effect as well as right and wrong. You are old enough to understand that you can't just fix anything by walking out of frame for a moment like Wile E Coyote.
The 4 year old brain has not yet developed the part that anticipates the consequences of actions. While they're not entirely incapable of it, their capacity for it is considerably less than that of an adult.
Even if you could show that the collision was intentional, it would be hard to argue that they did or even should have understood the potential consequences of that action. Had they done that to most adults it wouldn't likely have even hurt. To a 4 year old, we're all ancient, why would they think an 87 year old would be any different than a 37 year old?
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. You're confusing equal with identical.
Organ transplant triage is based on success rates, not the value of life. The young and those with no chemical dependencies or complicating conditions have a documented higher success rate. They can undergo the extremely traumatic procedures and will be more likely to have positive outcomes. This is, in fact, based ultimately on the fact that two lives *are* equal. Given the choice between a 70% chance of saving one life and a 40% chance of saving another, which is the more responsible choice of action? If, on the other hand, there were a surplus of suitable organs, then such procedures would be done to these less attractive patients. Triage is about preserving the most life, not selecting which is more valuable.
Self-defense is an accepted justification because it deters attacks. It means an attacker has to accept that by breaking another's right to safety, they themselves lose that same right. Again, this is equality in action, not a value judgement on life.
Re:Wait what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also - just because there is an injury, doesn't mean someone else is liable. If she had been knocked over and injured by a gust of wind - would they sue the weather man?
If any sense of justice prevails, they will lose the case, and then on top of the medical bills, they will have legal bills (and if the judge determines that the suit was frivolous, the legal costs of the defendant as well). Besides, from a fiscal perspective, it is probably fortunate that the old lady died. It's cheaper to die than to linger in convalescence.
This is why we laugh at the USA and Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's completely insane for the family of the victim to want to be heard in court. In most countries this would be ruled as an accident, regrettable but nevertheless an accident between a small child not completely in control of their actions and an elderly person less aware and agile than a typical 40 year old. The media around the world is laughing at the USA right now, go and do an internet search to see the kind of reactions that are being published.
Do the majority of Americans believe a costly court case is the only way to find out all the facts and reach some resolution after such an unhappy accident? I think people are suprised in many countries that in the USA the resolution of a sad accident is not solved through the two families talking after a coroner has defined the facts, perhaps arbitrated by a counsellor, but that the victim's family is claiming that emotional laying to rest can only be achieved by sueing a pre-school child in court.
In most countries I think the police and legal authorities would rule that cause of death was an unfortunate coming together of circumstances, and probably there would be an opportunity for the victim's family to meet the child's parents. Child's parents would be terribly upset and offer sincere apologies, maybe ask the child to apologise, victim's family would probably be distraught but recognise that very sad accidents happen and accept apologies and understand that things happen that we can't control. Both families would probably agree that the small child was not an intentional murderer, not evil at heart, and agree that a small child shouldn't be traumatised or penalised for life for an accidental action so try to impress upon the child that you must be careful in what you do, but not load the kid with massive guilt complexes.
Meanwhile in the USA the victim's family wants to go to court and sue a pre-school child for millions.
Seems like you're moving back to a pre-20th century era when children were considered small adults with the same rights and responsibilities. Progress in science has proved that children are biologically as well as experientially unable to make the same level of decision making as adults and hence have to be treated differently. Their brains have not yet formed, they are simply not adults and cannot be considered accountable as an adult.
Re:Ruling != Legislating (Score:3, Insightful)
This was not an issue of first impression, though. Justice Wooten cites plenty of cases on point and decided that this case was not substantially different enough to break precedent.
This is totally reasonable... (Score:2, Insightful)
Is the real issue here that: Because the 4 year old committed this act, the parents were going to write it off and say, "Well, they're 4 years old, what do you want?" and be free of culpability. I don't think that the lawyers really want to sue the 4 year old, I think what they want is for the parents to not be off the hook for damages...am I right? The issue is not that they want to sue a 4 year old, they want to sue the parents! While I don't agree with either of these suits, it does make sense that someone would want to sue the parents of a child that caused an accident to recover some of the costs incurred from said accident.
Am I the only person that thinks this is reasonable? The sensationalist headline is VERY misleading.
Broken or malevolent legal system? (Score:3, Insightful)
You wonder what is going on in the United States, their legal system appears to be pretty much broken.
Generally broken, but working flawlessly when it's being actively malevolent, as apparently in this case.
Re:yay sociopaths (Score:1, Insightful)
I know many lawyers. I have a lawyer. I don't like any of them.
Re:Wait what? (Score:3, Insightful)
The lawyers are not suing. The old women's family is suing. Blame yourself and the politicians you elect that make the laws that allow this. This is like saying we should kill all the mechanics because Lada's suck.
Re:Ruling != Legislating (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if they're technically suing the kid (and not the parents), then just have the kid declare bankruptcy.
Right wrong or otherwise, after seven years, he'll still only be in his early teens and won't need to use credit for anything for another 3-5 years.
And if this isn't allowable, they've just set a precedence for essentially allowing the return of indentured servitude.
Re:Wait what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I sure wish you were joking. [sportbikes.net]
Re:What is the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
That argument cuts both ways:
By the same token, should a frail 87 year old woman be allowed to roam the sidewalks without assistance? Should she be left to her own devices, unprotected from every risk -- tripping over uneven pavement; stepping off the curb and landing wrong; her own perhaps-failing vision that didn't warn her of an oncoming hazard, such as toddlers on bicycles??
Perhaps her family should be sued for letting her out on her own, without their aid and protection. Perhaps she should be sued for failing to get out of the way of an obvious hazard, such as uncoordinated toddlers on bicycles.
Or maybe we should recognise that unless everyone lives in a bubble, sometimes stupid accidents happen and people get hurt, and no one party is to blame.
Re:What is the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Car analogy:
So, if I hit a car that's so badly rusted the entire frame collapses, I'm liable to buy them a new car? No. I'm probably liable for the $300 replacement cost of a scrapyard rustbucket.
If it doesn't work this way with people, as well as cars, it should. I should not be liable for extreme bodily injury such as a fractured hip, if your osteoporosis is so bad that my actions would have caused a slight bruise for a healthy adult.
Not to mention the idea that suing a 4 year old is just crackers....
Re:Weird. And then what? (Score:3, Insightful)
At this age, those teachings tend to be very concrete. "Don't play with matches." "Don't touch things on the stove." Being able to logically evaluate the consequences of a theoretical action in a situation with which a child is unfamiliar would be almost unheard of.
Re:Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like the litigious nature of so many people in the US, but the parent or guardian in charge of that four year old at least deserves to have their level of responsibility in the incident questioned, far more than the 4-year-old's.
That being said, if a broken hip was enough to kill the woman, I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but it's likely that something else would have taken her out in relatively short order as well. A running dog, a sudden noise, a slippery step, a moment of disorientation. It's sad that she died and I feel for her family, but while the accident was the precipitating event, one could reasonably assign blame to the passage of time.
Now, to play the devil's advocate, if I were a defense lawyer on this one, I would look into the woman's dietary and exercise history: if I could show that with better diet and exercise, other people her age would have reasonably been able to recover from such an accident, I could probably minimize or even remove my client's liability.
Re:Wait what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no more perverts now than there were back then. What we have more of is paranoia.
Re:Wait what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, you could. the thin skull rule doesn't apply to a victim's negligence.
Because of the thin skull rule, they must accept that the consequence of the minimal bump was a broken hip even though that's a big injury for a small bump. However, if poor compliance with the doctor's orders made the difference between life and death, that's negligence on the victim's part.
Re:Pardon my language and lack of depth, but.. (Score:1, Insightful)
I've heard this time and time again, that the culture in America from state to state is 'just as varied' as national differences in the rest of the world. I'm sorry, but I've met New Yorkers, Texans, Midwesters, Californians, and I can't bloody well tell the difference. The difference is about as big as the one between America and Canada, but guess what... that's not actually very different (my apologies to my fellow Canadians).
Whenever someone makes that claim around me, it's all I can do not to roll my eyes. I just don't see how anyone can credibly claim a significant difference between two people who speak the same language, eat generally the same food, and were raised with the same mass media culture of CNN, MTV and Hollywood, even if they happen to be from opposite ends of the nation. Compared to the difference between an American and a J. Random East Asian citizen, Californians and New Englanders are practically peas in a pod.
Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Normally insurance works like that. If I get injured in an accident, that is why I have medical insurance. They pay for fixing me up. Doesn't matter if I caused it or if someone else did, they cover my bills. That's the point.
Now the only cases where this differs is in cases of negligence or if something was deliberate. If someone was negligent in their actions then they can be accountable for the harm they caused.
People need to accept that, in life, shit happens. That is the whole point of insurance, for when shit happens that you cannot afford. The actions of a 4 year old? Those count as shit happening. 4 year olds lack the mental capacity to be at all responsible for something like this. They cannot understand the consequences their actions have or plan for the future as implied. This isn't a case of "Well they should learn," no I mean they CANNOT, their brains are not developed to that stage. That whole, pesky, biology, thing.
Re:What is the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
"There's no question of what value you place on the lives involved."
Of course there is. It's implicit within your *reasonable* force. If an inocent life were as valuable as the one of a criminal within his criminal intent, then it would be no way you could apply reasonable force against the criminal in such a manner that the criminal ended up dead: the very fact the he died would be argument enough to probe you were beyond reasonable force.
Re:What is the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Doofus, it's her family who is suing: the lawyers are not suing on their own behalf!! The family is on the hook for legal bills, I'd guesstimate anywhere between $500k to $1M. Imagine you'd suddenly become liable for that amount of money. You'd sue everyone and their mother too, it's merely a matter of self-preservation. The alternative is to go bankrupt, like many do in the U.S. due to medical bills.
Re:IANAL, but obviously neither are you. (Score:5, Insightful)
You missed a biggie there. NO 4 year old is reasonable. They're simply not capable of it. It's somewhat interesting that you suggest a calculation of risk that they were (and still are) years away from being able to even perform the mechanics of. 4 year olds don't know how to add (other than perhaps a rote knowledge of a few single digit additions), much less multiply.
At that age, they might well tell you they were chased by a bear in their bedroom and actually believe it to be literally true. You expect them to somehow predict the likelihood of causing a serious injury to an elderly adult from a particular action? Worse, from a non-volitional accident made likely from a particular action?
As a side note, if we're going to allow adults to sue 6 year olds, doesn't basic fairness suggest we must allow 6 year olds to sue adults as well (perhaps even pro se)? I can just see a court proceeding where the jury is asked to determine if, in fact, Mr. Johnson is a doodie-head.