Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:09:38 AM EDT

Citing cases dating back as far as 1928, a judge has ruled that a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence....


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

Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:13:44 AM EDT
I'm going to sue my eight month old for emotional distress for waking me up every night at 3:00am for the last eight months.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:14:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By larkinmusic:
I'm going to sue my eight month old for emotional distress for waking me up every night at 3:00am for the last eight months.


You know even if you win you lose, right?
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:14:38 AM EDT
I'm gonna sue the baby that lives right below me for crying constantly. The dog too, since it barks at the damn thing.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:15:08 AM EDT
That old bag is going to empty out that poor girls life savings!
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:16:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SoonerBorn:
That old bag is going to empty out that poor girls life savings!


No, she actually died.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:16:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SoonerBorn:
That old bag is going to empty out that poor girls life savings!

That old bag died (and a case could be made died because from her injuries)
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:16:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2010 10:18:00 AM EDT by tominjax]

Originally Posted By SoonerBorn:
That old bag is going to empty out that poor girls life savings!

She died 3 months after the accident.

Damn, beat twice in under 30 seconds.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:17:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By para_frame:
Originally Posted By larkinmusic:
I'm going to sue my eight month old for emotional distress for waking me up every night at 3:00am for the last eight months.


You know even if you win you lose, right?

It's a matter of principle.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:17:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By larkinmusic:
I'm going to sue my eight month old for emotional distress for waking me up every night at 3:00am for the last eight months.

Yeah, then you're going to have to pay yourself the court imposed fine
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:18:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SoonerBorn:
That old bag is going to empty out that poor girls life savings!

The "old bag" died 3 months later as a result of her injuries.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:18:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By larkinmusic:
I'm going to sue my eight month 20 year old for emotional distress for waking me up every night at 3:00am for the last eight months.
and for making me go bald




Girls are a lot harder to raise, than boys
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:19:51 AM EDT

Awesome, since I live across the street from a elementry school, I'm going to sue all students for the noise they make at recess, I'll show them!
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:24:19 AM EDT
Haha. I was about that age out riding my big wheel. The cranky old man next door was working on his car. I ran over his legs. Boy howdy was he pissed when he came flying out from under there. One of my earliest childhood memories. He didn't sue me though.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:25:02 AM EDT
Why wouldn't the mother be sued instead? At least she may have assets to lay claim to, but a 4 year old? What are they after, her supply of bubble gum?

Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:27:12 AM EDT
Put the fucking 4 y/o on the stand!
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:27:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By larkinmusic:

Originally Posted By para_frame:
Originally Posted By larkinmusic:
I'm going to sue my eight month old for emotional distress for waking me up every night at 3:00am for the last eight months.


You know even if you win you lose, right?

It's a matter of principle.

Now that I think about it, he's a foster child and until our adoption if finalized he is in the state's custody. So, the state would be responsible. I may have just hit the jackpot!!
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:27:59 AM EDT
Some judges need to lay off the crack.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:28:23 AM EDT
There used to be these things called "accidents."

When something happened that was unintentional, the two parties found out an amicable solution.

But suing a four year old? Idiots.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:32:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Deej86:
There used to be these things called "accidents."

When something happened that was unintentional, the two parties found out an amicable solution.

But suing a four year old? Idiots.


How dare you bring logic in here
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:33:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Why wouldn't the mother be sued instead? At least she may have assets to lay claim to, but a 4 year old? What are they after, her supply of bubble gum?


Parents are being sued as well.

From the article:

"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. "
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:37:39 AM EDT
I'm going to sue my nine year old daughter for practicing law with out a license.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:39:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pacrossbow:
Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Why wouldn't the mother be sued instead? At least she may have assets to lay claim to, but a 4 year old? What are they after, her supply of bubble gum?


Parents are being sued as well.

From the article:

"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. "


Acckk!

Well, I'm with Deej86 on this that there used to be these things called "accidents."


Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:40:50 AM EDT
Don't ya just love lawyers?
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:43:01 AM EDT
I always said...I wouldn't mind living in Manhattan if I were single and fresh out of college..but there's no way I can see raising a family there.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:46:19 AM EDT
Time to turn down the ARFCOM Outrage Machine, folks. The parents are the ones who will be held liable, and the judge correctly ruled that New York law does not absolve 4 year-olds of damages.

There was an accident. The lady suffered a real injury due to the actions of the children, who in turn were under the supervision of their parents. There is a tort here, and the lady's estate is entitled to bring a suit. This is one of the exact reasons why I keep hefty personal liability coverage with my homeowner's insurance: To pay for my kids' stupidity if they do something that causes a real damage to someone else., like burn down someone else's house while playing with matches, etc.

Now should the estate bring suit? I don't know; it would be much nicer if everyone involved could resolve their differences without enriching some greedly lawyers (not you, Aimless ).

But hip replacement surgery, three months of recovery combined with a funeral, is very, very expensive. If the woman didn't have adequate insurance and the heirs ended up paying the bill then yes, they've got every right to sue.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:51:27 AM EDT
I would like to know how two kids can run into an old lady without realizing it...
Originally Posted By GarandM1:
Time to turn down the ARFCOM Outrage Machine, folks. The parents are the ones who will be held liable, and the judge correctly ruled that New York law does not absolve 4 year-olds of damages.

There was an accident. The lady suffered a real injury due to the actions of the children, who in turn were under the supervision of their parents. There is a tort here, and the lady's estate is entitled to bring a suit. This is one of the exact reasons why I keep hefty personal liability coverage with my homeowner's insurance: To pay for my kids' stupidity if they do something that causes a real damage to someone else., like burn down someone else's house while playing with matches, etc.

Now should the estate bring suit? I don't know; it would be much nicer if everyone involved could resolve their differences without enriching some greedly lawyers (not you, Aimless ).

But hip replacement surgery, three months of recovery combined with a funeral, is very, very expensive. If the woman didn't have adequate insurance and the heirs ended up paying the bill then yes, they've got every right to sue.


Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:52:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Deej86:
There used to be these things called "accidents."

When something happened that was unintentional, the two parties found out an amicable solution.

But suing a four year old? Idiots.


there you go with that logic and common sense thing
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 10:55:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JonnyVain:
I would like to know how two kids can run into an old lady without realizing it...
Originally Posted By GarandM1:
Time to turn down the ARFCOM Outrage Machine, folks. The parents are the ones who will be held liable, and the judge correctly ruled that New York law does not absolve 4 year-olds of damages.

There was an accident. The lady suffered a real injury due to the actions of the children, who in turn were under the supervision of their parents. There is a tort here, and the lady's estate is entitled to bring a suit. This is one of the exact reasons why I keep hefty personal liability coverage with my homeowner's insurance: To pay for my kids' stupidity if they do something that causes a real damage to someone else., like burn down someone else's house while playing with matches, etc.

Now should the estate bring suit? I don't know; it would be much nicer if everyone involved could resolve their differences without enriching some greedly lawyers (not you, Aimless ).

But hip replacement surgery, three months of recovery combined with a funeral, is very, very expensive. If the woman didn't have adequate insurance and the heirs ended up paying the bill then yes, they've got every right to sue.



With 4 year-olds, it's possible. They probably were too excited to pay attention to where they were going. Knowing 4 year-olds I'm pretty sure they didn't mean to hurt her.

Nevertheless she was hurt, and quite seriously. Someone has to pay the bills, and in general the rule should be if you break it, then you buy it. In this case the parents are the ones who will end up paying.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 11:07:07 AM EDT
NYC = City of Pussies
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 11:25:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JonnyVain:
I would like to know how two kids can run into an old lady without realizing it...
Originally Posted By GarandM1:
Time to turn down the ARFCOM Outrage Machine, folks. The parents are the ones who will be held liable, and the judge correctly ruled that New York law does not absolve 4 year-olds of damages.

There was an accident. The lady suffered a real injury due to the actions of the children, who in turn were under the supervision of their parents. There is a tort here, and the lady's estate is entitled to bring a suit. This is one of the exact reasons why I keep hefty personal liability coverage with my homeowner's insurance: To pay for my kids' stupidity if they do something that causes a real damage to someone else., like burn down someone else's house while playing with matches, etc.

Now should the estate bring suit? I don't know; it would be much nicer if everyone involved could resolve their differences without enriching some greedly lawyers (not you, Aimless ).

But hip replacement surgery, three months of recovery combined with a funeral, is very, very expensive. If the woman didn't have adequate insurance and the heirs ended up paying the bill then yes, they've got every right to sue.




Or the parents that were supervising a 4 year old on a city sidewalk not knowing about it....................

Because the lawsuit is actually about failure of the parent(s) to properly supervise their child.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 11:27:14 AM EDT
There just isn't any fucking point to this anymore is there?

What the fuck happened to this country - and what kind of bullshit bizarro world have I woken up in?

Link Posted: 10/29/2010 11:31:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TwoDogKnight:
Don't ya just love lawyers?

A lawyer can't sue someone without being hired to sue that person.

So maybe the problem isn't the lawyer, it's the client.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 11:39:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BushBoar:

Originally Posted By TwoDogKnight:
Don't ya just love lawyers?

A lawyer can't sue someone without being hired to sue that person.

So maybe the problem isn't the lawyer, it's the client.


Link Posted: 10/29/2010 11:40:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RRA_223:
There just isn't any fucking point to this anymore is there?

What the fuck happened to this country - and what kind of bullshit bizarro world have I woken up in?



A lawsuit wouldn't be needed, if the parents had been supervising their child, and prevented the crash, or had agreed to pay for the injuries their child caused.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 11:42:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By larkinmusic:
I'm going to sue my eight month old for emotional distress for waking me up every night at 3:00am for the last eight months.


I'm going to have my 18month old arrested for assault by bodily fluid for peeing and puking and shitting on me...then sue for damages in civil court.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 11:42:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Notcalifornialegal:
I'm gonna sue the baby that lives right below me for crying constantly. The dog too, since it barks at the damn thing.


Feed one to the other.

Problem solved.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 11:46:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BushBoar:

Originally Posted By TwoDogKnight:
Don't ya just love lawyers?

A lawyer can't sue someone without being hired to sue that person.

So maybe the problem isn't the lawyer, it's the client.

Since when?
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 11:46:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2010 11:47:54 AM EDT by BushBoar]

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:

Originally Posted By TwoDogKnight:
Don't ya just love lawyers?

A lawyer can't sue someone without being hired to sue that person.

So maybe the problem isn't the lawyer, it's the client.



I'm a lawyer and interestingly enough I've never spontaneously sued anyone or filed an action with a court. People always hire me to do things like that. <shrug>
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 11:58:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BushBoar:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:

Originally Posted By TwoDogKnight:
Don't ya just love lawyers?

A lawyer can't sue someone without being hired to sue that person.

So maybe the problem isn't the lawyer, it's the client.



I'm a lawyer and interestingly enough I've never spontaneously sued anyone or filed an action with a court. People always hire me to do things like that. <shrug>


Take you're facts and leave us alone.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 12:03:02 PM EDT
Whatever happen to the days of judgement...morals and ethics...

Is it moral, ethical, or even reasonable to sue a 4 yo girl?
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 12:04:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BushBoar:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:

Originally Posted By TwoDogKnight:
Don't ya just love lawyers?

A lawyer can't sue someone without being hired to sue that person.

So maybe the problem isn't the lawyer, it's the client.



I'm a lawyer and interestingly enough I've never spontaneously sued anyone or filed an action with a court. People always hire me to do things like that. <shrug>

So you don't think the lawyer handling the estate could have talk the family into bringing this lawsuit? I know when my dad died in an accident, the lawyer we hired to handle the estate asked us point blank and within minutes of meeting him if there was anyone we could sue over the accident.



Link Posted: 10/29/2010 12:06:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By larkinmusic:

Originally Posted By BushBoar:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:

Originally Posted By TwoDogKnight:
Don't ya just love lawyers?

A lawyer can't sue someone without being hired to sue that person.

So maybe the problem isn't the lawyer, it's the client.



I'm a lawyer and interestingly enough I've never spontaneously sued anyone or filed an action with a court. People always hire me to do things like that. <shrug>

So you don't think the lawyer handling the estate could have talk the family into bringing this lawsuit? I know when my dad died in an accident, the lawyer we hired to handle the estate asked us point blank and within minutes of meeting him if there was anyone we could sue over the accident.




He may have, but the family were the ones making the final decision.

Actually, their lawyer would have been committing malpractice if he didn't at least advise them that they could sue.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 12:16:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2010 12:17:27 PM EDT by GarandM1]

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
Whatever happen to the days of judgement...morals and ethics...

Is it moral, ethical, or even reasonable to sue a 4 yo girl?

Okay, you're reacting exactly how the Media and the parents' attorneys want you to.

Although the kids are named in the suit their parents are the ones who are actually being sued. The judge only ruled that kids can cause damages which result in liability; if they had been three year-olds then the old lady's family wouldn't have standing to sue, according to New York law.

The principle here is "You break it, You buy it". If a couple of kids racing their bikes ran head-long into the side of your vintage 1966 Charger and did about $10,000 in damages to the paint then you'd expect the parents to at least cover the cost of your insurance deductible no matter how old they were, wouldn't you?

This is the same principle: These kids did more than a few thousand dollars worth of damage to a car: They ran into a fragile old lady, giving her injuries which resulted in her death. But before she died she had hip replacement surgery (my Mom's hip replacement cost around $25,000 back in 1992) and probably had to stay for three months in a care center (more big bucks which Medicare does not completely cover –– depending on the care level it can be up to $5,000/month).

If this lady didn't have adequate insurance the estate could be set back at least $50,000 –– a conservative estimate, considering this is New York City. Add in around $10,000 to 15,000 in funeral costs and you're talking serious money. If that were your Mom and you found out that her estate was tens of thousands of dollars in the red then I'm pretty sure you'd get a lawyer too and go after the parents of the kids who caused the damages.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 12:22:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
Whatever happen to the days of judgement...morals and ethics...

Is it moral, ethical, or even reasonable to sue a 4 yo girl?


No, it isn't.

But this is what happens when we've allowed lawyers, judges and legislators to warp, corrupt and collectively connive to put a legal system beyond reason, accessibility or understanding of the lay person.

We, the represented, are no longer, and we get taken for a ride designed for the few to prosper from the many.

It's all "legal" which makes it okay...

Then again, genocide is "legal" in the countries that perpetrate such inhumanities.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 12:27:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By pacrossbow:
Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Why wouldn't the mother be sued instead? At least she may have assets to lay claim to, but a 4 year old? What are they after, her supply of bubble gum?


Parents are being sued as well.

From the article:

"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. "


Now why did you have to bring the facts into this thread?

Brian
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 12:28:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
Whatever happen to the days of judgement...morals and ethics...

Is it moral, ethical, or even reasonable to sue a 4 yo girl?

Okay, you're reacting exactly how the Media and the parents' attorneys want you to.

Although the kids are named in the suit their parents are the ones who are actually being sued. The judge only ruled that kids can cause damages which result in liability; if they had been three year-olds then the old lady's family wouldn't have standing to sue, according to New York law.

The principle here is "You break it, You buy it". If a couple of kids racing their bikes ran head-long into the side of your vintage 1966 Charger and did about $10,000 in damages to the paint then you'd expect the parents to at least cover the cost of your insurance deductible no matter how old they were, wouldn't you?

This is the same principle: These kids did more than a few thousand dollars worth of damage to a car: They ran into a fragile old lady, giving her injuries which resulted in her death. But before she died she had hip replacement surgery (my Mom's hip replacement cost around $25,000 back in 1992) and probably had to stay for three months in a care center (more big bucks which Medicare does not completely cover –– depending on the care level it can be up to $5,000/month).

If this lady didn't have adequate insurance the estate could be set back at least $50,000 –– a conservative estimate, considering this is New York City. Add in around $10,000 to 15,000 in funeral costs and you're talking serious money. If that were your Mom and you found out that her estate was tens of thousands of dollars in the red then I'm pretty sure you'd get a lawyer too and go after the parents of the kids who caused the damages.

I see your point. Touche`

Perhaps sueing for restitution for the medical costs could be acceptable...but truly anything beyond that like "I'm sueing for an extra $75,000 for the pain and suffering" is BS, IMHO, however.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 12:28:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jonny_Flashbang:
Some judges need to lay off the crack.


Based on the article it sounds like the judge denied the motion because the lawyer chose to use a non-applicable citation for the basis.

Brian
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 12:30:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GarandM1:
Time to turn down the ARFCOM Outrage Machine, folks.


Did you forget you're in GD?

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

The parents are the ones who will be held liable, and the judge correctly ruled that New York law does not absolve 4 year-olds of damages.

There was an accident. The lady suffered a real injury due to the actions of the children, who in turn were under the supervision of their parents. There is a tort here, and the lady's estate is entitled to bring a suit. This is one of the exact reasons why I keep hefty personal liability coverage with my homeowner's insurance: To pay for my kids' stupidity if they do something that causes a real damage to someone else., like burn down someone else's house while playing with matches, etc.

Now should the estate bring suit? I don't know; it would be much nicer if everyone involved could resolve their differences without enriching some greedly lawyers (not you, Aimless ).

But hip replacement surgery, three months of recovery combined with a funeral, is very, very expensive. If the woman didn't have adequate insurance and the heirs ended up paying the bill then yes, they've got every right to sue.


Well summarized.

Brian

Link Posted: 10/29/2010 12:32:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
Whatever happen to the days of judgement...morals and ethics...

Is it moral, ethical, or even reasonable to sue a 4 yo girl?


Whatever happened to the days of reading something and actually comprehending what was written before posting a reply?

Brian

Link Posted: 10/29/2010 12:35:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Beachjumper12:
Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
Whatever happen to the days of judgement...morals and ethics...

Is it moral, ethical, or even reasonable to sue a 4 yo girl?


No, it isn't.

But this is what happens when we've allowed lawyers, judges and legislators to warp, corrupt and collectively connive to put a legal system beyond reason, accessibility or understanding of the lay person.

We, the represented, are no longer, and we get taken for a ride designed for the few to prosper from the many.

It's all "legal" which makes it okay...

Then again, genocide is "legal" in the countries that perpetrate such inhumanities.


You have a career in congress with that level of self-righteous indignation.......

Didn't read the linked article or all the replies before posting, did you?

Brian
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top