4-year-old Could Be Sued for Negligence?!

[welsummerchicks]

No, this isn't exactly like parents being held responsible for criminal activities of their children. This guy actually is sueing the kid.

Anyone can have a lawsuit filed in their name. Of course.

The question is, would they win. Lawsuits are different from crimes and criminal proceedings and have their own rules.

The quotes in the article seem to come only from the plaintiff side. So that's that lawyer's point of view only.

Children have a special status in the law, even in civil (lawsuits). Especially those as young as 4. That is not covered.

So it's one of the usual articles about lawsuits - very short on facts and long on 'get the reader riled up'. I can sort of imagine the moving party's lawyer representing their chances in glowing terms. Hurt by grief and expenses the family might be vulnerable to such tactics.

Of course a lawyer would be willing to file the suit. Of course. You can always find someone to do that. Lawsuits for all sorts of things are filed all the time.

The news reports probably won't follow the rest of the story, though. That will be the boring part.

There are a lot of twists and turns to winning a lawsuit. I'm not sure if this situation would result in the woman's family winning a lawsuit regarding the woman's injuries and/or death.

The article states the death was not directly caused by the injuries, but was more of an indirect result. Older folks, bedridden for injuries, can succumb to hospital infections, pneumonia or fractures that won't heal due to osteoperosis. This woman was nearly 90.

The children probably can not be proven to be aware of the consequences of their actions or the possible results.

It is, however, generally criminal cases where intent is a huge factor. One can get charged with much more serious crimes if intent is involved. But this is not a crime. It's a lawsuit.

I'm not sure if the parents of the children have the means to provide compensation, either.

 

[Cindiloohoo]

If someone sues a kid, they are sueing the parents. The child has no assets, the parents do. Unless the person sueing wants the kids Halloween candy, or their Pull ups, the person is in fact sueing the parents. Indirectly or not, it's the parents assets the person is after. The child is not even of legal age to understand OR hire a lawyer to represent them...so it is the parents, who are capable, that are being sued. You can say they are sueing the child if you want, but reality says something different. That was my point.

 

[welsummerchicks]

I read that a 12 year old was sued for 150,000 dollars for illegal music downloads - if the article was accurate(I thought downloads were fined, not taken to civil court), there's one example. And if people don't have money I do actually think their guardian's assets can be used.

And in this particular case, a judge has ruled, in fact, that this child can be sued. The report says this was not a wild decision, it is based on case law that goes back over 80 years. It is not some 'new' thing.

Previous rulings have stated that a child UNDER 4 can not be aware of negligence, actually.

The basic principle is that even a 4 year old knows he's not supposed to run into people, especially elderly people, with his bike. And evidently, even though the parents were around, that's what happened. And a very severe hip fracture and death 3 weeks later.

News reports are just not stating how closely linked the death is to the child's action.

The judge, a supreme court judge that made this decision, really did not have much of a choice. S/he has to follow what judgements have been made previously and what opinions have been handed down in how to interpret the law. The judge may even think it's unfair, s/he still does not have a choice. The case, brought by the woman's estate, has to go to the next step.

What happens in court with that case, though, has nothing to do with this decision. The decision now is just, if the case has a legal right to proceed. It can't do that til it's determined that it's actually possible to sue a 4 year old.

I am sure that the lawyer's handling the lady's estate expect to get money out of it, I am sure they aren't doing this to get a letter in crayon from the kid that says, "I'm sorry" and a drawing of a tree and a house.

Minors can sue others, too. They do so through a guardian ad litem (court assigned person).

 

[Sootsie]

a kid kicks a football and accidently breaks a window then the parents are expected to pay for said window

simplistic analogy I know but over here in the UK we have a National health service its not perfect but it means medical care is free therefore no medical insurance is needed

someone has to pay for the medical care in this case and because the accident was caused by small children in the care of their mothers then logic would sugest that the parents are responsible for letting their children race their bikes on the sidewalk instead of waiting till they got to a park presuming there was one nearby.

my children rode their bikes on the pavement to the local park under supervision they were not allowed to race or go fast, and told to stop still if a person was walking ahead of them. when old enough the rode on the road after taking a saftey course age 9 again supervised til i was convinced they were not a danger to themselves or others

 

[welsummerchicks]

I'm not sure if they would be trying to recover medical costs. The reports didn't say.

I can see that the woman's children probably would like to get a larger estate and not see it whittled away to pay medical expenses. Even with health insurance, much is not covered. The unpaid part of three weeks in the hospital for an elderly person with a severe fracture, could be astronomical.

 

[deerman]

Quote:
Yes so true, plus the parent was there....some towns its illegal to let kids ride their bikes on sidewalks. No matter the age, yes if you follow this thru bet the parents will have to pay the medical bill of the woman.

 

[WhiteMountainsRanch]

Her death was unrelated to the injury she suffered from the crash.

Absolutely not.​

 

[deerman]

Quote:
Absolutely not.

Her death was unrelated to the injury she suffered from the crash. However, it's safe to say the crash was severe and probably didn't help.



the rest of the story.....love when people only post part.

 

[thaiturkey]

Several posters have made this point but others persist in ignoring it. The news media reports quote legal opinions that the estate of the injured lady could sue the children for damages on the grounds of negligence. That means what it says, not that a lawsuit would succeed. The Courts will decide culpability and quantum. If they find in favour of the plaintiff then they were right to sue. If they fail, well at least there is an expert opinion that supports their attempt.

You can't name call people who make a claim under the law. They are not greedy or unreasonable but asking the Courts to make a decision. If you don't like the law, complain about that but don't attack people who use the law. If you don't think that parents should be responsible for the actions of their children then neither, perhaps, should the driver of car under whose wheels those children might fall one day as they race their bikes.

Why should parents not take responsibility for the acts of their children? Letting kids ride bikes on public thoroughfares is likely to cause an accident. An elderly person brought to the ground and who subsequently suffers a broken hip is likely not to recover. If children aren't responsible for their actions then their parents might well be. That's one of the responsibilities of parents.

 

[welsummerchicks]

1. The court is not addressing results, it is only addressing if this suit can go to court. Can a 4 year old be negligent legally. Not WAS THIS ONE, CAN ANY 4 year old be negligent according to the law. A case can not move ahead until it is determined if such a thing even can be done. There is no point in moving if a kid cannot be negligent.

2. No report makes clear what the moving party is attempting to get out of the suit. Some comments are mixing issues - health insurance claims and actions are separate and distinct from civil cases and work under different rules.

3. No news report can or should attempt to declare if the woman's injuries were the result of the crash or not. That is extremely premature and baseless speculation, and highly irresponsible - yellow journalism. The reporters do not have the information necessary to decide that. No one does. The court is the one who will determine if the woman's injuries were the result of the crash or not, usually based on expert's information, however good or bad anyone thinks that is. The death occurred 3 weeks after the crash. Whatever opinions people have about this right now, it is unknown and undetermined if the death was partially or fully the result of the collision.

4. The news reports did not report legal opinion. They quoted what a couple attorneys said to the reporters. That is not a legal opinion. It's words on the street or in a hallway, and nothing more.

5. The newspapers are trying to make it seem as if this is something brand new, that never, ever happened before. This is nonsense.