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

[MysticScorpio82]

Quote:

All good and valid points. My personal view is that it horrible that anyone can sue a child so young, but the law is the law.

 

[welsummerchicks]

This comment:

Whenever anyone under 18 gets sued <it is the parents that get sued>

is not correct. The parents may be the ones who wind up writing a check, but the minor actually is the one that gets sued and is named as such in the legal document.

Minors not only get sued, they also sue, minors or adults, thru a guardian ad litum(court friend).

Minors can be charged with crimes, and also sued in civil court, as a result of a given behavior or act.

It may seem offensive to people, but children have never been completely exempted from either criminal or civil justice, nor have the consequences or financial liability ever been born completely by their parents or guardians.

 

[desertdarlene]

In many states, the parents are liable for injuries and damages caused by their children under a certain age. However, there are some states that put limits to what can be considered negligence by a child, too.

In this case, the issue was whether or not the parent was supervising the child enough to prevent this accident and whether the actions of the child were willful.

 

[welsummerchicks]

Um...no. Willfulness is not a part of negligence, and the only issue was if the case would be heard.

The judge said it can be heard. The issue of whether the parents are liable for negligent supervision is NOT on the table at this time. It is deferred. The LAWYER made some grand statements suggesting he had a good case and some reporter misquoted him. So what? People are misunderstanding what's really going on. This is not a criminal case or an insurance company matter. This is a civil case.

It is not necessary to show willfulness or intent or malice OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT to get a civil case of negligence heard OR WON.

Negligence is a failure to exercise reasonable care. That's it. That's all. You don't have to 'mean it'. All you have to do is not exercise reasonable care.

There is a legal case if the negligence results in damage. This is damage that would not have occured if reasonable care had been used. Negligence can also occur even when a natural event also occurred, or with other causes that contribute to the damage. The negligence need not be the sole cause of the damage.

In general, if by negligence a person causes injury to another person, he is responsible for the consequences of the injury (that is probably going to be important in this case). To win, the lawyer basically, just has to prove 1. the person he is sueing has a duty of care 2. a connection between the negligent act and the damage.

"The Queen of Horts, She Made some Torts"

 

[thaiturkey]

Quote:
Very well explained. Just to add a little to it, a wilful act is probably criminal whereas a negligent one is usually a civil matter. Statute law can amend that basic principle in certain instances. It is not a defence to claim that an incident was an accident. Most negligence cases arise from accidents. Anyone who has been involved in an auto accident will know that. Parents of children hurt in auto accidents are quick to seek compensation and it's logical that it works the other way around too.