Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

America has issues

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Ljiljan, Nov 1, 2010.

  1. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69S4ZE20101029

    New York Judge rules 6-year-old can be sued

    NEW YORK (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.

  2. America fukced this world backward karnts
  3. seriously. a 4 year old child is the responsibility of the parents. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not qualified to make a decision about a child or children, be it obama or a supreme court judge or a housing project teenage mum.
  4. yeah dunno,
    they grow up pretty fast these days,
    i say the little biatch deserves everything she gets
  5. stupid.

    how can a kid of that age be responsible for much of anything?
  6. Clap her in irons I say.
  7. [​IMG]
  8. #8 ogden, Nov 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    [URL="]Jeremy Irons talks about the death penalty[/URL]
  9. Kids should be held responsible (too much goes back to the parent), however it should never be criminal and should just be a slap on the wrist and a stern talking to. No kid that age should have a record or serve time.
  10. Looks like an article specifically written for a knee-jerk reaction -- and it seems to be working...
    Reading between the lines, it's basically stating that the FAMILY is financially responsible for the kids actions, which probably sounds a lot more reasonable to people rather than the way the article is spun.
  11. Lock her up, what a HOON. :tantrum:
  12. ..sad state of affairs!!... (all 50 of 'em!!)....
  13. Crush her bike!

    That'll teach her.
  14. I think you're bang on the money, Termis. But, all the same, it is fun to speculate as to whether it is indicative of a broader cultural malaise [and to poke a fun at the Sepos for being mad as a cut (rattle) snake]:

    There's definitely something deeper to be read into is than "those c*nts, and their legal system, are out of control". My guess is that there is something going on with the American world-view that has to do with rational mastery and the idea that the universe is amenable to infinite degrees of control. If you think in this way, someone is always at fault, either for causing something, or for neglecting to prevent something from happening. It's the only explanation I can think of that can account for: (a) this sort of over-zealous litigiousness; (b) their fear of government control (i.e. the tea party movement), (c) their knee-jerk response to terrorism (which the government should be able to control if they didn't have vested interest in not controlling it - think all those bullshit conspiracy theories about 9/11 being a CIA plot); and (d) the general idea that they can be the masters of their own destiny (myth of the self-made man, myth of the US as having a god-fated destiny to be the greatest nation on earth).

    The myth of rational mastery: these parents were neglecting their duty to control their kids. What were they thinking to let them play in the street, anyway? What with all those pimps, and pushers, and paedophiles, and Jeremy Irons lurking about...

    Any other theories?
  15. Yeah. Shouldn't they be sweeping chimneys or pulling coal tubs or something? :D
  16. Or pulling a tub of coal home -uphill all the way- after chimney-sweeping school? :LOL:
  17. Americas issue is that it has to many Americans.
  18. I'll buy into that line of thought. But TBH, that's not the focal point of the issue in my mind -- the biggest thing I see out of the article is that this is a shining example of how media twists, turns & takes things out of context just to sell papers/articles, and the masses just eat it right up.

    I mean, I'm no lawyer or anything, but if anyone can read just a bit critically, here's what they'd pick up from the the line above in the article.

    The judge's ruling essentially allowed an existing lawsuit to proceed -- that is, I guess the family of the now dead older woman sued the kids' parents, and according to existing law, the parents would have to pay up for any damages caused by their kids.

    However, the defendants (the kid's parents) are saying that parents shouldn't pay any settlements because it was a deed done by a 4-year old kid -- so they go and challenge the State Supreme court on the existing law which holds parents responsible for damages caused by a child over 4 years of age. Now this point is worthy of an argument, but writing it like that isn't sensational enough to sell a lot of papers.

    So the state supreme court says, get out of here, you as parents will indeed have to be responsible for damages caused by a 4 year old child.

    Now, as quoted in the article, this judgment allows the existing civil lawsuit to proceed -- allowing the plaintiffs (presumably the dead woman's family) to continue to seek compensation for whatever damages they deem is proper because of the accident.

    Funny how the outcome of this ruling will exactly support this line of thought, yet most people won't be able to read beyond the sensationalism.
  19. Termis, I think that's a pretty logical re-creation of the events in question, but, if the quotations from the judge are accurate, it seems to me that the litigation is being brought against both the child and the parents as being severally and collectively responsible. Perhaps a strategic move to ensure liability sticks and the case is successful. Either way, ruling that the child bears a degree of legal responsibility (independently of whether her parents are responsible) does make it interesting.

    Usually (as you've said) you'd expect parents to have to wear responsibility for damages wrought by a child (who, as a minor, cannot be held legally responsible ipso facto). In such a case the parent would be responsible by way of providing insufficient and ineffective supervision. But this ruling seems to be partly about the child's responsibility independent of any other consideration:

    It's interesting that this (hypothetical) analogy employed by the Judge is premised upon the legitimacy of presuming any child of like age to be "reasonable". This seems incredibly murky territory to enter. And needless, too. I mean, if your dog escapes from a yard and destroys something, you'd be responsible by way of not adequately securing the yard it was in. In this case you'd expect the parent to simply wear responsibility for the child's actions, as the legal guardian of the child.

    (Perhaps the question ought be raised as to whether the situation warrants an attribution of responsibility, on grounds that there is a public interest in allowing children to roam their neighbourhood unsupervised - i.e. that the risks associated with their actions should be borne by the community in instances where it is clear that there is no malicious intent - but I can see that this might appear a week argument to make in court).

    The more I think about it, the less sensationalist it seems. And Reuters isn't exactly at the tabloid end of the news spectrum, even in many (most?) of its clients are.

    Shame its such a terse article. It would be nice to know what the motivation(s) of the family bringing the action is/are. If the old girl spent three months in hospital before finally shuffling off this mortal coil, and she had no private health cover, I can imagine some serious medical debts may have been racked up. I wonder how much money is at stake?

    Still, I doubt any such situation would arise in a civilised county (i.e. one with some sort of properly funded public health service, where accidents can just be accidents, and kids are allowed to be kids).