4 year old cyclist being sued for negligence

Zombie_donkey

Firstly, the Judge must hate kids and secondly how bitter and messed up must the relative of the old lady be.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376

Mr Plum

Shocking. It sets quite a precedent...

bigmat

Mr Plum wrote:

Shocking. It sets quite a precedent...

Not in the UK it doesn't fortunately. You'd have to sue the parents here, which may or not be fair - the old lady died after all!

Stevo_666

Only in America...

PBo

Zombie_donkey wrote:

Firstly, the Judge must hate kids and secondly how bitter and messed up must the relative of the old lady be.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376

to be fair, the judge is interpreting the law, which uses 4 as the cutoff. He's not hating children.

A small story doesn't really give all the facts here. But what if the old lady ran up big hospital bils? Is it wrong to sue the person responsible? if the local law means that technically the kid needs sueing - even though clearly it must be the parents who will bear the financial burden - then so be it.

The relative may be bitter and messed up indeed. They might also be if a car driver knocked their mother over and killed her. Does the fact it was a 4 year old make that much difference? Some, maybe, but enough to make someone just go "kids, eh? What will they get up to next?"

I don't think there is a dangerous precedent here (not that it applies to the Uk anyway). How does it set a precedent that parents need to be careful when supervising their kids actions - surely that's the case. Bet there's lots of sueing of kids/parents in US - but because a bikes involved we've picked up on this. It's not some kind of persecution of cyclists is it?

This has just established that the case can go forward. surely any final decision/award will reflect the balance of total irresponsible behaviour and poor parental supervison versus "accident's happen".

Having said all that, 4 seems a bit young for the legal cut off point, must say.

TuckerUK

...we're discussing with surprise what they do in a country where child genital mutilation is widely practiced and where convicts are executed using methods perfected by the SS in Auschwitz?

dhope

TuckerUK wrote:

...we're discussing with surprise what they do in a country where child genital mutilation is widely practiced and where convicts are executed using methods perfected by the SS in Auschwitz?

http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12738758

jds_1981

Well, that's one way to fuck up children.

Oddjob62

I'm guessing the case is more about which insurance company pays for the medical expenses/etc, but that's not an exciting headline. Who pays will depend on whether the child is ruled as being responsible or not.

ooermissus

Oddjob62 wrote:

I'm guessing the case is more about which insurance company pays for the medical expenses/etc, but that's not an exciting headline. Who pays will depend on whether the child is ruled as being responsible or not.

You think a 4-year old cyclist has insurance?

Pokerface

ooermissus wrote:

Oddjob62 wrote:

I'm guessing the case is more about which insurance company pays for the medical expenses/etc, but that's not an exciting headline. Who pays will depend on whether the child is ruled as being responsible or not.

You think a 4-year old cyclist has insurance?

Parents would ultimately be responsible for any settlement. Child would be named in the suit - but due to the age the parent would have to cough up.

Oddjob62

ooermissus wrote:

Oddjob62 wrote:

I'm guessing the case is more about which insurance company pays for the medical expenses/etc, but that's not an exciting headline. Who pays will depend on whether the child is ruled as being responsible or not.

You think a 4-year old cyclist has insurance?

I never said the 4 year old has insurance, but her parents might. I'm just guessing the woman's health insurance company has found someone else who might have to pay if the child is found responsible.

The court case would just be to rule which big company has to make the payout. Probably very little to do with the child in the grand scheme of things.

jds_1981

Pokerface wrote:

Parents would ultimately be responsible for any settlement. Child would be named in the suit - but due to the age the parent would have to cough up.

Rewriting as I found an interesting link: -

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-ency ... hild-s-act

Negligent Supervision

A parent is liable for a child's negligent acts if the parent knows or has reason to know that it is necessary to control the child and the parent fails to take reasonable actions to do so. This legal theory is known as negligent supervision. Liability for negligent supervision is not limited to parents. Grandparents, guardians, and others with CUSTODY and control of a child may also be liable under these circumstances. There is usually no dollar limit on this type of liability. An umbrella or homeowner's insurance policy may offer the adult some protection in a lawsuit.

I'm in two minds about this. I'm tending on the side of it being generally stupid especially in cases such as this.

Anyway, it brings up several concerning claims/issues (if people care to actually read the story/filing)

1) The parent was negligent for allowing the 4 year old to ride on the pavement. Presumably the kid should have been riding on the road in new york
2) The parent was responsible for encouraging the child to race and therefore negligent
Presumably this means that you can't allow your kids to run/cycle/etc around with each other in case you were found to be encouraging this competitive behaviour
3) The 4 year old kid is being sued for large amounts of money. I for one don't believe there's an insurance company that'll be footing the bill for this. Almost certain that health insurance isn't third party.
4) People in the US may need to start getting insurance from as soon as they can cycle 3/4? This reduces the availability of cycling as a cheap healthy activity.
5) This could scar the kid for life.
6) Is this going to be a financial burden on the family as the mother is apparently going to be held responsible. Out of house & home, etc.

Weejie54

Not in the UK it doesn't fortunately. You'd have to sue the parents here, which may or not be fair - the old lady died after all!

In England, you would sue the child - i.e. name the child as the defendant , with a parent or guardian as litigation friend. You could also sue the parents - as was done in this case. rather pointless, as you couldn't enforce any judgment in your favour until the child was 16. This article has cropped up in the Cake Stop.
Obviously, not many people understand US state law as opposed to federal law.
This relates to New York State law. Comments like "only in America" are somewhat spurious as this was a lawsuit filed in a state court. The basic question the ruling was based on was whether the child was old enough to know it was dangerous to cycle towards an old woman at speed. The judge decided that there was not enough evidence that the mothers had actively encouraged the kids rather than merely supervised them.
It was stated that this should be a matter for a jury.

ooermissus

The parents are not liable for their children's actions, but the mothers are being sued separately, presumably for their failure to supervise their kids properly.

Sc00bs

+1 for reading this on the beeb website and knowing it'd be US law from the outset. I almost pity the poor litigious sods, appears you need public liability insurance from before your 4th birthday.

Absolute madness. Unless the kid was being told to race and plough on through peds regardless, this is nothing but a (very rare) tragic accident. Sad for all parties obviously.

Hope the young cyclist isn't too traumatised and comes through the legal process ok.