Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by aoeu, Oct 29, 2010.
Only in America?
dear o dear...i learnt in my law class that is wayy below the age of criminal responsibilty...or maybe its a civil suit..not a criminal one, anyway food for thought lies here:
"For infants above the age of 4, there is no bright-line rule," Wooten wrote, adding that the girl had been three months shy of turning 5.
Wooten also disagreed with the lawyer's assertion that Juliet Breitman should not be held responsible because her mother was supervising the children at the time.
"A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street," Wooten wrote. He added that "the term 'supervising' is too vague to hold meaning here."
All "lawsuits" are civil. In general for civil suits you don't need to prove culpability, only damage.
i see, i studied criminal law in the Uk (was only college level), we delt with intent and insanity most of the time...still..the article sounds rather atrocious...even though the legal rules are rather consequential than being actor-motive centred.
Yes, this child was clearly a criminal mastermind; the evil glows in her eyes!
Or, perhaps this would be better:
A child of 4 perhaps does not know which way an E turns, but it damn well has criminal intension in mind when mounted upon a bicycle.
Hrm.. probably not. My brain is a bit addled. I'm guessing the judge knows what that feels like.
You know, after taking american tort law I agree with the ruling, even at four she should have been concious not to run over another human being, let her be sued and let the parents be taken for everything they are worth.
I'm not so sure there's any reasonable expectation of real damage. I wouldn't have thought a fall could lead to death... I wouldn't have thought a 4 year old could bike hard enough to cause a serious fall, unless out of control going down a hill or something. I didn't know what osteoporosis was until much older than 4...
This seems to me to be orders of magnitude worse than any 4 year old would imagine would occur.
And, that's basically assuming it was intentional. A typical 4 year old doesn't have great control over his bicycle or awareness of his surroundings... This is a brutal accident that comes about from a variety of factors coming together.
In america their is something called the egg-shell rule that says if a victim was prone to be injured or had a preconsinting condition, the plantiff could still be held responsible. hypothetically the victum could of had something like lupus which basically gives you paper like skin and makes you prone to cuts and a lot of bleeding, the victum could have been hit a 2 miles an hour on a straight path fell down oddly, and fractured a hip, something very common for people with lupus because their bones are more brittle. The fact is their is a number of circumstances that could of led to the victum dying, maybe it was lupus or just old age, but again personally two kids runing into the same person, seems negligent to me.
Negligent on the part of two four year olds :\ That's the problem. If it were an adult or even an 8 or 10 year old I don't think I'd disagree. I don't think a 4 year old can understand the severity of e.g. not paying attention or going too fast, especially in this situation where I, a reasonable adult who's educated in bones and physics and some medicine, wouldn't expect this level of severity.
The Elements of a Negligence Action are as follows
A typical formula for evaluating negligence requires that a plaintiff prove the following four factors by a "preponderance of the evidence":
1.The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff (or a duty to the general public, including the plaintiff);
2.The defendant violated that duty;
3.As a result of the defendant's violation of that duty, the plaintiff suffered injury; and
4.The injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's action or inaction.
under these circumstances the child would proably be found guilty but I think a good defense lawyer would make a solid argument that a four year old did not have any kind of duty. Usually under American Law a child under seven would not be charged because they do not posses the same mental capacity as an adult, so the judge ruling that this child did is actually quiet shocking, but I still agree with it, even at the age of four you see a person in the middle of the road insticts shold tell you to move so you don't hit that person, plus the parent was watching them, why didn't the parent stop this, collectively I just think the kid, and by kid I mean the parent since even though they are suing the kid, they are really going after the parents should be heald responible.
Again, I don't argue that they weren't negligent. I'm guessing that this all went down rather quickly and uncontrollably as well, rather than the Mr-Burns-hunting-Bart style scenario (Bart Gets Hit by a Car) you seem to be getting out of this.
Child A: "Look a bird!"
Child B: "Where?!"
Woman: "I'll just step out into this legal-but-unmarked crosswalk that for some reason even adult motorists don't recognize to exist..."
the person died and someone had to pay for those actions. Just because she is a child doesn't mean that absolutely nothing should happen.
Those people just want money, and they will get it too, all of this poor girls piggy bank money.
Honestly this little girl should have been prosecuted lets say, man 1.
She should be on death row, death by lethal injection.
But once again our justice system failed.
Yes its stupid isnt it??
First thing i thought when i first read this a couple days ago......
4 5 6 7 8 ... They are children.
Come on. How about you put them in baby prison next to be conditioned... pricks