-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous WIN | AT THIS POINT Next »
THE ECONOMY
» See all 90 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
xblackix on ANYONE NOTICE xblackix on WHEN MY CAT POOPS That Guy on ALSO STRAIGHT WOMEN xblackix on THE DAILY PAPER jesse on FIRST ONE TO LET GO xblackix on WAIT xblackix on DEAR 500 MILLION USERS iawtc on ALSO STRAIGHT WOMEN xblackix on SCUMBAG GENE Azze on ALSO STRAIGHT WOMEN
More MEMEBASE
Memebase - All Your Memes Are In Our Base
Freedom Explained
This Is Photobomb - Surprise! Ruined Photos
Sunday Bunday: A Butt of Wind
GraphJam - Music & Culture for People Who Love Charts
Looks Good to Me
Señor Gif - Funny Animated GIFs
Just Be Cool
Picture Is Unrelated - Funny WTF Pictures
Couldn't We Just Have Gotten a Dog?
Comixed - Vertical 4 Pane Comics
Frodo Would've Been Lucky to Get Out of the Shire That Way
Derp - All the Derp Durr Hurr that's fit to Derp
Nurrrr Thank Yurrrr
Art of Trolling - Trolls on Chatroulette and Yahoo! Answers
You Never Get What You Order
Go Cry Emo Kid - Go Cry Emo Kids
That's Going to Leave a Stain
Superheroes - Superheroes
Who Loves Magic? I DO!
Rage Comics - Express Your Rage
So Exhausted I Could Faint
Pokémemes - I choose you!
What Was Fire Good Against Again?
Judges…they are that f***ing stupid.
2 kids were riding their bikes while their mom’s watched. They were racing and hit an 87 year old woman, who fractured her hip and had to receive surgery… then the article continued and tl;dr… something about negligence blah blah blah
What does this have to do with the economy?
are you mentally retard or what?
think deep,moron
Pedobear files for STDs.
………………….._,,-~’’’¯¯¯’’~-,,
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’¯: ¯’’-, ; ; ;’,
; ; ; |
, , , ,’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
………………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,—,,_ ; ;’’-,…………………………….._,,,—,,_
……………….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’-,,,,—~~’’’’’’~–,,,_…..,,-~’’ ; ; ; ;__;’-,
……………….| ; ; ;,’ , , , _,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’~’-,,_ ,,-~’’ , , ‘, ;’,
……………….’, ; ; ‘-, ,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-, , , , , ,’ ; |
…………………’, ; ;,’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘
………………….,’-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-‘ ;,,-‘
………………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,’
………………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’¯: : ’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;’,
……………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : :
…………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : :
……………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;|
…………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~’’ , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;¯¯ ; ; ; ; ;|
..…………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ , , , , , , ,( : : : :
……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’, , , , , , , , ,’~—~’’ , , , , , ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
…….,-‘’ ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’~-,,,,–~~’’’¯’’’~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
….,-‘’-~’’,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,’; ,’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,_ ; ‘-,
……….,’ ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;’, . . . . .,’ ;,’ ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,’-, ; ;,’ ‘’~–‘’’
………,’-~’ ,-‘-~’’ ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘’ ; ,’ ; ; ; ; ‘, ;,-‘’ ; ‘, ,-‘,
……….,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ‘’ ; ; ;’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘’ ; ; ; ‘’ ; ;’-,
……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯¯’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,
……,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,
…..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|..’-,_ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’’,-~’ ; ; ; ; ; ,’
…,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’~-,,,,,–~~’’’’’’~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…..,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-
…| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
…’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’….’, ; ; ; ; _,,-‘’
….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’~~’’¯
…..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;_,,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
………’’~-,,_ ; ; ; ; _,,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
………..| ; ; ;¯¯’’’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘
………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
…………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
…………’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ~-,,___ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘….’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
………..,’ ‘- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’……….’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
……….,’ ; ;’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘…………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’…………………’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
……..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘………………………’’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…………………………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’
……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’………………………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’’
……..| ; ; ; ; ; ;,’……………………….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
……..’,_ , ; , ;,’……………………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
………’,,’,¯,’,’’|……………………….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘–,,
………….¯…’’………………………..’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~,,
……………………………………………’’-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~-,,
………………………………………………..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ,,_ ; ;’-,’’-,
…………………………………………………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,__,\\–\\.
……………………………………………………’-, ; ; ;,,-~’’’ \\ , ,|, |
………………………………………………………’’~-‘’_ , , ,,’,_/–‘
Someone was WAY too much time on their hands… (but at least it’s only time).
Yay smiley faces within a ‘smiley’ pedobear!
So?
Kids gotta learn, you break the law you pay!
Shouldn’t be kids screw up adults pay.
Remember Friday the 13th? Those kids f**ked with Jason and only the camp counselors get dealt with. Yeah they were responsible too but those kids are the ones that pushed his ass.
This post brought to you in part by Halloween® and Boo Berry®
they gotta learn…but judgeing by this they can get death penallty…aaand…even if it’s kids fault, he’s 4yrs old…how can he/she know whats right or wrong?…u know what i’m getting at? …
and btw, dude who posted this demot, don’t u mean law system?
“how can he/she know whats right or wrong?…”
Uh, they would know that be being taught by their parents, instead of being allowed to run around and act like a hooligan! At 4, they will be going into preschool (or pre-kindergarten or whatever) soon, to be interacting with other kids – they should already have some sense of acceptable behavior trained into them by then.
You break the rules, you pay the price! Of course, you’re not going to get anything out of a lawsuit with a child, so absolutely the parents should be made to pay since they are they ones who failed at parenting.
ofc it’s parents fault, but my statement: “how can he/she know whats right or wrong?…” still stands…they are 2 young 2 understand and make diference between some rights and wrong, especially as they just started to learn such things (from parents) . u can’t expect from 4yr old to act eticly and morally like comon senced adult
Your argument is invalid because you’re a f**king worthless piece of s**t idiot. SNECED? really? Are you 5?
lol, presumptuous much? You totally misspelled their misspelling.
You sir, win!
So what? Did he sell the rights? Background info?
Well someone got sent to jail for making copies of his own videos.
Wait… what?! That’s a whole new level of stupid, like, Facebook status stupid!
Really?
O.o
/facepalm
I don’t know if you read the article, but the 4 year old KILLED an 87 year old woman.
She didn’t “KILL” the woman. Go back and read the article again. The woman broke her hip in the fall. Her death was months later.
Actually, I have read the article, she died three months afterward from something else that was completely unrelated to the kid.
*INJURED
With adequate medical attention, a broken hip is not lethal to a healthy person. Blaming this child for the senior citizens’ death while disregarding any other factors is just plain silly and immoral.
I don’t know if you read the article, but the 87 year old woman died due to UNRELATED CAUSES.
The 4 year old knocked over an 87 year old woman, who died from the fall.
When your 4, your still s**tting your pants. I highly doubt it was on purpose, this is pretty disgusting that they’d sue over this. Bravo for the demoto!
If you’re still pooping your pants at 4 you really need to see a doctor.
Accidents happen
So? Just an example of survival of the fittest
Seriously!? o_O
Yep – she moved the old lady down on the bike who died later from injuries
Wow, that’s pretty messed up!
The article says that the woman died months later from unrelated causes.
Actually the old woman died of natural causes two months later, the fall broke her hip though.
Bit silly to sue a 4 year old for being a 4 year old and playing.
Even so : Its an accident. Maybe you can sue her parents for neglicance. But sueing a 4 year old (someone who probably cant count, has no grasp of the concept of death / gulit in a legal sense) is just stupid.
What do they wanna do with her ? lock her up in a kindergarten ?
I agree with suing the parents – the child did after all kill someone. But suing her? What’s she going to pay in, crayons?
I don’t see how suing a 4 year old is possible. Legally, a person must be able to form intent before they can have wronged someone, which is the basis for suing them. It’s an old, old precedent that young children cannot legally form intent and, thus, cannot be held responsible for their actions. I assume this includes both civil and criminal intent.
The parents, however, are a different story. Parents *are* legally responsible for the actions of their minor children, at least in civil cases. And I think they’d probably have better goodies for the sue-ee to go after…
No, she fell, was operated on, and died 3 months later due to unrelated issues.
Then sue the parents only that they were not supervising their offspring properly. I highly doubt a 4-year old has the mental capacity to even understand what death is, let alone what does it mean to be blamed for someone’s death.
Well.. if you die from being knocked, over by a bike, with a 4 year old on it.. you’ve outstayed your welcome on this planet..
No… the 87 year old died of unrelated causes 3 months later.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=1
An article on the subject, so no one calls shenanigans: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html
OK, so I’ve read the article now… And I *still* think that judge is loony tunes! I mean, take a look at these comments…
“Mr. Tyrie ‘correctly notes that infants under the age of 4 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence,’ Justice Wooten wrote in his decision, referring to the 1928 case….
“’A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street,’ the judge wrote. He added that any ‘reasonably prudent child,’ who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there.”
A precedent from 1928 is fine legally… unless the science since then has shown that the decision is no longer sound. I have to believe there have been enough advances in child psychology since then to show that, no, a child of, say 5, still will not act soundly in every instance. We now know, for instance, that even into their early 20s humans are still experiencing brain development in the areas that oversee judgment.
Also, I have to think Justice Wooten either has no children or spends precious little time with them if he does. Any “reasonably prudent child”?! At 5 years of age??!! About the only thing a 5 year old can be held accountable for is not being surprised if they receive a spanking or a time out for being “imprudent.” Yes, they know either of those things are coming, BUT IT DOESN’T STOP THEM FROM ACTING OUT. (Sorry, not shouting, but there’s no italics here…)
Sheesh, Wooten… Get a friggin’ clue already!
And… not to blame the victim… but I would like to know more about whether the woman who was hit was bothering to “look both ways” when she entered the sidewalk. Yes, pedestrians always have the right of way, but an 87 year old *does* know how to act prudently and should know that, just because the law says she has the right of way, that there can still be potential danger lurking. I mean, if the Justice can cite a child’s need to look both ways before crossing the street, surely he must recognize an adult’s ability to do so before going into any multi-person/object venue, such as a sidewalk.
in the article it says she died from unrelated causes, the kids didn’t kill anyone, injure yes, kill no. and at 87, cant you break a hip doing about anything?
@ Anon:
OK, so I’ve read the article now… And I *still* think that judge is loony tunes! I mean, take a look at these comments…
“Mr. Tyrie ‘correctly notes that infants under the age of 4 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence,’ Justice Wooten wrote in his decision, referring to the 1928 case….
“’A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street,’ the judge wrote. He added that any ‘reasonably prudent child,’ who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there.”
A precedent from 1928 is fine legally… unless the science since then has shown that the decision is no longer sound. I have to believe there have been enough advances in child psychology since then to show that, no, a child of, say 5, still will not act soundly in every instance. We now know, for instance, that even into their early 20s humans are still experiencing brain development in the areas that oversee judgment.
Also, I have to think Justice Wooten either has no children or spends precious little time with them if he does. Any “reasonably prudent child”?! At 5 years of age??!! About the only thing a 5 year old can be held accountable for is not being surprised if they receive a spanking or a time out for being “imprudent.” Yes, they know either of those things are coming, BUT IT DOESN’T STOP THEM FROM ACTING OUT. (Sorry, not shouting, but there’s no italics here…)
Sheesh, Wooten… Get a friggin’ clue already!
And… not to blame the victim… but I would like to know more about whether the woman who was hit was bothering to “look both ways” when she entered the sidewalk. Yes, pedestrians always have the right of way, but an 87 year old *does* know how to act prudently and should know that, just because the law says she has the right of way, that there can still be potential danger lurking. I mean, if the Justice can cite a child’s need to look both ways before crossing the street, surely he must recognize an adult’s ability to do so before going into any multi-person/object venue, such as a sidewalk.
Thank you for posting this… also, I love how that article explicitly says “She died three months later of unrelated causes. “
I believe her family wants to sue for the pain and suffering the elderly woman endured. She would have endured them even if she hadn’t died. It’s sad that her last months included that pain, but that pain had nothing to do with her death. It was simply the result of very bad timing.
But if the family is not claiming any connection to her death, they may still be able to collect for the pain and suffering in the name of her estate, even now that she’s gone. I’m not sure how money for *her* pain and suffering would aid justice, given that she’s gone. Really, if they want to sue it seems to me that they ought to be asking for compensation for their *own* pain and suffering over seeing her in pain and not being able to help her. That amount of compensation, though, if granted, should be substantially lower than any compensation that the woman herself would have been due had she lived AND had the court seen fit to award it to her.
Most people don’t know there are separate “courts” for insurance claims. (I have no idea if they’re an actual part of the legal system or are merely agreed-to, binding negotiations.) They deal directly with cases where different insurance companies each want their client cleared of contributing to an accident. In those “courts” each party’s percentage of guilt is determined. For example, such a court might find that the child and her mother were 65% at fault for not being more careful, while the elderly woman was 35% at fault for not properly observing the scene before walking into it. That is… if this were a liability insurance situation, rather than a civil lawsuit. Perhaps legal courts also divvy up responsibility. I hope so, because I think multiple acts (and acts not taken) are involved here.
I do know someone who was nearly killed in a car accident due to an elderly woman not watching where she was going. It was taken to court because the elderly woman’s insurance didn’t want to pay. They made it look like they were suing the woman not her insurance to get sympathy from the judge/jury (older woman on fixed income). They were awarded the money to pay for medical bills (face and cranial reconstruction) thank goodness!
Face and cranial reconstruction?! I *don’t* know the person and I’m glad they got help with the medical bills. I hate to think the elderly woman may no longer be able to get insurance, though. Tough situation all around.
This sort of thing makes me wonder whether the law takes into account the sliding scale of mental competence that *can* come with age, as well as with extreme youth. Some kids are more advanced than others and, if there’s any fair way to determine how far advanced they are, the ones capable of making decisions can be held to a greater level of accountability.
I think current case law may take into account the failing faculties of some elderly people. I know it does for mental competence in general, regardless of age. But again… I don’t know that there’s any quantifiable way to determine just how much mental clarity one may have lost. Subjective psych exams do exist, but I’m not sure about anything that can be scientifically measured. Even if there is, losing one’s faculties usually doesn’t happen all at once or in steps. It happens gradually, and coming and going at times throughout the overall decline. Trying to figure out how much loss was in play *at the time* an elderly person contributes to an accident has got to be very difficult.
I was talking about this on another site, I still think it’s ridiculous.
The girl’s six now, so the judge said that there’s no “bright line rule”.
*facepalm*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376
Come on… I want to sue a baby already!
Balloon Boy, you are SOOO screwed…
It’s in New York. What more would you expect from a flippin liberal court? Just do the country a favor and build walls around total failure states like New York, Calif, Michigan, etc. and rescind their statehood.
OK, now we’re getting somewhere. And to improve on that lets rescind their statehood then sue them for pulling America into the giant sucking sound that is bankruptcy. They can go be broke without the rest of the country to support them. Wonder how long it would be before those places looked like The Book of Eli.
Or you can just hang yourself; that’ll solve anything.
I second this. If people like these two started hanging themselves, I think the national IQ rating would increase by at least 30 points.
I bet it’ll rise 60.
You guys are absolutely right. I’ll just take my expectations of personal responsibility and go jump off a cliff. Lovely how the kind caring ones always turn to violence first eh?
I guess you’ve never heard of sarcasm, but honestly that word is probably above your vocabulary. Personal responsibility? I guess you lack reading comprehension, as once again she isn’t going to be held liable for anything.
Um, yeah, I live in Orange County, California, a highly CONSERVATIVE county. Heck, we’re known for being so conservative even the democrats are republicans! Please don’t condemn all of California.
Orange County should secede from California
Note that Obsidianram 1)does not know initmately all of California and the political leanings of its courts, and 2) generalized. Obsidianram did not go, ‘hey, let me tick of jamisings!’. Not everything is meant as a personal barb.
Honestly jamisings, you probably aren’t the best example of a Californian.
What does being liberal/conservative have to do with anything? This is simply stupidity, a disease that infests both sides of any spectrum you can come up with.
Honestly, this isn’t even a big deal. Yes, she’s getting sued and she’s still to young to know the difference between right and wrong, but she isn’t liable for it so her parents will just pay whatever the judge orders her to. No big deal.
And how long will the legacy of this decision, if it goes against her and her parents, follow her? Very likely it will follow her for the rest of her life. I know *criminal* juvenile records can be sealed by the court’s order, but I’ve never heard of a civil suit against a child, let alone whether the records will be sealed. Even if they are, the ones for her parents’ involvement will likely *not* be sealed, so anyone wanting to know more about this girl, when she becomes a woman, will be able to find out she was branded a negligent slacker very early on. This might include schools she applies to, potential employers, insurance agencies, banks where she seeks loans, even real estate agencies who might not want to do business with someone who’s been sued in the past… all because she did something a lot of *four year olds* might do. And no, said institutions won’t necessarily review *why* she was sued or how old she was when it happened or any other details about the case. All they’ll see is her name associated with a lawsuit and then automatically toss her out of contention. It may even be unthinking computer programs that do it. So just because she’s not liable right now doesn’t mean this isn’t a big deal, possibly a very long lasting, very far reaching big deal.
For those of you confused as to what this has to do with the economy, its saying that times are so tough for people that they will resort to sueing 4- year olds.
Because sueing 4-year olds has anything to do with the economy? You can earn money sueing 4-year old kids or something? Is this some new kinda bussiness noone has told me about?
You sue them and reap the money that you gain from settlement or whatever. So yes, it has to do with money and the economy.
Uhm.. yeahh… How much money does the average four-year old have? I’m pretty sure if you walked to work instead of driving you’d make more money, however you would run the risk of getting hit by bloodthirsty four-year olds..
Okay, just to get this straight.
A four-year old runs over an old lady, who gets severly injured (I’ve even read died from her injuries, but this gets contradicted). She then gets sued. Therefore we assume that:
a) we sue her, not because she severly injured an old lady, but because we want money; and that
b) by sueing a four year old, you will actually earn money?
If this is true, people in the US are even more stupid than I already thought…
That’s how it goes most of the time. Once a burglar got trapped in someone’s basement and successful sued the homeowners. It’s crap like this that caused Weird Al to make that “I’ll Sue Ya” song (which I highly enjoy).
As a minor, her parents are legally responsible for any damage the child causes. The money would not come from the child, obviously, but from her parents.
Yes, the economy is bad enough for lots of people to do lots of goofy things to bring in money, but I too think this LOL is off the mark. Not because such a law suit might not work (it might), but because people have been suing over things like this for a long time. Yes, more so in the last 30 years or so, but it’s not new to the recent economic troubles.
Besides, it takes money to bring a civil lawsuit. Some lawyers will work on a contingency fee, meaning they won’t charge you if they don’t win the case. But not all lawyers work that way. Even working with one that does, the petitioner (the person suing) still has to take time off work to give depositions, appear in court, and other activities necessary to a successful suit.
Between people being lawsuit happy a$$-hats for a while now and the economic risk of even bringing suit, this would be a pretty weak means of bringing more money into one’s bank account.
“Juliet’s lawyer had argued Juliet was too young to be held negligent.
The judge disagreed, ruling Juliet’s lawyer had presented no evidence she lacked intelligence or maturity.”
That’s an extract from the related article; I mean seriously! NO edvidence that she lacked intelligence or maturity?! She’s FOUR YEARS OLD! How many mature/intelligent 4 year olds do you get? I mean fair enough, it probably IS possible, but still, how many are there?!
More glad than ever I don’t live in the US
Really, REALLY wishing I didn’t.
fine then, i propose a counter suite of emotional damages to the children because the woman didn’t keep herself healthy enough before hand to have the decency to survive a low speed impact. these children are now obviously scarred for life and it should be the job of the estate of the woman who died to handle their psychiatric needs for the rest of their lives.
this argument is just as stupid as the original lawsuit, has as little foundation, and is completely insane. time to get another NY judge to say it makes sense.
*Gives you standing ovation.* i completely agree.
^suit, not suite, stupid near sited vision…
near sighted
fml…
I read the article and the Judge’s name was Justice. lol
JUSTICE
is stupid.
(double meanings are awesome)
No, the “judge’s” name is *not* Justice. “Justice” is his title. His surname is Wooten. Full title and name: Justice Paul Wooten. He’s referred to as Justice, rather than Judge, because he’s a member of the NY State Supreme Court. Members of Supreme Courts are always referred to as justices, not judges.
I can see a number of problens with this. How can the old lady sue if she’s dead? And how much money does a four-year-old have? Once she’s handed over her tricycle and barbie dolls she should file for bankruptcy. After all, if they are saying it’s the girl’s fault then they are absolving her parents of blame (can’t be their fault as well) – so they aren’t likely to get very much.
The old lady’s estate is probably significantly weaker after the financial cost of a broken hip, surgery and recovery, so getting restitution for those bills seems reasonable to me.
And let’s face it, as soon as old people lose the ability to get up and go about their business, they tend to slip away pretty quickly. So while this accident may not have directly killed her, I’m willing to bet it indirectly shortened her stay on the planet.
Sorry, but you’re not as familiar with the U.S. legal system as you seem to think you are. The elderly woman’s heirs *can* sue on behalf of her estate, that is the legal interests still pending even after her death. For those who leave a living trust or monetary endowments, the “estate” may live on in perpetuity (that is forever). Anyone legally charged with tending to those interests is entitled to sue on behalf of them.
And again, no one is suggesting money will be obtained from a four year old. It will be obtained by those legally responsible for her behavior, i.e., her parents.
Third, suing the girl does *not* absolve her parents of blame. Not only is she a minor for whom they are legally responsible, it is absolutely a common practice to name more than one party as being at fault in a civil suit. If you had read the NY Times article (linked by the commenter Anon), you would have seen that both the child and the mother (who was supervising her at the time) are being sued.
In fact, the Justice did not find that the girl was liable but that she *may* be found negligent whenever the suit goes to trial. I take this to mean that she can be legally named as at fault, but that she cannot personally be held accountable for any monetary awards. (I’m not a lawyer, so don’t take my word for it.)
Obviously, a four year old has no funds (at least not that she controls), but I still contend that she should not be held negligent, either. Having been told what things she should or shouldn’t do is one thing. Expecting her to remember and/or always act responsibly on that knowledge is another thing entirely ***because she’s four years old***!!!
Stupid Fing Americans suing everyone for everything. One more of the downfalls of your self centered society
When this happens, we say: Only in America…
As tragic as it is that we live in a society where it’s acceptable to hold a 4 year old responsible in such a fashion (rather than the mothers or the old lady), I’m not really sure that that has to do with the state of the economy. In fact I’m sure that this is crap which is for once, a derivative of purely American stupidity that is for once not related to our wallets. We are now coining terms on both sides of the extreme that should leave us feeling ashamed, such as “prudent 4 year old child”.
American legal system : this CRAZY