4 ms·

This is just craziness, you can't blame a kid for murder for an ACCIDENT riding their bike.

by chadp 16y ago

terinjokes 16y ago
While I would agree that it seems pretty insane, but I don't think they are being blamed for murder, it seems they here are being sued for medical bills. Of course, the article doesn't say that she died of injures resulting from the accident, maybe something unrelated happened.
- chadp 16y ago
  first pp of the article.. "A New York child can be sued for crashing a bicycle into an elderly pedestrian and causing injuries that led to her death, a judge has ruled."
- mfukar 16y ago
  The article is only referring to the motion to dismiss the case, not the case itself. The ruling by the judge, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, did not find that the girl was liable, but merely permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward. (I apologize for not providing the actual names, they're on the article) However, this paragraph from the decision itself is somewhat curious to me: "A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street” A reasonably prudent child, whom we may presume has been told repeatedly by the age of four to look both ways before crossing a street‘, knows that running across a street is dangerous even if there is a parent nearby. Despite this, if a parent or other trusted adult actively directs a four year old child to cross a street at a ceoain time, the only logical inference is that the child will reasonably believe it is safe to cross the street at that time." It seems to imply that if I am driving down the street, and a 5 year old runs in front of me and I run him/her over, he can be accused as negligent. He should know he has to look both ways? He has presumably been told so many times that he has completely understood the underlying risks? This doesn't seem rational to me; one of the first things I heard related to driving was that behind every bouncing ball there's a child running for it. Hell, I've been that child a few times! Can children of age 5 actually be reasonably prudent? I'm not saying that there's not a crime here, or that I'm an expert in kids or anything like that. I don't even have kids. But reading that decision rendered me literally speechless for a while.

This is just craziness, you can't blame a kid for murder for an ACCIDENT riding their bike.

by chadp 16y ago

This is just craziness, you can't blame a kid for murder for an ACCIDENT riding their bike.

While I would agree that it seems pretty insane, but I don't think they are being blamed for murder, it seems they here are being sued for medical bills. Of course, the article doesn't say that she died of injures resulting from the accident, maybe something unrelated happened.

chadp 16y ago
first pp of the article.. "A New York child can be sued for crashing a bicycle into an elderly pedestrian and causing injuries that led to her death, a judge has ruled."
mfukar 16y ago
The article is only referring to the motion to dismiss the case, not the case itself. The ruling by the judge, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, did not find that the girl was liable, but merely permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward. (I apologize for not providing the actual names, they're on the article) However, this paragraph from the decision itself is somewhat curious to me: "A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street” A reasonably prudent child, whom we may presume has been told repeatedly by the age of four to look both ways before crossing a street‘, knows that running across a street is dangerous even if there is a parent nearby. Despite this, if a parent or other trusted adult actively directs a four year old child to cross a street at a ceoain time, the only logical inference is that the child will reasonably believe it is safe to cross the street at that time." It seems to imply that if I am driving down the street, and a 5 year old runs in front of me and I run him/her over, he can be accused as negligent. He should know he has to look both ways? He has presumably been told so many times that he has completely understood the underlying risks? This doesn't seem rational to me; one of the first things I heard related to driving was that behind every bouncing ball there's a child running for it. Hell, I've been that child a few times! Can children of age 5 actually be reasonably prudent? I'm not saying that there's not a crime here, or that I'm an expert in kids or anything like that. I don't even have kids. But reading that decision rendered me literally speechless for a while.