AIBU to think this is completely ridiculous?

[BeccaandEvie]

4 Year Old Child Sued

It really is the world gone mad.

:(

YANBU it was a horrible accident. emphasis on "accident".

When DD was 5 she scratched a car with her bike and my insurance company paid out under liability, I don't see this is any different.

We were in a long straight street with no roads and DS was up ahead and DD in between (both on their bikes) and I was a little way back and as I was too far away to stop her, it was deemed we were liable. She had stopped when a couple came out of their house and wobbled when she started again. If she had been older and by herself, it would have been deemed any accident and we would have had no liability.

How can they say she would have known the consequences of riding into a person? It was an accident.

madness

I think in a decade or so, the word "accident" will not even exist anymore for the fact that people more and more believe that they do not happen.

actually I think the parents are liable - a 5 year old should know that racing on a pavement is injudicious at best and dangerous at worst

a person died because a set of parents did not teach their children to respect the rights of others on a public street

yes the child is young - but at almost 5 (4 years and 9 months) my child would not race on a pavement, would yours? my child has been taught to pull bike or scooter into the side and wait as soon as they see another pedestrian, has yours?

someone lost their mother, someone their wife

See this is what I thought - surely it would be down to the parents to take the blame for this - surely the child wouldn't fully understand the damage she could do if she hit someone and most certainly wouldn't understand it could kill someone.

Its sad the person died, but it was an accident.

I hate the fact its a 'sue' world - anything for money these days

Sometimes I wonder what on earth I bothered having children for if this is what she has to look forward to. Its totally depressing. :(

sighs

This is the USA though. I thought in the UK no child (under 18?) can be sued, this is why they can't have credit cards?

Activate - I agree, my child ws not even racing down the pavement. She had stopped and wobbled her bike when she started and I was found liable and that was in the UK.

I am not sure why they are suing the child rather than the adults involved in this case.

I think people forget in the US hospital visits etc cost a lot of money and an accident that causes injury leaves people out of pocket.

I agree with activate, it was a preventable event and the parents should have had their children under better control.
If the cyclist had been a teenager, would it still have been an accident?
If the old lady had lashed out with a stick to prevent the impact, what would have been the outcome?
The parents were responsible.

Beyond ridiculous. Pathetic.

YADNBU

Sue the parents yes, but the child? she is FOUR FFS! some kids at that age havent gained responsibility for going to the toilet themselves at night! how on earth can they be held to account for their actions at that age?

In UK, I doubt you could as the child is a) below the age of criminal resonsibility and b) below the age at which debts can be enforced.

But someone still ended up dead.

I hope we'll remember this thread next time there's a cycling/scooting on pavements outside schools.

Surely they need to prove she died as a result of the accident - she died 3 months after the accident and surgery.

And I agree with Goblin and activate. The parents allowed the children to race. In what world would a child that age say ' actually we better not in case we hit someone mummy' .

The parents are being sued as well, so it may be a scatter gun approach hoping one of the cases would win.

Most nearly 5 year olds would know it is wrong to ride a bike into someone. From all the reports it seems they were racing down the street, not calmly riding their bikes.

Onimolap - a child under 10 cannot be held criminally responsible in the UK but can still be sued in the civil courts (although not in contract since contracts against under 18s are unenforceable). There is no age limit for bringing an action in negligence in the UK although the age of the child will be a relevant factor in deciding whether the actions amounted to negligence. Alternatively, the parents themselves can, in some cases, be sued in negligence for the actions of their children.

A civil action - although it sounds horrid - shouldn't be seen in the same light as a criminal prosecution. Sometimes a civil action is the only means to obtain compensation from the defendant's insurers (so, in this case, the family of the dead woman sue to child and the child's parents' insurance policy will pay up).

"Most nearly 5 year olds would know it is wrong to ride a bike into someone." yes indeed but I doubt that

1)it was done intentionally (as in "it is wrong but I do not care and will run the old lady over")

2)he had actual concept of how wrong it could actually be.

If they were racing down the street the parents probably do have some sort of responsability but as far as the child are concered, they were playing and it saddly went horribly wrong they did not set off to run over a old lady.

No doubt that she died as a result of the incident though - if you injure someone and they die as a result of treatment on that injury then you remain liable unless there was gross negligence by the hospital (and maybe even then, I forget).
Little old ladies break their hips from pavement falls all the time, and it's quite often a fatal injury. I have no tolerance for anyone riding fast on pavements.

I think you'd be looking at it differently if it was your elderly parent minding her own business and some brat knocked her over and killed her.
Could you imagine how that would feeling, suing might be the only way they can get the parents to say they are sorry. And even then they might not be.

*that family would be feeling

Negligence isn't strict liability (ie you are not automatically at fault because someone dies through your actions - accidents are recognised to happen). It also doesn't require intent, only recklessness. But the test of recklessness does take into account the age of the defendant and their ability to assess what the consequences of their actions might be (ie the younger the child, the less likely they are to be found negligent).

Again, being sued in negligence is nothing to do with being prosecuted in the criminal courts. The child won't have a criminal record and, more likely than not, will have very little to do with the actual proceedings.

The only way to avoid this situation is to nationalise personal injury and death compensation, so that the State pays (which is what happens in NZ). There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems.

But the article states that the lady herself began to sue the children so she must have been suing for care, hospital fees etc. Her son has continued the case since her death.

I'm not agruing that the children/parents were resonsible for her fall but the death?? Thats a lot to accuse and put onto a 4 yo.

Scroobiouspig: thanks - learn something every day. I had thought there would be no point, as they would a) have no assets from which to pay any damages and b) you couldn't enforce payment anyhow against an under-18 (didn't know it would be different for a Court-ordered payment).

It's still a tragedy for those concerned, but I hope it will serve to help amend public opinion away from the idea that children on wheels on pavements is anything other than a hazard.

mamatomany, I am pretyy sure I would be devasteted if something similar happened to my grandmother but would I sue a 4yo? I can quite safely say no as it would neither bring her back nor make me feel less sad.

"Again, being sued in negligence is nothing to do with being prosecuted in the criminal courts. The child won't have a criminal record and, more likely than not, will have very little to do with the actual proceedings."

You see I would find it easier to comprehend it there was a criminal prosecution than a liability suit. With the criminal one you could argue that the family of the old lady wants some sort of justice the later just shows IMHO a desire for money.

But their medical bills might be huge, in which case they'd really need to sue.

"just shows a desire for money"
Yes, but the medical fees would have been massive, maybe the insurers won't pay until the family have attempted to get them back by a court case.