AIBU to think this is completely ridiculous?

[BeccaandEvie]

4 Year Old Child Sued

It really is the world gone mad.

:(

"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."

This is the US not the UK. The cost of 3 months hospitalisation and surgery would be huge, even if her medical insurance covered it, the insurance company will still be looking to recover the money. As I said previously the adults involved are being sued as well so it just may be a case of hoping one case sticks.

How many other parents will be monitoring their children's behaviour on bikes on the pavement more carefully for fear of being sued?
So perhaps, although it is too late to help Claire Menagh, it may prevent another accident to another vulnerable person.

Medical costs are one of the top reasons people go bankrupt in the US, so it might not be as money grubbing as it seems.

ScroobiousPip probably has it when she says that it has to do with getting the parents' insurance to pay for the hospital costs (the child will be covered under them). The hospital costs, I'm guess as an American who has had to deal with hospital bills, could have easily run into 6 figures. Even with good insurance (by no means universal or even common), the family would have had to pay for a set percent of that.

Bruffin, Rusty and MrsVincent, you are probably right on that. I admittingly have little knowledge of how the insurances or health services work in the US and they might have had no other option.

"The judge disagreed, ruling Juliet's lawyer had presented no evidence she lacked intelligence or maturity."

Surely being FOUR is evidence that you lack intelligence and maturity? It was an accident, the woman was 87 years old, its sad but shit happens.

Onimolap - you are completely right of course that often the children themselves don't have the money so there is no point in suing. Probably why there aren't many of these claims in reality in the UK. But if the family insurance policy covered the child, or if they had money of their own then it would pay to sue the child I think. Haven't checked but think an order is enforceable against a minor. Happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong though!

Goblinchild - I don't think parents need to be too cautious just on the basis of one case (on which we don't know all the facts). A genuine unforeseeable accident isn't going to lead to a successful claim.

I would hope that they'll be more careful not to avoid being sued, but to avoid being responsible for someone's death or disability - it may raise awareness that these incidents are not always minor.

'Goblinchild - I don't think parents need to be too cautious just on the basis of one case (on which we don't know all the facts). A genuine unforeseeable accident isn't going to lead to a successful claim.'

Then I'll just have to continue accidently barging them off their wheels then.

If they are suing the child I think they should take them into court to testify, then see what happens.

Headless you are misreading the quote. In the US a child under the age of 4 cannot be held responsible for negligence. The child in question was 4, the judge was commenting that the child was not immature or lacked intelligence compared to other 4 year olds.

Still makes no sense. And actually the same quote was used twice, once with your qualification and once without, I quoted the latter.
All 4 year olds lack maturity and intelligence in any proper reading of the words.

The reason this was reported is that the parents of the girl tried to get the case thrown out because she was too young. The judge did not agree because case law was that a child of 4 and above can be held responsible for negligence, and the lawyers failed to prove that this child had any developmental problems making her any less mature than any other 4 year old.
The other 4 years old's parents involved chose not to go for a dismissal.

I don't understand the assets thing. Why the assumption that the family will be insured against this type of incident? What sort of insurance is that?

In england you are covered under your legal liability section of the buildings insurance cover on your house. I think there is something similar in US.

Not everyone has buildings insurance though. This is what is confusing me. I can see that these things are sometimes tacked onto car insurance / buildings but not everybody has these things.

My understanding is that if you are not insured and you are sued then you have to pay up yourself?

As a society, we seem to have regressed.

Reading pre-Victorian history, children worked in mills, up chimneys and were held responsible for their actions - even at 4 years old. Then, society introduced schooling and other measures to protect the child. Enough of my rambling.

Back to the present, the child at the time of the accident was 4 years old. Read that again, 4 years old. How, in a civilised society, can a court blame a 4 year old for an accident?

Poor girl - I feel for the little mite. Being sued at any age is stressful enough, but at 4 years old?

Just thinking of the my own children and that of others I look after, in my opinion, this is incomprehensible. I sincerely hope the case fails.

What assets does the 4 year child hold? Her bike? Her dolls? Her building set? Is that really going to compensate all the medical bills? Where is a 6 year old going to obtain the money? What will happen when she is unable to pay up? Are the US courts going to jail a 6 year old because she accidentally cycled into a mature adult and was not able to pay the medical bills?

The US has gone mad. Rant over.

Perhaps new2cm her parents haven't told her anything about it, do you think ?

If she's going to be sued though presumably she will be expected to appear in court? If they are going to defend the case I mean.

Children this age have appeared in court in this country giving evidence.

mamatomany

If the child is being sued, she will need to attend court, so she will need to be fully aware of what is going on.

Besides, she and her case are the news - internationally - and even a six year old will be aware that something is going on. Unless this now 6 year old is kept away from school and the media, I suspect that the child is more than aware of what's going on - even if the parents have said nothing to her, which I think is highly unlikely.

Someone else in the community will say something to the child - if not now, certainly in the future when the media circus decends around the child and the family home.

We don't know she's attended court do we and are at the risk of sounding a bit American hysterical ourselves.

No people are saying that presumably if she is sued (which is what the judge has agreed to happening) then she will have to give evidence. I don't see a way around that unless they offer no contest to the action.

Could she perhaps give her evidence by video link as is usual in these cases.

No idea. Was just pointing out that the idea that all this will be able to happen with the child having no idea was pretty remote.

I have no idea as well about whether video links are usually used in cases in teh US where children are sued, not my area of expertise!

"The judge disagreed, ruling Juliet's lawyer had presented no evidence she lacked intelligence or maturity."

Dear me. I think, if I ever go to America and commit a crime, I really hope I don't have to go to court with this judge. Sounds like an absolute idiot. Who in the world needs it explaining to them that a 4 year old "lacks intelligence or maturity". It's sad the old lady died, but that man is just after money or spiteful revenge. Those kids had no awareness of how much damage they could cause by riding their bikes on the street, but they will grow up to remember how they used to have to go to court when they were little kiddies because they killed someone. They should be 100% protected from this silly man's behaviour.