Lady Star Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 its disgusting-----su the parents I would imagine that is who the son is suing - makes better headlines saying that they are suing a kid:suspect: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 I would imagine that is who the son is suing - makes better headlines saying that they are suing a kid:suspect: They have issued separate lawsuits against both the child, and her mother. (And the mother of the other child involved in the race, I believe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 No..it's been that way for a long time. What a thing to have to endure as an infant that for the rest of your life you'll have the finger pointed at you as a granny killer by a sickeningly corrupt system motivated by greed. I can just imagine the hyenas in 2k dollar silk suits picking and deviding the bones off this one. Corrupt? Before you state your opinion as fact again perhaps you would like to prove to us how the system is corrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Corrupt? Before you state your opinion as fact again perhaps you would like to prove to us how the system is corrupt. Many people would consider the fact that a four-year-old can be sued as proof enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PK80 Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 I don't really get this sueing business. 87 year old gets bumped into by a 4 year old on a bike. Falls over, breaks hip, passes away in hospital after complications. Even if you establish that technically you can sue the 4 year old, why would you? And how much do you want? The friend/relative isn't coming back so whats the point of sueing? Is it to make the other person suffer a bit by taking some money from them, or would a small pay out ease the pain for you? How? I don't get it?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Is it to make the other person suffer a bit by taking some money from them, or would a small pay out ease the pain for you? How? I don't get it?!?!? How about sending out a warning to other parents that they should be in control of their children and a message to the kids that its not just a game, everyone is responsible for their actions and what about the financial loss to the woman’s husband if he is still alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierra Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 All this judge did was guarantee the woman's son (who is an attorney) the right to sue. But just because you have a right to sue under the law, it doesn't necessarily mean you will win. These cases can get complicated and costly. The only thing that is guaranteed is your right to pursue a cause of action against a party, regardless of facts. Various articles make it sound like the kids knocked the elderly lady down and she was killed instantly. In fact, she died at least a couple months later of natural causes. Now, if this were my mother or grandmother, I'd also be upset, and I might even sue, but probably just for medical bills. My goodness, at 87, how many years did she realistically have left?! And I mean good years, not hooked up to machines or feeding tubes? I don't mean to trivialize what happened to this lady, God rest her, I've been knocked down by a kid on a bike myself. But at my age, it was more a question of injured dignity (thank God I wasn't wearing a dress!) a withering look at the careless young person, and a "boy! Why don't you watch where you're going?!" This happened about ten years ago, in front of my child's school. The boy's parents actually came over to my house that evening (they were neighbors) and made him apologize! When I asked him why he'd been riding his bike so recklessly on a crowded sidewalk, he confessed that he was racing his brother to be the first one home. Loser had to pick up all the dog poop in the yard. Me: "Ummm, who picked it up the last time?" Careless kid: "I did." Me: "And when was that?" Careless kid: "I don't remember". Me: "Well, how many dogs do you have?" Careless kid: "Four". Me: "Are they big dogs or little dogs?" Careless kid: "Three are big, one is medium sized". Me: "Uh huh. So...there was a lot?" Careless kid: "Yeah". I'm really sorry!" I think somebody was more sorry he got his Playstation/Nintendo/Gameboy whatever taken away for a month. Anyway, this is not really about suing a pair of four year olds, it's about the judge ok'ing the first step of many for the woman's son to legally ream the children's parent's insurance company. The insurance company has what we refer to here in the states as 'deep pockets'. Maybe you do in the UK too, I don't know. *The following taken from Wikipedia* Deep pocket in law and economics Deep pocket is a concept often used in the law and economics of tort law. It refers to the idea that the risk of an activity should be borne by a person that is in a relatively good position to handle it. This can be achieved by either spreading the risk over a large number of risk-bearers (usually by means of insurance), or by imposing it on a person that is relatively risk-neutral. The latter is often assumed to be the case for wealthy individuals or large corporations, who are referred to as having "deep pockets", since their wealth will not be affected very strongly if the risk materializes. For example, a deep pocket argument might, among other arguments, be used to justify product liability, as producers with "deep pockets" will normally be better able to accommodate the risk of damages than individual consumers not endowed with "deep pockets". And if you think this case is bad, read this. http://overlawyered.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perplexed Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 This has to be record. Two pages of a thread involving a bicycle, and the usual suspets haven't turned up banging on about "and they don't even pay "road tax"!" Cripes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strix Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 If they'd have been on the road, they wouldn't have hit the old dear js2012 - I'll try to remember you're one of us sarcastic types if I 'meet' you again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
js2012 Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 js2012 - I'll try to remember you're one of us sarcastic types if I 'meet' you again Cheers :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.