H.D., on 30 October 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:
1. Was there harm? Yes, injuries and eventual death.
2. What caused it? Children riding into an elderly woman on their bicycles.
3. Was there a breach of duty? Does a child/parent/ in re loco parentis have a duty to prevent them from harming others through irresponsible acts? Yes
4. Was the cause proximate? Was it proximate to death? Unknown. Facts unknown. Was it proximate to injury? Yes, but for the children ramming her, there would be no injury.
5. Was the breach of duty negligence such that it was proximate cause to the injury? Issue for the jury to decide.
All elements of a negligence case are met, thus a motion to dismiss cannot be granted. A motion for summary judgment can also not be granted because this judge obviously has no precedent in such a case. Thus, the show must go on to trial or settlement.
That's my guess.
Like most other legal claims, legislation and George Lucas scripts, there should be a (6) that states something like - very roughly - could a "reasonable person" look at this and say "that's fucking stupid?", in which case it gets shot down. We have a thing here in Australia about "frivolous and vexatious" law suits that should be applied.
Say the parents told her not to ride on the footpath because she might hit someone, but (as we know) she did anyway. Have the parents completed their "duty of care" or does it mean they should have her on a leash? Say it is found to be the girls' fault because her parents told her not to do it but she did anyway, what the hell are the elderly victims' family going to get out of it? A garnish on her pocket money until she is 18??? Fuckwits.
Just because something meets some basic requirements in isolation, doesn't mean it's valid. My dog has 4 legs and a tail, my cat has 4 legs and a tail, therefore my cat is a dog. You should have to see the whole picture before letting shit like this get through and waste valuable court time. What about the age of legal responsibility or intent - or does that not apply in civil cases? I'll bet the ambulance chasers are licking their lips at this very moment.
What next? "Your child bumped into me in the supermarket and I spilled my drink all over my Armani suit, therefore you owe me for the expensive laundering?" No, I'll bet we can come up with even more stupid potential examples.
It's sad that the lady was injured, and later died (any link established?), but this one goes down into the "shit happens" book. Would I say that if it were my grandmother? I know I'd be mad as hell, but I'd eventually calm down and chalk it up to rotten luck. What I would NOT do is even THINK about suing a 4 year old kid, let alone going through the legal motions to actually do it. Those people should be publicly vilified (at least) as an example.
It's all just more evidence of the legal system being far removed from reality, but no-one pulls it into line because too many profit from it.
I like you H.D. (I'll kill you last), but in making Sombratopia, the lawyers will be the first up against the wall. OK, maybe in the first 10 groups up against the wall. Kiddie-fiddlers get the #1 spot.
This post has been edited by Sombra: 30 October 2010 - 08:42 AM
"Fortune favors the bold, though statistics favor the cautious." - Indomitable Courteous (Icy) Fist, The Palace Job - Patrick Weekes
"Well well well ... if it ain't The Invisible C**t." - Billy Butcher, The Boys
"I have strong views about not tempting providence and, as a wise man once said, the difference between luck and a wheelbarrow is, luck doesn’t work if you push it." - Colonel Orhan, Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City - KJ Parker