A four year old child I understand has not reached the age of reason, but a fully grown judge? Just insane. Too damn many lawyers. Old Bill Shakespeare had it right about what to do with the lawyers. We need a 20 year moratorium on law schools. Enough already.
The woman died. The mothers were supposed to be supervising the kids. The judge could have ruled that parents have no responsibility for the actions of their children while under their direct supervision. I think that would have been much more disturbing.
so the estate gets the girl’s bike?
how lamebrain. I bet the estate’s lawyer is a democrat.
No. This is a tough one. If a child does something that injures or kills someone, then someone should be held responsible. Its not fair that associated cost falls on the victim’s family. Here we have an 87 year old so I can’t imagine there are too many consequential damages, like loss of income to a family. I can see good arguments on both sides:
On the one hand, the old woman’s family is putting the child and her family through a traumatic experience where there aren’t any tangible losses.
On the other hand, the child did something that resulted in a death and you can’t just tell the woman’s family to get over it.
The girl’s parents should refuse to get an attorney and have the little girl defend herself in order to mock the stupidity of the judge.
Not Judges gone wild.
Judge did the right thing. The Judge’s ruling is based on whether the girl(and by law those responsible for her), could be sued.
Where the LIABILITY will be assessed, is usually with the RESPONSIBLE PARTIES (i.e. the parents).
This was a DODGE by the lawyers for the girl’s family, trying to avoid the lawsuit. It didn’t work.
This is insane.
If two 4 yr-olds are allowed to go careening down the sidewalk which has pedestrians, the mothers should be held responsible for the injury and complications that resulted in death. Who wants to bet they were talking and didn’t even see the elderly lady themselves?
Shalom.