4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case

[Nova]

I have never personally seen a case where a jury took this charge and decided a plaintiff was at fault because they could have avoided the accident. As I said, it is charged by defendants in hopes of mitigating damages.

For example - let's say a defendant slams his vehicle into the back of a plaintiff and causes the plaintiff injury. The defendant has liability, of course, for causing the collision, but what if the plaintiff was traveling below the speed limit in the left lane of an empty four-lane highway.....it could be argued (with limited success, perhaps, but argued nonetheless) that the plaintiff should have seen the defendant coming and gotten out of the way by moving to the right and/or following the posted speed limit.

Another example - and one that is more common - a person makes a questionable left hand turn on a green light and is struck by another vehicle. Who might be at fault in such a scenario depends on lots of things, but the attorneys of the person blamed for the accident will surely try to argue and charge that the other person could have somehow avoided it.

Don;t know if those make sense....it is early and I haven;t had enough coffee yet!

I think I get it now.

For example, the pharmacist gives me a bottle of little green pills, which turn out to be the wrong medication. However, on the front of the vial it clearly states the correct medication comes in large red pills. (I don't know about other states, but here in CA, my meds are marked in this manner.)

When I take the little green pills, get sick and sue the pharmacist, his lawyer argues that I had an obligation to read the info on the label and avoid the tort by realizing the green pills were the wrong meds.

Whether or not that exonerates the pharmacist--in whole or in part--may be left to a judge or jury to decide. (Juries being the way they are, they probably find a way to split the difference unless I can prove the pharmacist has a history of such errors.)

Well, I wish 'em luck convincing anyone than an 87-year-old woman on a public sidewalk could have and should have avoided an out-of-control bicycle, regardless of the age of the rider.

 

[Nova]

Peoples insurance dont usually refuse to pay for treatment of 87 year old ladies with broken hip, and IF they did, then that's were your lawsuit OUGHT to be.

Insurance companies pay for things like that all the time, then, if the injured party wins a lawsuit or a settlement arising from the injury, the insurance company that paid the bills has the right to reimbursement under the law. They essentially have a lien on any recovery made from the lawsuit/settlement.

IMO - if that little old lady's insurance company failed to pay for her treatment, THEY should be sued, better chance at collecting from them anyway than a four your old or its parents' measely policy limits.[/quote

But if the older women was on medicare or medicaid why should the taxpayer be responsible for paying for the older ladies insurance?

It's also possible that the victim's insurance company is forcing the suit. Some (maybe most) policies require the insured to collect from negligent parties before the insurance company will pay.

 

[Soulmagent]

The children in question were not toddlers.

I keep saying it, but I would really like to know the exact circumstances of this case because I could understand it a lot better. I wonder if the woman ever knew that they were coming up behind her at all. Or maybe she realized too late. Or maybe she saw them but failed to realize they were coming straight for her. How busy was the sidewalk? Was the sidewalk usually used for bicycle races? Etc.

Or maybe she stepped right in front of the little girl on the bicycle.

If a reasonable deduction can be made that the lady would moved had she saw the bike ,it would seem a reasonable deduction could be made if the girl had time to react to the lady in her path should would have.

Both parties in the case or at an age where rational judgement could/may be called into question.

Also here is a link about the life expectancy.
Which I suspect if the case proceeds both the issue of rational judgement and life expectancy will come up.
Weird to think the the little girl may never even reach the age the lady did, as most people dont.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/health/research/31longevity.html
Female New Yorkers can expect to live to 82, males to 76, the researchers say. The Census Bureau’s latest projection puts the nationwide figures at 81 and 76.

 

[BuzzieCat]

Or maybe she stepped right in front of the little girl on the bicycle.

If a reasonable deduction can be made that the lady would moved had she saw the bike ,it would seem a reasonable deduction could be made if the girl had time to react to the lady in her path should would have.

Both parties in the case or at an age where rational judgement could/may be called into question.

Also here is a link about the life expectancy.
Which I suspect if the case proceeds both the issue of rational judgement and life expectancy will come up.
Weird to think the the little girl may never even reach the age the lady did, as most people dont.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/health/research/31longevity.html
Female New Yorkers can expect to live to 82, males to 76, the researchers say. The Census Bureau’s latest projection puts the nationwide figures at 81 and 76.

It's possible the girl wasn't able to avoid the collision because she wasn't looking where she was going. She was in the middle of racing her friend. That's why I'd like to know more about the circumstances. Were the kids not paying attention? Was the old woman hard of hearing? Etc.