Only in America ?

[donKey jote]

could you sue a 4-year-old for an accident, no matter how unfortunate :crazy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376

[Eki]

The judge disagreed, ruling Juliet's lawyer had presented no evidence she lacked intelligence or maturity.
The judge probably wouldn't recognize intelligence and maturity even if he saw them, since he seems to lack them himself.

[fandango]

This seems like just another of those "direct your outrage here" articles. The law is a tool which is to be used when normal communication doesn't produce an agreement.

If the four-year-old can be judged as negligent, the article doesn't say anything about what the implications of such a ruling are. Maybe all it means is that the kid should have known better, but that the ultimate legal responsibility still lies with her parents. That wouldn't change anything from what we'd expect.

While we're here, though, I'd like to say that I think people on bicycles can often be even more dangerous than people on soapboxes...

[Eki]

This seems like just another of those "direct your outrage here" articles. The law is a tool which is to be used when normal communication doesn't produce an agreement.

If the four-year-old can be judged as negligent, the article doesn't say anything about what the implications of such a ruling are. Maybe all it means is that the kid should have known better, but that the ultimate legal responsibility still lies with her parents. That wouldn't change anything from what we'd expect.

While we're here, though, I'd like to say that I think people on bicycles can often be even more dangerous than people on soapboxes...
So you mean it's just the American legal system where anyone can take anything to court? I think in Finland the police first decides if there's any reason to even start an investigation and then after investigations decides if there's enough reason to press charges against someone. I don't think in Finland this would have gone to court at all (at least I hope).

[Garry Walker]

So you mean it's just the American legal system where anyone can take anything to court? I think in Finland the police first decides if there's any reason to even start an investigation and then after investigations decides if there's enough reason to press charges against someone. I don't think in Finland this would have gone to court at all (at least I hope).

You really should not comment on things you dont understand.
We are here dealing with a civil law case. To educate yourself, go and type "tort" or "delict" into google and read the links that follow, maybe you will understand something.
Police and prosecutors dont have anything to do with this, they do not decide on whether someone can press charges against someone else in a civil matter. They are relevant only in criminal cases and this is not one.
Do you know the difference between civil cases and criminal cases?
I can assure you that if your child crashes into someone and that causes that persons death, then even in Finland that person can take you to court and sue you for damages.

As far as I understood then the actual trial is still to take place, they have just said that the trial can go ahead.

[Daniel]

You really should not comment on things you dont understand.
We are here dealing with a civil law case. To educate yourself, go and type "tort" or "delict" into google and read the links that follow, maybe you will understand something.
Police and prosecutors dont have anything to do with this, they do not decide on whether someone can press charges against someone else in a civil matter. They are relevant only in criminal cases and this is not one.
Do you know the difference between civil cases and criminal cases?
I can assure you that if your child crashes into someone and that causes that persons death, then even in Finland that person can take you to court and sue you for damages.

As far as I understood then the actual trial is still to take place, they have just said that the trial can go ahead.
I think what Eki is saying is that anywhere else the Judge would have said "**** off, it was an accident, go **** yourselves you litigious tosspots"

[Eki]

That's what I meant. Age is always automatically taken into account. You don't have to prove that a four year old isn't mature enough case by case. An

http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/haku.php?search[type]=pika&search[pika]=tort&submit=Search


If the injury or damage has been caused by a person under eighteen years of
age, he/she shall be liable for damages to an amount that is deemed
reasonable in view of his/her age and maturity, the nature of the act, the
financial status of the person causing the injury or damage and the person
suffering the same, and the other circumstances.

[Eki]

I can assure you that if your child crashes into someone and that causes that persons death, then even in Finland that person can take you to court and sue you for damages.
No one in Finland is responsible for what their children do, at least if they themselves weren't involved. Even in cases where underage kids have to pay for damages, they wait until they are adults to collect payments. IMO this is not ideal, since it discourages kids with high damage debts from getting a job when they grow up, since a large deal of their earnings will be taken from them as damage payments.

[fandango]

So you mean it's just the American legal system where anyone can take anything to court? I think in Finland the police first decides if there's any reason to even start an investigation and then after investigations decides if there's enough reason to press charges against someone. I don't think in Finland this would have gone to court at all (at least I hope).


No, my main point is that the article is incomplete, lazy journalism.

[Ghostwalker]

No one in Finland is responsible for what their children do, at least if they themselves weren't involved. Even in cases where underage kids have to pay for damages, they wait until they are adults to collect payments. IMO this is not ideal, since it discourages kids with high damage debts from getting a job when they grow up, since a large deal of their earnings will be taken from them as damage payments.

its about the same here.
Although in some cases there are alternatives now days.
Like if someone would get caught doing graffiti, they can now reach an agreement with the police/be sentenced to work the debt off
instead of getting high debts. Work it off means working for free for the companies that removes the graffiti.

[Jag_Warrior]

I keep an antique truck at another location. And while it was parked outside the garage a few years ago, one of the grandkids of a neighbor there broke the headlight and a window in the truck with some rocks. I called the police, and though it was the child who did it, I blamed the kid's mother for not supervising him. She was apparently inside her father's house feeding her fat face, while the kid was trespassing on my property, breaking things.

I knew the cop and he worked with me to put the fear of God into the kid and the mother. He let her know that if the child was found on my property again, she could be arrested if I decided to take it that far. The reason I did that is because if the little brat had come over again and happened to get hurt, you can be damn sure that heifer would have sued me.

That was a minor (though rather expensive) incident. In this New York case, a woman died. But just like in my situation, I blame the parents. What if the kids had gone off the sidewalk and gotten into traffic??? What's really sad about this case is that because of the negligence of a parent, an innocent woman sustained a fatal injury. And as this little girl grows up, she'll have to live with that. The judge is borderline retarded in his decision. But what we have really lost in the U.S., in addition to having a legal system that is a joke, is the will of parents to be PARENTS, and not just a best buddy for children.

[glauistean]

I keep an antique truck at another location. And while it was parked outside the garage a few years ago, one of the grandkids of a neighbor there broke the headlight and a window in the truck with some rocks. I called the police, and though it was the child who did it, I blamed the kid's mother for not supervising him. She was apparently inside her father's house feeding her fat face, while the kid was trespassing on my property, breaking things.

I knew the cop and he worked with me to put the fear of God into the kid and the mother. He let her know that if the child was found on my property again, she could be arrested if I decided to take it that far. The reason I did that is because if the little brat had come over again and happened to get hurt, you can be damn sure that heifer would have sued me.

That was a minor (though rather expensive) incident. In this New York case, a woman died. But just like in my situation, I blame the parents. What if the kids had gone off the sidewalk and gotten into traffic??? What's really sad about this case is that because of the negligence of a parent, an innocent woman sustained a fatal injury. And as this little girl grows up, she'll have to live with that. The judge is borderline retarded in his decision. But what we have really lost in the U.S., in addition to having a legal system that is a joke, is the will of parents to be PARENTS, and not just a best buddy for children.

Sorry to hear about your truck. What Jag is saying could not be put in a better form. The parents of a child should and as far as I know liable in most states for the actions of a minor.

[amoo17]

anything is possible in the usa

[555-04Q2]

I'm surprised that Americans don't sue their own ar$es for making a stink after they take a cr@p!

Living in America...