Don't hate me! but this kind of case is what makes most people think lawyers are heartless. I went over to the The New York Law Journal to read their report.
First, let me say that personally I think suing both kids and their mothers for negligence (as is this case) is a little over the top, especially since the accident didn't immediately cause the woman's death (she died 3 months later of unrelated causes) so yea, for me personally it's incredibly greedy of the woman's estate to do this. Although, there could be bills for the woman's surgery and other expenses related to the incident to account for.
As strange as it sounds, the judge made the legally correct decision. The judge only allowed the lawsuit to proceed, he didn't judge or decide it. It's consistent with 80 years of jurisprudence in the State of New York. From a legal stand point the judge pointing out that Juliet was almost five only highlights the fact that she's Legally old enough to be held accountable for negligence (intentional behavior that puts others at risk for injury). The child's defense filing a motion to dismiss on the grounds of the legal action being "illogical" is pretty smart even though the lawyers probably knew the odds of actually getting away with it where slim. They went for media exposure and outrage it would bring. Since the other child didn't follow this same course I wonder if they settled...
The ruling only states that the girl's age, alone, isn't enough to throw the case out of court. He's talking about mitigating factors and behavior by children of a similar age as a way to over clarify that she's a normal child for her age with no disabilities to be considered. The fact is that there doesn't appear to be any intervening precedent challenging the decision that you have to be UNDER 4 years old to be presumed to be incapable of negligence so really, it was going to be a tough sell to go against 80 years of jurisprudence.
If this goes to trial the woman's estate still hast to prove their case to a jury or most likely they are going to go for an out of court settlement. Negligence can't be litigated under tort law so this was the only way for the estate to bind the children to their parents and be able to go after the parents financially (IMO either insurance or these people have money).
Yea, as news it sounds insane but it's actually legally sound and honestly? not really surprising.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-10-30 12:34 am (UTC)First, let me say that personally I think suing both kids and their mothers for negligence (as is this case) is a little over the top, especially since the accident didn't immediately cause the woman's death (she died 3 months later of unrelated causes) so yea, for me personally it's incredibly greedy of the woman's estate to do this. Although, there could be bills for the woman's surgery and other expenses related to the incident to account for.
As strange as it sounds, the judge made the legally correct decision. The judge only allowed the lawsuit to proceed, he didn't judge or decide it. It's consistent with 80 years of jurisprudence in the State of New York. From a legal stand point the judge pointing out that Juliet was almost five only highlights the fact that she's Legally old enough to be held accountable for negligence (intentional behavior that puts others at risk for injury). The child's defense filing a motion to dismiss on the grounds of the legal action being "illogical" is pretty smart even though the lawyers probably knew the odds of actually getting away with it where slim. They went for media exposure and outrage it would bring. Since the other child didn't follow this same course I wonder if they settled...
The ruling only states that the girl's age, alone, isn't enough to throw the case out of court. He's talking about mitigating factors and behavior by children of a similar age as a way to over clarify that she's a normal child for her age with no disabilities to be considered. The fact is that there doesn't appear to be any intervening precedent challenging the decision that you have to be UNDER 4 years old to be presumed to be incapable of negligence so really, it was going to be a tough sell to go against 80 years of jurisprudence.
If this goes to trial the woman's estate still hast to prove their case to a jury or most likely they are going to go for an out of court settlement. Negligence can't be litigated under tort law so this was the only way for the estate to bind the children to their parents and be able to go after the parents financially (IMO either insurance or these people have money).
Yea, as news it sounds insane but it's actually legally sound and honestly? not really surprising.