Post Punk Kitchen Forum

I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I have some comments:

Suing a child may sound odd, but it isn't unheard of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garratt_v._Dailey

A child riding their bicycle on the sidewalk may be dangerous, but in NYC, it is not illegal if they're under 12: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicycl ... tips.shtml

Also, I'm guessing they're after the money for a good reason - there may be medical bills that still need to be paid. No, survivors technically don't have to pay off those bills, but everything the deceased owned at the time of her death can be seized and sold to generate funds to pay those debts (which might include the family's home, furniture, etc.).

Its easy to pass judgement on these things, and when I first read the headline I did think it was crazy. But we don't know all the details, we can't find out all the details without talking to witnesses, family, experts and you know how that gets done? Having a trial. So what harm is done by doing that? The defendants can countersue for their legal fees right? I dunno, I guess I still feel sorry for the little kid 'cuz it would stink to be that young and feel like you killed an old lady by accident. But the parents hold some responsibility too.

b.vicious, thanks for the link! That's an interesting case as well.

I feel really bad for everyone involved, and to me this just sounds like another manifestation of a big reason why having to pay medical bills is horrendous and causes more damage than just to the individual injured/sick or their family.

this is pretty much what i think. seriously, accidents happen and no one should ever be in a situation where an accident puts them into economical trouble. it is messed up.