By Request - Hide yo' kids, everyone's getting sued up in here

(FYI - if you don't understand the title, it is a play on Antoine Dodson and the "bed intruder" song. If you aren't familiar with it, YouTube it. You'll be glad you did.)

No, this isn't the girl in the case -
just a random kid on a bike found on Google Images.

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

Okay, so, if you want to read the article first, go ahead. But, let me give you the short version of the facts.

• Little girl who was four years, nine months old (yes, this is important) was riding her bike and she hit an 87-year-old lady.
• Said 87-year-old lady “suffering a hip fracture that required surgery.”
• Said 87-year-old lady died three months later, to causes completely unrelated to said accident.
• The estate of 87-year-old lady is now suing the 4-year-old (not her parents, but HER) for negligence.
• The judge ruled it is acceptable to sue the 4-year-old because the precedent from a 1928 case states “infants under the age of 4 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence.” However, because this child was OVER the age of four (by a mere nine months), she is therefore old enough to be held liable for negligence.

--
What the hell is our society coming to when you sue a four-year-old?

There are so many things wrong with this, so many rants I want to go on, I might have a migraine before this blog is written.

First of all, let’s address the fact that it’s the old lady’s estate suing. Did they not get enough life insurance money, so they felt this is their best recourse? What are they hoping to get out of a four-year-old anyway? Her bike and Tickle Me Elmo? I mean really, it’s a bit beyond ridiculous. If they are doing it to set some sort of legal precedent, they really have way too much time, and a money-grubbing lawyer, on their hands.

Isn’t there a statute of limitations on this that could have (dare I say should have?) prevented this from even happening? I mean, being that her death had NOTHING to do with this accident, why are they even legally able to go after this? So, technically, I would venture to say that since she’s not alive to claim the negligence or pain and suffering, then the suit would have no merit.

Alright, now let’s move into the fact it’s a FOUR-YEAR-OLD (trust me, I’ll address the negligence of the situation momentarily). What the hell? She’s four. She was riding her bike. She’s not that coordinated yet. She doesn’t know to look in her blind spot yet. She’s four, accidents happen. I don’t care if she’s four and a day or four and nine months – that nine months did not add a whole layer of maturity to her that her younger counterparts can’t boast. It’s not like there’s a magic switch that gets turned on after your fourth birthday party that makes you mature and ready to be held liable for legal situations. You know, if they do tests on mentally-disabled individuals to see if they are mentally competent enough to stand trial, why doesn’t the same notion apply here? Because part of the problem they find with mentally competent individuals is that they have the mind of a six-year-old or something. Well, this child legitimately has the mind of a four-year-old, so why on Earth would she be competent enough to stand trial? The extent of her knowledge of right and wrong does not extend into the legal world, but rather “because Mommy said it’s not allowed.” I mean, seriously.

And now, how about the negligence part? She was four and riding her bike. She’s not all that coordinated. Accidents happen. She’s a kid. Plus, who’s to say that 87-year-old woman didn’t step out in front of the kid because she’s half-blind and didn’t see her? There are so many factors in play for this accident (that’s the key word here, accident), there’s no way you can necessarily place fault. Furthermore, if getting hit by a four-year-old on a bike caused a hip fracture and subsequent surgery, I would venture to say it was just a catalyst to an injury that was bound to happen. If it wasn’t this poor kid on a bike, it would have been tripping on her own feet and falling in her apartment. Better it happened out on the sidewalk with an audience so she could get help immediately rather than being in an “I’ve fallen and can’t get up” situation. I’m just saying.

If negligence is really what you’re pursuing, I can see going after the mom more than anything. Under the whole “you should have been paying more attention to your kid” bit. But even then, moms can’t be everywhere. As a mom, I can assure you, there are times you see something about to happen, but you just can’t get there in time to stop it, try as you might. And seriously, what was Mom going to do, put herself between the bike and the old lady to soften the blow? That could actually have caused more damage. But even then, I think going after the mom is a stretch – but way more understandable than a FOUR-YEAR-OLD!

I just cannot believe a judge is allowing this to move forward in the court system rather than throwing it out as one of those ridiculous lawsuits – for oh so many reasons. Then again, if someone willingly and knowingly puts hot coffee between their legs in a car, it spills, they get burned and they not only sue, but sue successfully, then why the hell should I be surprised by this?

On the upside for the little girl, when she starts kindergarten, she’ll have an awesome first show-and-tell. “This is my lawyer, isn’t he cool?”

So … I found this picture, and it does beg the question – had the dog been riding the bike and hit the old lady, would they be suing the dog? Or the dog’s owner? Or would they just say, “it was a dog, what are you going to do?”