You know what bugs me?
Nov. 1st, 2010 01:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
See, there's this four year old kid who is being sued for knocking an old lady down while racing her friend on a bike. The woman broke her hip and later died, and it is sad, but the majority response to this is "Um, but she's four". And it's not "Um, she's four, sue her parents instead!" - the woman's family is suing the parents. They're also suing the children involved.
There have been a lot of articles about this recently, and every single one of them makes this clear - the children are being sued separately from the parents.
So it made its way to FRK after several people mentioned it in the comments, and we get this wonderful reply:
I’m actually really confused about why this has become such a big story. The truth is, there really isn’t anything out of the ordinary about it.
My husband is an insurance agent. He makes a point of telling people that the most common claim against homeowners insurance isn’t from something that happens to the home, but a liability payout for something that the homeowner’s children or pets do. The coverage is built into the homeowner’s insurance, but the person making the claim against you generally has to sue for it.
If they truly are suing the girl instead of the parents, that would be abnormal (as well as stupid, since a 4-year-old girl has no assets). But holding parents liable for the consequences of their children’s actions? Completely normal. Completely legal. And completely logical. You are liable for the damages if you cause a car accident–even if the car accident is a result of something you couldn’t actually control (you hit ice and slide into another car, for example).
It is reasonable for the estate of the woman to expect restitution. Keeping with the car analogy, if a child accidentally ran her bike into the side of your car and created a huge dent, you wouldn’t shrug your shoulders, say “sucks to be me,” and pay for the repairs. You would expect the girl’s family to take financial responsibility for the repairs. Why is this suddenly a scandalous idea when you replace the car with a human being?
Accountability is not a bad thing. And situations like this are part of why you have homeowners insurance. Really–it’s a non-story.
(I'll leave aside the question as to whether these Manhattanites have homeowner's insurance or, in fact, own a home.)
This woman basically doesn't know the facts of the case. She's seen it enough to see that it's a big story, but she clearly hasn't read anything about it at all or she'd know that her "abnormal" and "stupid" situation that she thinks isn't happening is, in fact, what's happening. But she still sees fit to judge us - people who DO know what's going on! - for "not understanding" that this is "perfectly normal".
I might be ignorant. There's times that this is the case. It happens, and I'd rather be corrected than not. But nothing, and I mean nothing gets my goat more than being "corrected" by somebody who doesn't know what she's talking about!
There have been a lot of articles about this recently, and every single one of them makes this clear - the children are being sued separately from the parents.
So it made its way to FRK after several people mentioned it in the comments, and we get this wonderful reply:
I’m actually really confused about why this has become such a big story. The truth is, there really isn’t anything out of the ordinary about it.
My husband is an insurance agent. He makes a point of telling people that the most common claim against homeowners insurance isn’t from something that happens to the home, but a liability payout for something that the homeowner’s children or pets do. The coverage is built into the homeowner’s insurance, but the person making the claim against you generally has to sue for it.
If they truly are suing the girl instead of the parents, that would be abnormal (as well as stupid, since a 4-year-old girl has no assets). But holding parents liable for the consequences of their children’s actions? Completely normal. Completely legal. And completely logical. You are liable for the damages if you cause a car accident–even if the car accident is a result of something you couldn’t actually control (you hit ice and slide into another car, for example).
It is reasonable for the estate of the woman to expect restitution. Keeping with the car analogy, if a child accidentally ran her bike into the side of your car and created a huge dent, you wouldn’t shrug your shoulders, say “sucks to be me,” and pay for the repairs. You would expect the girl’s family to take financial responsibility for the repairs. Why is this suddenly a scandalous idea when you replace the car with a human being?
Accountability is not a bad thing. And situations like this are part of why you have homeowners insurance. Really–it’s a non-story.
(I'll leave aside the question as to whether these Manhattanites have homeowner's insurance or, in fact, own a home.)
This woman basically doesn't know the facts of the case. She's seen it enough to see that it's a big story, but she clearly hasn't read anything about it at all or she'd know that her "abnormal" and "stupid" situation that she thinks isn't happening is, in fact, what's happening. But she still sees fit to judge us - people who DO know what's going on! - for "not understanding" that this is "perfectly normal".
I might be ignorant. There's times that this is the case. It happens, and I'd rather be corrected than not. But nothing, and I mean nothing gets my goat more than being "corrected" by somebody who doesn't know what she's talking about!
no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 04:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 07:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 05:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 06:05 pm (UTC)Accidents often lead to expensive medical care. People without medical insurance are advised (by hospital billing departments, by personal injury lawyers) that a lawsuit against whoever caused their injury is the best way to pay their medical bills and avoid bankruptcy. It doesn't matter if the injured person is angry or vindictive--they often aren't. People WITH medical insurance often find that the medical insurance company requires negligence lawsuits be filed before they will pay for treating injuries from some kinds of accident.
I think of it as a third-order effect of not having single-payer health care.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 06:12 pm (UTC)