i have a question about whose responsible
 

ok my friend's wife was driving down the road one day to go to work and this little kid rides his bike out right infront of her and everyone has said (even the cops) that it wasn't her fault and that there was no way she could stop.

now the family of the child is trying to sue them, how exactly does this work? a few answers would be nice whenever you all get the time.

I am not a lawyer, but generally speaking, the parents should have been watching the child. They may sue, but that doesn't mean they're going to win.

Depends upon the area it occured. If we're to assume that it is natural for kids to be riding their bikes in the area because it's a family area or there is a park/school/whatever nearby then your friend's wife deserves to face criminal negligence charges. If it was not in this kind of area then it's tough shit for the poor kid.

What happened to the kid anyway? Natural selection at work or what?

If they do win it is a complete injustice. It soundss like the child was at fault but the parents want to earn an extra $ or few and take someone elses money for what it was their own responsibility to sort out. But I suppose that everyone will put their own slant on it. By the sound of it, it was the child's fault and the car driver was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you could sue someone else for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, there are all manner of possibilities that could be explored. But that way, madness lies...

The problem is, I wouldn't put it past the courts to do the wrong thing...

There is not enough information in the first post for you to make that claim.

he was riding his bike in a field and ran infront of her in the road she was only going 35 cause she was coming out of the corner he got a broken leg, no bike riders aren't that common around where i live there's almost none and the parents couldn't have watched him because he was about 4 miles from his house.

the nearest school/family area/park/pedestrian crossing/or anything of that sort is 10 miles away or more.

the kid lived through it fine just a little damaged and probably a little stressed, she freaked out after she found out that what had ran into her was a kid on a bike, she's ok she's scared though only thing that was broke on the car was the windshield. so i think both parties should be grateful no one was killed.

Well all in all it looks as though the kids parents will lose, the only thing i can see is the fact that she was doing 35, the speed limit here(London) is mainly 20mph, 30 at most so they could use that against her.

the speed limit on that road is 55mph though through the whole road it doesn't change until you turn onto stateline road then it's 60mph (the road it's 55 mph is thought of as a backroad highway)

Ah well thats ok then, and if the police even agree then there should be no problems at all.

The kid is responsible, or his/her parents. Children do stupid things, and drivers cannot defy the law of physics, seems to me the parants just want some extra $$.

yeah that's what we were thinking because it's been about 2 months.

The idea of America sueing doesn't seprize me :). Its not the drivers fault for sure if the child was in

The idea of America sueing doesn't seprize me :). Its not the drivers fault for sure if the child was in a none 'Child freindy' area and disided to be a twat and run into the middle of the road then its his fault and if i was a president or priministe I would have him and his family shot! (Okay maybe a bit too far).

How old was this child, anyway?

Over here, no matter where it happened or how, the driver would be at fault. Always. The idea behind this is that if you drive a motorized vehicle you should be extremely careful, and if you hit a non-motorized vehicle you're basically screwed. Even if it wasn't factually your fault.

I personally have a bit of a divided feeling about this. On one side, sometimes a driver simply cannot evade an accident, no matter how good (s)he is. On the other hand, whilst driving, you should always be extremely careful if there's even the most remote possibility of hitting a pedestrian or whatnot.

Either way, if the kid only has a few scrapes and bruises and a bit of fright in his/her bones, a lawsuit is ridiculous. They should be concentrating on the fact that their child is alright, but seems to be unable to participate in traffic in a normal way.

I concur. As for our system: I don't think I ever heard of a person getting fined/in jail when they where invovled in an accident with a pedestrian they couldn't have avoided at all (some weirdo crossing the highway at night appearing from behind a bridge support or anything). I'm divided myself: It's good to know that as a pedestrian you won't be screwed if the driver could have been (a bit) careless but it would suck if the driver takes the full blame (and costs) if there would be no way in hell for the driver to avoid the accident and everybody knew the pedestrian is fully to blame.

As for the author: There isn't much information to go on but it doesn't seem as she is to blame. So I doubt you would win such a case. And even then, (atleast overhere) you would probably just end up having to pay any medical costs etc. and not some silly extra money so the family can make a profit on the accident. Correct me if I'm wrong 1choas, you're the "expert" on this. ;) ( which isn't nice though :( ).

LOL the US and their sue'ing system. :lol: :rofl:

You're wrong. Financially speaking, I'm making a profit.

You have to take in account a multitude of things.
1) Severity of the accident, and injuries created by the accident.
2) Lost time due to the accident. (Eg. A years worth of income and/or school)
3) Emotional trauma.
4) Destroyed property. (Eg. Bike, clothes.)

This all can rack up to tens of thousands of dollars/euros, and technically they would be making a profit (mostly from emotional trauma, but destroyed property and lost time stack up nicely too).


Either way, you seriously do not want to be on the receiving end of such a lawsuit if you lose, and you're not insured properly.

oh i see, why did the parents wait for 2 months if they were just going for medical bills? i saw the kid walking around a week later.