From: INVALID_SEE_SIG@example.com.invalid   
      
   In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
   > >Don't know what remedies for this sort of thing are like in France,   
   > >but in the US, if I'm on the jury, I'm just adding a zero to   
   > >whatever the plaintiff is demanding. (That's in a suit against the   
   > >hospital, obviously. Against the parents of the kids ... well,   
   > >maybe that, too. But the main malfeasor is the hospital.)   
   >   
   > How exactly does that work?   
      
   In the U.S.? The tort claim against the parents is negligent   
   supervision -- if parents don't control a child and the child causes   
   mayhem, the parents are on the hook. In any U.S. jurisdiction I've   
   studied, this applies only to younger children who are obviously   
   supervisable and in need of supervision. It's not related to that   
   silly trend where the state tries to hold parents accountable   
   criminally if their 17-year-old sneaks out in the night and does   
   something stupid.   
      
   Against the hospital, there are a number of claims, but it boils down   
   to either negligence or even abandonment of their responsibility. If   
   this child was running wild over the course of multiple days and the   
   hospital did nothing about it, that's pretty damning. A maternity ward   
   has a pretty clear duty to protect the babies in its charge.   
      
   > Take the other thread in which the boy died accidentally by crashibg   
   > his e-bike. Now, clearly the parents might have been partially at   
   > fault, not teaching the boy the responsibility of operating a   
   > motorized vehicle.   
   >   
   > But the parents are suing the homeowner who erected the wire the boy   
   > got caught on, a wire that was not blocking the pavement. And they   
   > are doing it selflessly so no one else ever again erects a hazard in   
   > a place that one is not allowed to drive.   
      
   It's a little more complicated than "You aren't allowed to drive here,   
   so I can set a trap to kill or maim anyone who tries." That's not   
   actually a thing that's allowed, legally, in the U.S. (or probably   
   anywhere).   
      
   > The boy's estate has a claim against the parents. How do the   
   > parents, in turn, get to represent and benefit from the estate,   
   > should it prevail in court? Why the hell should they receive any   
   > monies, or should what they receive be substantially reduced by the   
   > part of the injury that's their failure?   
      
   Their claim is presumably wrongful death. Maybe it's colorable, maybe   
   it's not. But controlling a wild toddler is orders of magnitude   
   removed from controlling an older kid on a motorized bicycle. I doubt   
   the notion that the parents failed to teach responsible cycling is   
   going to gain any traction in an actual court.   
   --   
     _+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am   
   _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also   
   \      /  baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer   
   ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)