Post by
Alfador »
https://forums.nicoclub.com/alfador-u28926.html
Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:02 pm
Again with the straw man stuff... I never actually said it was illegal in new york. I in fact, looked up the law, and while not expressly illegal to have a child on the sidewalk in such a case (assuming the bikes they were riding fit the solid-tire category (I'm assuming it does), the fact that normal bicycles are prohibited from sidewalks does go to serve the general acceptance and understanding of bicycles and similar vehicles being hazardous in that situation. Now to b e a completely nitpicky d!ck, I will point out the family's lawyer's own words, “She was riding her bicycle with training wheels under the supervision of her mother.” That description to me at least, implies that this type of bike she was riding is in fact banned under that code of law from being on the sidewalk. It may not be the case, but it seems that this was a regular bike, with training wheels, and not the kind of "solid wheeled" toy bike that the law makes an exception for.
I also never said that hitting someone in a crosswalk makes you automatically liable, so please, enough with these unfounded assumptions about what I did indeed say. I could have been a little more specific, but I figured common sense would prevail. My mistake. I was specifically speaking to the assertion you made that somehow because a fit person could get out of age puts the liability on them to do so. It doesn't. There is not a single state in the country that puts that burden on someone. If someone traverses a sidewalk that was clear when they began, they are entitled to expect, quite reasonably, that it will be free of such hazards. Just as if you were to step out into a crosswalk, knowing that the road was clear when stepping out, you have a reasonable amount of time to get to the other side. I'm not talking about jumping out into traffic here. Don't forget that New York is one of many cities in which people have been held fully responsible for slips and falls on the sidewalks in front of their homes/businesses for not clearing ice and snow from them.
New York does not expressly recognize negligence in parental decisions, but it does not disallow it either. On this point, I agree though, that given the child's extremely young age, it is hard to pin the blame on the actual child. The judge wouldn't stretch the statute to give her carte-blanche immunity to negligence, as he probably shouldn't have, but he pretty much left the door open, quite intentionally, for the jury or civil court judge who renders the verdict to make that assessment. Hell, the whole case, should it not settle and come to that, will probably stipulate to the incident and just argue that point.
From a moral standpoint though, I really do hope that they get hit for a judgment here, because I am generally quite intolerant to such irresponsible decision making, be it in regards to child care or anything else. People unable to foresee such basic and avoidable consequences of their choices and actions just irritate the hell out of me.
Wear a condom - PLEASE.
) But quick enough to startle 90 year old into tripping over something.
