Re: Pushing negligence a bit?

["Joel R. Helgeson" <joel () helgeson com>]

On First read of the subject line I thought it was some new IETF proposal
pushing for a Negligence Bit... ?
Huh? How does THAT work?

-----Original Message-----
From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org] On
Behalf Of Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:08 PM
To: rMslade () shaw ca
Cc: funsec () linuxbox org; cisspforum2 () yahoogroups com
Subject: Re: [funsec] Pushing negligence a bit?

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:46:23 -0800, "Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon &
Hannah" said:
> A New York court has held that a four-year-old can be sued for 
> negligence causing death.

Note that what the court actually ruled was:

1) The case isn't being tossed out because the person is trying to sue a ham
sandwich - those are usually indictable, but not suable. ;)

2) The question to be decided is "Can a 4 year old understand the concept
'Running into people with your bike is a Bad Thing'"?  And it's not totally
obvious on the face of it that a 4 year old *can't* understand that.

The part I'm trying to figure out is why they're naming the 4 year old as
one of the defendants - the kid is probably pretty judgement-proof at that
age, with usually no assets and not even a *prospect* of assets till they're
old enough to get a job.  There's obviously more to it than the news has
reported so far.


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.