Son broke a neon light, Owner wants $ to replace it

[Silverplum]

And if I recall correctly, the kid-bike case settled. (Go figure).

Poor elderly lady. What a cruddy and unstylish way to go.

 

[Zigner]

Try this one on and see if it sways your opinion at all:

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/general-obligations/GOB03-112_3-112.html

And if I recall correctly, the kid-bike case settled. (Go figure).

THIS kid is -2-

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

THIS kid is -2-

It was the parent that was negligent here.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Try this one on and see if it sways your opinion at all:

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/general-obligations/GOB03-112_3-112.html

And if I recall correctly, the kid-bike case settled. (Go figure).

This seems to address intentional acts, not negligent acts.

for damages caused by such infant, where such infant has willfully, maliciously, or unlawfully damaged, defaced or destroyed such public or private property...with intent to deprive the owner....has knowingly entered or remained in a building and has wrongfully taken...has falsely reported an incident or placed a false bomb

That's a pretty dense statute, so I may have missed something, but so far, it hasn't swayed my opinion.

 

[Zigner]

It was the parent that was negligent here.

I don't see it that way. I believe the negligence falls on the shop owner.

 

[justalayman]

This seems to address intentional acts, not negligent acts.



That's a pretty dense statute, so I may have missed something, but so far, it hasn't swayed my opinion.

even more so:

§ 3-112. Liability of parents and legal guardians having custody of an
infant for certain damages caused by such infant. 1. The parent or
legal guardian, other than the state, a local social services department
or a foster parent, of an infant over ten and less than eighteen years
of age, shall be liable to any public officer, organization or
authority, having by law the care and/or custody of any public property
of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, or t

 

[LdiJ]

I don't see it that way. I believe the negligence falls on the shop owner.

Again, I agree.

 

[disneykid52]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York
I'm glad my son was electrocuted or hurt by glass why would you have seating so close to a sign?
Thanks, Aliusa

Youre GLAD your son was electrocuted? Some parent

 

[You Are Guilty]

This seems to address intentional acts, not negligent acts.

Can't seem to find a publicly available source for this, but check out Steinberg v. Cauchois (249 A.D. 518).

(Incidentally, I'm firmly of the opinion the kid isn't liable; I just like tweaking people).

 

[quincy]

Try this one on and see if it sways your opinion at all:

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/general-obligations/GOB03-112_3-112.html

And if I recall correctly, the kid-bike case settled. (Go figure).

I am curious, YAG. Why does the New York statute use the word "infant" instead of "child," if it covers children between the ages of 10 and 18?

I am not sure I have run across that wording before (but, to be honest, I haven't really checked it out).

 

[TigerD]

I am curious, YAG. Why does the New York statute use the word "infant" instead of "child," if it covers children between the ages of 10 and 18?

I am not sure I have run across that wording before (but, to be honest, I haven't really checked it out).

Missouri does too.
RSMo. 507.115

DC

 

[Zigner]

I am curious, YAG. Why does the New York statute use the word "infant" instead of "child," if it covers children between the ages of 10 and 18?

I am not sure I have run across that wording before (but, to be honest, I haven't really checked it out).

That's the word they use to define the person in that age range.

 

[quincy]

Missouri does too.
RSMo. 507.115

DC

How about that. I find it very odd.

It is hard for me to think of 10 to 18 year olds as infants (although, I suppose, some may act like infants at times).

I wonder what reason is behind that wording.


edit to add: Ha. Thanks, Zig. That sure explains it.

 

[Zigner]

edit to add: Thanks, Zig. That sure explains it.

One is glad to be of service


Seriously though, the state used a word and defined the word in the context they were using it. Sure, it's seems a bit odd to choose that particular word, but I suppose transabelationer was already taken.

 

[quincy]

. . . .transabelationer. . . .

I don't think that's a word.

Although it is better than "infants" to describe 10 to 18 year olds, so it probably should be.