Silverplum
Senior Member
Poor elderly lady. What a cruddy and unstylish way to go.And if I recall correctly, the kid-bike case settled. (Go figure).
Poor elderly lady. What a cruddy and unstylish way to go.And if I recall correctly, the kid-bike case settled. (Go figure).
THIS kid is -2-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).
It was the parent that was negligent here.THIS kid is -2-
This seems to address intentional acts, not negligent acts.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).
That's a pretty dense statute, so I may have missed something, but so far, it hasn't swayed my opinion.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
I don't see it that way. I believe the negligence falls on the shop owner.It was the parent that was negligent here.
even more so: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.
§ 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
Again, I agree.I don't see it that way. I believe the negligence falls on the shop owner.
Youre GLAD your son was electrocuted? Some parentWhat 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
Can't seem to find a publicly available source for this, but check out Steinberg v. Cauchois (249 A.D. 518).This seems to address intentional acts, not negligent acts.
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?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).
Missouri does too.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.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).
How about that. I find it very odd.Missouri does too.
RSMo. 507.115
DC
One is glad to be of serviceedit to add: Thanks, Zig. That sure explains it.
I don't think that's a word.. . . .transabelationer. . . .