8 year bike rider accident with truck- who's liable?

I read the earlier posts regarding an eight year old bicyclist and a
car colliding in Florida. How about this one. The 8 year old was
riding a 3 year old siblings bike, and went up into a neighbor's
driveway to go around a backing up truck. The driver could not see the
bicyclist and the child fell off the bike and driver ran over child.
The spouse saw it as it was happening, and got the driver to stop and
go forward, so only one tire hit the child. The bycyclist apologized
afterwards, but then due to head injuries, child no longer remembers.
The driver was not ticketed and police told the driver there was no way
the driver could have seen the bicyclist ( by the way- who was NOT
wearing a helmet- which is Florida law ). The babysitters were drug
users, drug dealers, alcoholics- and their own children have been seen
playing with knives and bow and arrows outside, unwatched. Now the
driver and spouse are being sued for negligence. Who's negligent here?
They have been told that even though they were not negligent, they
don't stand much of a chance because it's a child involved. Granted,
the child was only eight, but an intelligent child who made a bad
judgment call- but why are the driver and spouse negligent when there
was no way to have seen the child? What about the babysitters? The
parents? If the child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been
less severe.

Simple: If you can't see where you're driving, then don't drive there. The
driver is supposed to be sure the way is clear before proceeding. The
driver is at fault.

Whether or not the kid had a helmet on has NOTHING to do with anything,
neither does the other stuff you mention.

wrote:
:: I read the earlier posts regarding an eight year old bicyclist and a
:: car colliding in Florida. How about this one. The 8 year old was
:: riding a 3 year old siblings bike, and went up into a neighbor's
:: driveway to go around a backing up truck. The driver could not see
:: the bicyclist and the child fell off the bike and driver ran over
:: child. The spouse saw it as it was happening, and got the driver to
:: stop and go forward, so only one tire hit the child. The bycyclist
:: apologized afterwards, but then due to head injuries, child no
:: longer remembers. The driver was not ticketed and police told the
:: driver there was no way the driver could have seen the bicyclist (
:: by the way- who was NOT wearing a helmet- which is Florida law ).
:: The babysitters were drug users, drug dealers, alcoholics- and their
:: own children have been seen playing with knives and bow and arrows
:: outside, unwatched. Now the driver and spouse are being sued for
:: negligence. Who's negligent here? They have been told that even
:: though they were not negligent, they don't stand much of a chance
:: because it's a child involved. Granted, the child was only eight,
:: but an intelligent child who made a bad judgment call- but why are
:: the driver and spouse negligent when there was no way to have seen
:: the child? What about the babysitters? The parents? If the
:: child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been less severe.

The driver could see the driveway where he/she was backing up, the
driver just couldn't see a child on a little bike go up the side of
driver's driveway and behind. You can only do so much with mirrors and
trust others to know the difference. A truck is running, a truck is
backing up... hmmm.. maybe I should wait on the sidewalk for driver to
get past the sidewalk, or just go somewhere else. Helmet does matter-
it's Florida law- it's purpose is to protect your head incase of an
accident!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What are you a lawyer? You sound like you know everything. You make
it sound so simple-

Roger Zoul wrote:
Simple: If you can't see where you're driving, then don't drive there. The
driver is supposed to be sure the way is clear before proceeding. The
driver is at fault.

Whether or not the kid had a helmet on has NOTHING to do with anything,
neither does the other stuff you mention.

Florida law states that children have to wear a helmet- this was passed
to prevent injury to the head if they fall, or are in an accident. How
can that not be important??? And by the way, it was clear before they
backed up, the child came around AS they were backing up. The police
said there was no way they could have seen her, but I guess you know
better than the police who were there at the time.

Roger Zoul wrote:
Simple: If you can't see where you're driving, then don't drive there. The
driver is supposed to be sure the way is clear before proceeding. The
driver is at fault.

Whether or not the kid had a helmet on has NOTHING to do with anything,
neither does the other stuff you mention.

:: child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been less severe.

wrote:
:: Florida law states that children have to wear a helmet- this was
:: passed to prevent injury to the head if they fall, or are in an
:: accident. How can that not be important??? And by the way, it was
:: clear before they backed up, the child came around AS they were
:: backing up. The police said there was no way they could have seen
:: her, but I guess you know better than the police who were there at
:: the time.
::

A helmet has nothing to do with fault. A helmet isn't a guarantee for
anything.

Were the police there when this happened? Were you there? If so, why didn't
they or you get the child out of the way? The police aren't lawyers either.
if the driver got in the car, he/she should have noticed if someone could
*potentially* get in they way of backing up and taken that into account
before backing up. One has the responsibility of being sure of conditions
before moving the car. Sorry, but that they way it is and should be.
Someone moving from a stopped position has the best chance of avoiding an
accident.

You sound as if you're the one who ran over this child. Are you?


:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Simple: If you can't see where you're driving, then don't drive
::: there. The driver is supposed to be sure the way is clear before
::: proceeding. The driver is at fault.
:::
::: Whether or not the kid had a helmet on has NOTHING to do with
::: anything, neither does the other stuff you mention.
:::
:::::: child had a helmet on, the injuries would have been less severe.

I see. You did run over this poor innocent child, didn't you?

wrote:
:: The driver could see the driveway where he/she was backing up, the
:: driver just couldn't see a child on a little bike go up the side of
:: driver's driveway and behind. You can only do so much with mirrors
:: and trust others to know the difference. A truck is running, a
:: truck is backing up... hmmm.. maybe I should wait on the sidewalk
:: for driver to get past the sidewalk, or just go somewhere else.
:: Helmet does matter- it's Florida law- it's purpose is to protect
:: your head incase of an
::
accident!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:: What are you a lawyer? You sound like you know everything. You
:: make it sound so simple-
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Simple: If you can't see where you're driving, then don't drive
::: there. The driver is supposed to be sure the way is clear before
::: proceeding. The driver is at fault.
:::
::: Whether or not the kid had a helmet on has NOTHING to do with
::: anything, neither does the other stuff you mention.

Get off the soapbox!! Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me
the driver! I feel very bad for all the parties involved, but as a
driver, and knowing there are circumstances out there that are
unavoidable... I was interested in how other people saw this situation.
You need to take a pill! According to what you are saying, then
nobody should drive anywhere because there are possibilities
everywhere! Not very realistic.

wrote:
:: Get off the soapbox!! Just because I disagree with you doesn't make
:: me the driver! I feel very bad for all the parties involved, but as
:: a driver, and knowing there are circumstances out there that are
:: unavoidable... I was interested in how other people saw this
:: situation. You need to take a pill! According to what you are
:: saying, then nobody should drive anywhere because there are
:: possibilities everywhere! Not very realistic.

According to your logic, a driver is never at fault. he/she can always say
I didn't see XX in any situation.

You get off the soapbox. I told you my thoughts and you starting saying
stuff like "are you a lawyer", "you sound as if you know everything," etc.

If you drive a car, you must accept a lot of responsibility for doing so.
One is making sure you don't run down kids who may be playing near your car.
A driver as a responsiblity to make his/her self aware of the surroundings.
Your comments simply help to allow drivers to get away with being
irresponsible mindless morons with cell phones and big macs.

Shouldn't people in Florida honk the horn when they back up especially when
you cannot see what is behind you. The eight year old would have known then
what to do. Otherwise she does not have a chance in hell.

Maybe that's a idea, hit your horn. Maybe all new vehicles should be
required to have that back up (beeping ) indicator that some commercial
vehicles have. I would think an eight year old would be old enough to
realize that they couldn't ride behind a moving vehicle.

nash wrote:
Shouldn't people in Florida honk the horn when they back up especially when
you cannot see what is behind you. The eight year old would have known then
what to do. Otherwise she does not have a chance in hell.