Facts: A 7 y.o. child got hit by a car while running across the road.
Injuries and consequences: Contusion of the shoulder and legs. Five months of therapy. During that period he neither attended sports classes nor his karate lessons. Today he finally feels good.
Defendant’s arguments: The child was without supervision, so if there is anyone to blame, that would be his parents. People of any age must only cross the road at the pedestrians’ crosswork. The violation of traffic rules makes a pedestrian 100% responsible for consequences. Besides that, the child got minor injuries and under the No-fault law, if injuries are not serious, there is no reasons for compensation.
Our arguments: Parents cannot keep the child on a leash. Therefore even if we consider their fault, it would be non-essential and thus negligible. A 7 y.o. child is not able to fully understand the consequences of traffic violations, therefore it is illogical and immoral to blame him for the accident. The violation of traffic rules by one participant does not give the other participant a right to cause an accident. The driver had life experience and a driver’s license. He had to and was able to predict the possibility that a child could run across the road. When a car is moving with a proper speed, the driver, in case of an emergency, is able to slow down the car and avoid a collision. Since the collision occurred, than the car was moving with excessive speed for this section of the road, the driver was inattentive and the collision was entirely his fault. According to the article of the No-fault law, if an injury prevented a person from performing his usual daily activities for 90 days out of the 180 immediately following the accident, it entitles him for a monetary compensation. We insisted that inability to attend school, lack of sports activities and the inability to play with children on a playground falls under this article, and therefore the child must receive a compensation.
Result: Given the insignificance of injuries and the absence of consequences for the child, the parents agreed to $18,000 compensation.
