• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should parents have legal standing and the ability to sue for damages...

Should parents have the ability to sue in the event of an adult child's death?

  • Total voters
    24
Gaius46 said:
Why would the state file a civil case on behalf of a dead guy? If anything the state has even less standing than next of kin.
Click to expand...

Same context as if you don't want to file charges against your husband for beating you. Just its civil, and they can do it. Usually they do it in large cases like the Maddoff type cases were there are many multiple plaintiffs.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Same context as if you don't want to file charges against your husband for beating you. Just its civil, and they can do it. Usually they do it in large cases like the Maddoff type cases were there are many multiple plaintiffs.
Click to expand...


You're probably right but I really can't see that happening for the guy who falls, cracks his head open and dies cause someone refused to get rid of the ice from their driveway.
 
Gaius46 said:
You're probably right but I really can't see that happening for the guy who falls, cracks his head open and dies cause someone refused to get rid of the ice from their driveway.
Click to expand...

It would be a stretch, but it could happen. I think though something would have to be overt and deliberate to start that kind of proceedings past what an insurance policy would cover.
 
radcen said:
Suing presumes there was a tangible loss. If the adult child was independent, and didn't leave kids to be cared for, what is the tangible loss?
Click to expand...

A son dude.
 
Gaius46 said:
You're probably right but I really can't see that happening for the guy who falls, cracks his head open and dies cause someone refused to get rid of the ice from their driveway.
Click to expand...
Couldn't that be covered under negligent manslaughter, or something like that?
 
radcen said:
Couldn't that be covered under negligent manslaughter, or something like that?
Click to expand...

Generally no - at least as I understand it. Involuntary manslaughter usually requires that the act be inherently dangerous - like driving drunk or at excessive speeds. Not removing the ice from your drive probably doesn't cut it. Lots of cities go as far as to make you responsible for shovelling the sidewalk in front of your house even though sidewalks are usually public property. You can be fined for not shovelling the sidewalk and the city usually also makes you civilly liable if
someone falls on snow or ice on the public sidewalk in front of your house. So the guy fell won't sue the city. He'll sue you.
 
If you are objectively harmed by the death of your child, and that death was due to intentional or negligent behavior-yes, you should be able to sue
 
radcen said:
Should parents have legal standing and the ability to sue for damages in the event of a wrongful death of an **adult** child? Key word: "adult", age 18+

I say 'no'. An adult is, or should be considered, a separate entity... emotionally, legally, and otherwise... and should be treated as such. The ties have been broken, and there is no longer a direct connection.

Lone exception: If the parents end up raising the adult child's children, then the parents could sue for the costs of raising said children, but no other damages, emotional, punitive, or otherwise.

Please note that this question is not asking what the current legalities are, but rather what the legalities should be. You can state that you favor the current legalities and that's fine, but simply spouting what the current legalities are will not address the question.
Click to expand...

Its a bit pedantic for a very simple reason, whatever claims belong to a decedent belong to the estate of the decedent and then to the extent that the estate has any monetary value, that value flows to the lawful heirs. Fact is, without a spouse or children, a not uncommon heir are the parents. In rarer circumstances still, there could be no heirs and in theory the estate could escheat to the state itself.
 
TurtleDude said:
If you are objectively harmed by the death of your child, and that death was due to intentional or negligent behavior-yes, you should be able to sue
Click to expand...

Does the objective harm have to be financial or loss of some kind of service - if you're elderly and the child was caring for you for example. Is it the fact that you loved the kid enough?
 
Gaius46 said:
Does the objective harm have to be financial or loss of some kind of service - if you're elderly and the child was caring for you for example. Is it the fact that you loved the kid enough?
Click to expand...

I haven't fully considered all the possibilities
 
TurtleDude said:
If you are objectively harmed by the death of your child, and that death was due to intentional or negligent behavior-yes, you should be able to sue
Click to expand...
Even if you are 80 and your child is 55? At what point does a child separate from their parents?

Does the same standard hold true the other way? Say, if a 55 yr old's 80 yr old parents are taken via intentional or negligent behavior, should the child be able to sue?
 
radcen said:
Even if you are 80 and your child is 55? At what point does a child separate from their parents?

Does the same standard hold true the other way? Say, if a 55 yr old's 80 yr old parents are taken via intentional or negligent behavior, should the child be able to sue?
Click to expand...

Yes, the child should be able to sue if they are the closest next of kin, which they likely would be in that situation.

Plus, how do you know what kind of financial situation either was in? My mother has a notebook where she keeps a total of how much money she feels she owes her children due to borrowing when she was having problems. She then gives us money back when we are having problems now that she is more secure in her finances (most of the time anyway).

Not to mention who are you to say anyone's parent or child or even further out relative doesn't mean as much to them as a spouse does? Some families are closer than others. My family is extremely close to one another and the death of one would greatly affect all of us. When my cousins drowned a few years back, we were all very sad. They were teenagers at the time, but still, I had been there through their mothers' pregnancies, with my cousin being around my age when she had her son and my aunt living with us when she had her son (the two that died). My cousin, one of the boys' mothers, is one of my best friends. There is still an emotional loss there.

That bond between parents and children, for many people, doesn't just go away when you become an adult or reach a certain age. It might change, including for some if not many getting stronger, but it rarely just goes away.
 
I voted limited circumstances.

And:

OP is being completely ridiculous, in keeping with the usual caliber of his posts.

Suppose the parents depended financially on the dead adult child? The parents
should certainly be able to obtain damages from the person who cut off their
means of support by killing him!

Even if the parents were not financially dependent they should be able to make
a wrongful death claim if the decedent had no wife or children, on the principle
that someone who causes a wrongful death should be financially liable for it.

I used to work in the insurance business, and IIRC common law originally provided
no cause of action for wrongful death. IOW you had to pay up if you crippled someone,
but not if you killed them, so... say you are operating a heavy vehicle, and run over
a pedestrian. Well, back up and run over him again to make sure he is dead, and you
are not liable for monetary damages !!!
 
I voted yes always(using assumptions for some exceptions) for the simply fact it helps protects RIGHTS. Family should always be able to sue on the behave of another

and for that matter I think anybody should be able to with a 3rd party agreeing

otherwise in my opinion it could make people vulnerable to rights violations.

it only seems common sense would say people would RISK being much more negligent to a person if there is LESS chance of legal action.

Im sure there are cases where I would say no but those would be the exception not the rule.
 
radcen said:
Even if you are 80 and your child is 55? At what point does a child separate from their parents?

Does the same standard hold true the other way? Say, if a 55 yr old's 80 yr old parents are taken via intentional or negligent behavior, should the child be able to sue?
Click to expand...

The basis isn't separation or not.

The idea is that wrongful death is basically an inheritable tort, whereas most torts are extinguished with the death of the victim. I don't particularly agree with the idea, but let's not mischaracterize it.
 
USViking said:
I used to work in the insurance business, and IIRC common law originally provided
no cause of action for wrongful death. IOW you had to pay up if you crippled someone,
but not if you killed them, so... say you are operating a heavy vehicle, and run over
a pedestrian. Well, back up and run over him again to make sure he is dead, and you
are not liable for monetary damages !!!
Click to expand...

The penalty at common law for killing someone in the manner you describe was much worse than monetary damages.
 
Paleocon said:
The penalty at common law for killing someone in the manner you describe was much worse than monetary damages.
Click to expand...
Only if someone sees you do it, and either way you would not be financially liable for any civil claims absent a wrongful death statute.
 
USViking said:
Only if someone sees you do it, and either way you would not be financially liable for any civil claims absent a wrongful death statute.
Click to expand...

And you shouldn't be, since the victim cannot be compensated.
 
Paleocon said:
And you shouldn't be, since the victim cannot be compensated.
Click to expand...
Any family member may be presumed to be a victim due to the loss of a loved one,
and any person who loses a means of financial support is also a victim. If you can't
go along with something that basic then there is something wrong with you, and I
do not wish to discuss it further.
 
USViking said:
Any family member may be presumed to be a victim due to the loss of a loved one,
and any person who loses a means of financial support is also a victim. If you can't
go along with something that basic then there is something wrong with you, and I
do not wish to discuss it further.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom