who was responsible for the car accident?

Question

i was watching coutr tv adn there was a 7 year old girl that drove here sisters car into the neighbor's house after her sister got out of the car for a second (the girl was n the back seat). why isnt the girl's parents responsible for her actions instead of her sister?

Answer 1

both are actually responsible. the car insurance policy for the sister's car should pay out, but then subrogate against the parents.

Answer 2

It usually falls back on whoever the car was legally registered to, and, if it was the sister, that would explain why she is being held liable for the damages.

Additionally, even if the sister had been driving the parent's car, she could be charged with leaving the 7 year old unattened in the car, yes, even for one minute, and this case is a good example of what can happen in a minute when a child is left in the car unttended.

Answer 3

The parents were NOT in a position to do anything about the incident. They may in fact be held financially responsible for damages, but the sister is the one that left the car unattended with a 7 year old child inside.
If the sister is old enough to drive a vehicle legally, then she is old enough to be cited for the improper operation of the same.

Answer 4

The Girl in question was in charge of the car,
plus the little sisters well being.
by leaving the car unattended she violated the trust ,she accepted as a responsible driver.
The word responsible states,
she will never put the child in danger or cause damage to anything or anyone by doing something stupid.
, It was a stupid move on her part leaving the car running with her sister in it.
accept the fact she must be held to answer for her stupid actions.

Answer 5

The parents are legally responsible until she is 18, and should pay all damages, but the sister had to be a least 16, she should have known better than to leave a 7 year old alone in the car.

Answer 6

Because it was the sister's car, and the fact that she left the child alone in the car without supervision. She was old enough to drive; she was old enough to think about her actions with a 7 year old in the back seat.

Answer 7

First, in maximum circumstances, the officer isn't allowed to assign blame -on the scene of the twist of destiny.- the 2d motor vehicle (driving force) would be to blame for harm to itself and the motor vehicle it rear-ended. the driving force rear-ending is -consistently- the reason of the twist of destiny considering which you're required to maintain a motor vehicle's length distance (assuming all are doing the published velocity shrink) from the motor vehicle in front. My own opinion is that all people fault would be on the 2d driving force. even nevertheless, you will possibly desire to nonetheless brace your self for the opportunity of a few fault, only in case. You have been a rear-ender, too. The coverage organisation will inspect whether you have gotten prevented the twist of destiny after reviewing the police rfile and then be sure whether you will possibly desire to pay for damages to the lower back of the 2d motor vehicle, in basic terms your motor vehicle or in no way.

Answer 8

Because the older sister was supposed to be in control of the vehicle. That's why it's never a good idea to leave a child unaccompanied in a vehicle.

Answer 9

Because her sister committed the crime by leaving an unlicensed minor in the car with the keys. At least that's how it works in WA.

Answer 10

Teenagers should not be able to drive cars are trycyles
they are stupid and can not think right, they yak on the phone they speed like hell the parents should be the ones that go down for this
they let the kid get a licences
teens should not drive cars beware of them