NOW THIS Just makes me SICK! 4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case

[SunsetDreams]

What the hell is the world coming to? Has this judge lost his mind?

4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case
By ALAN FEUER
Published: October 28, 2010

Citing cases dating back as far as 1928, a judge has ruled that a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence.
The ruling by the judge, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, did not find that the girl was liable, but merely permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward.

The suit that Justice Wooten allowed to proceed claims that in April 2009, Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, who were both 4, were racing their bicycles, under the supervision of their mothers, Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, on the sidewalk of a building on East 52nd Street. At some point in the race, they struck an 87-year-old woman named Claire Menagh, who was walking in front of the building and, according to the complaint, was “seriously and severely injured,” suffering a hip fracture that required surgery. She died three months later.

Her estate sued the children and their mothers, claiming they had acted negligently during the accident. In a response, Juliet’s lawyer, James P. Tyrie, argued that the girl was not “engaged in an adult activity” at the time of the accident — “She was riding her bicycle with training wheels under the supervision of her mother” — and was too young to be held liable for negligence.

In legal papers, Mr. Tyrie added, “Courts have held that an infant under the age of 4 is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence.” (Rachel and Jacob Kohn did not seek to dismiss the case against them.) But Justice Wooten declined to stretch that rule to children over 4. On Oct. 1, he rejected a motion to dismiss the case because of Juliet’s age, noting that she was three months shy of turning 5 when Ms. Menagh was struck, and thus old enough to be sued.

More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=1&no_interstitial

I could maybe wrap my head around reasoning for her parent who was there, but the child? WHAT THE HELL?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Is the "Onion" allowed in GD?

[SunsetDreams]

2. I wish it was the Onion! oh if only!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Mom always says: "...don't play ball in the house!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn8VnHHT6pQ

[BurtWorm]

3. 'Your honor, I will not rest until my client gets the bag of purple Dum Dums she so richly deserves.

[LisaM]

4. It looks as if they are just finding a way to move the suit forward

they were attempting to get it dismissed.

[HuckleB]

11. The only reason they had a chance to get it dismissed...

is because they estate chose to sue the kids as well as the parents. There seems no reason for them to sue the kids, however.

[LisaM]

13. They shouldn't sue the kids....BUT - a four year old should know better

I've worked with kids. Four year olds are not really capable of making their own decisions, but they are old enough (especially if they are almost five) to know not to race down a sidewalk where an elderly person is walking.

A woman died. When you're 87, any kind of fall can lead to a cascading series of medical events that are life threatening. What do you suggest?

[HuckleB]

15. I'd suggest they sue the parents.

Kids "should" know better, but they are also very impulsive at that age, among other developmental pieces that make it ludicrous to sue one. Further, no one knows if the kids saw the woman or when they saw her.

Further, there is clearly no reason to sue the kids. In fact, if the kid had been 3 years and 11 months old at the time, the judge would have dismissed it. Or so the story says.

"In legal papers, Mr. Tyrie added, “Courts have held that an infant under the age of 4 is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence.” (Rachel and Jacob Kohn did not seek to dismiss the case against them.)

But Justice Wooten declined to stretch that rule to children over 4. On Oct. 1, he rejected a motion to dismiss the case because of Juliet’s age, noting that she was three months shy of turning 5 when Ms. Menagh was struck, and thus old enough to be sued."

Unless, we're in a strange situation where a parent cannot be held liable for negligent supervision of a child under four, then there appears to be no good reason to sue the kids.

[LisaM]

18. They seem to have been trying to sue both - the kids are just named in the lawsuit.

I don't think the article describes it very well. It's probably some legal technicality that is pushing this - but of course "FOUR YEAR OLD GETS SUED" is such an easy headline.

[HuckleB]

20. If such a legal technicality exists, then there would be no suit if the kid had been under four.

I don't see how that would be possible. If it is, it seems like our legal system has a very large loophole.

[LisaM]

22. He was citing a precedent

as I've said, I don't think this article is really telling the whole story, just going for the sensational headline. It sounds as if the mothers were not paying attention.

[HuckleB]

23. Yes, and the precedent tells the story here.

It shows that there is no reason to sue the kids. If parents can be sued for the actions of kids under four without a lawsuit against the kids, then parents can be sued for the actions of kids older than four without a lawsuit against the kids. There is no need to sue the kids.

[apocalypsehow]

24. Oh, brother. I knew the second I saw the OP there was going to be at least one such offering.

:eyes:

[walldude]

5. You know what, this sucks and it's a horrible accident

but "her estate" sued? So this is about nothing but money. Oh and lets drag it out long enough so this poor kid never escapes the memory of accidentally killing a senior citizen. If the "estate" is really concerned about anything other than money it should drop the suit. It was an accident and the kid is going to be haunted by it for the rest of her life.

[Lance_Boyle]

9. Maybe, just maybe, the negligent parent of the toddler who killed a lady should pay

for that negligence. If collecting on that requires that a 4-year-old be named in the suit, so be it. It's not like anyone's going to collect anything from the toddler. But the negligent parent probably ought to be on the hook for something. Their precious angel killed an old lady, after all. On their watch.

[HuckleB]

12. Nothing is indicated that it's required to sue the 4-year-old.

In fact, the fact that they chose to sue the kids, in addition to the parents, is what made the appeal for dismissal possible.

From the article:

"In legal papers, Mr. Tyrie added, “Courts have held that an infant under the age of 4 is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence.” (Rachel and Jacob Kohn did not seek to dismiss the case against them.)

But Justice Wooten declined to stretch that rule to children over 4. On Oct. 1, he rejected a motion to dismiss the case because of Juliet’s age, noting that she was three months shy of turning 5 when Ms. Menagh was struck, and thus old enough to be sued."

Now, I'm guessing that parents of kids under four can be sued for things their kids did while the parents were negligent in oversight. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that would be a bit shocking.

[HuckleB]

19. dupe

[blondeatlast]

6. Fast track appeal for the kiddo--ever read an overturned verdict when the appeals court

thinks the judge is an ass?

They're quite entertaining; ooooh, yes! It's amazing how amazingly cutting politel legalese can be :rofl:

[Deep13]

7. Don't forget, it is the parents' homeowner's insurance that is on the hook. nt

[ileus]

10. Bikes kill people....

[T Wolf]

14. As someone whose father died as a result of complications from a fall, I find it disgusting that so

many here are taking the view that because the kids were young, there should be no consequences.

Whether it is the children or their families that are made to pay, there was a willful disregard for others safety that led to this death.

Please do not tell me that DUers have bought in to the repuke idea of no consequences for behavior.

[HuckleB]

16. Who is taking the view that there should be no consequences?

:shrug:

[Suich]

17. I'm with you, T Wolf!

I'm sorry about your Dad.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians, not bicycles.

[SunsetDreams]

21. For the record, My OP didn't imply that there should be no consequences

My sympathies to you for the loss of your dad :hug:

The issue I take is suing the 4 year olds. As I said in the OP, I can wrap my head around the parent, just not the child.

The child couldn't have possibly known the consequences of her actions.

Yes the parent should be sued, a poor defenseless lady died, but leave the child out of it.

[ZombieHorde]

26. What do you think the parents should have done differently?

How many options does the parent have in that situation?

Yell, "Be careful!"

Forbid their children from public bike use?

Parents allow their kids to ride their bikes on the sidewalks in my neighborhood all the time, weather permitting. What should their punishment be?

[ZombieHorde]

25. My stepfather died from a fall, but I don't think this 4 year old should have any legal

consequences.

Please do not tell me that DUers have bought in to the repuke idea of no consequences for behavior.

That is not a Republican idea, they just have a different idea of which actions should have legal consequences and/or what those consequences should be.


edit to add: What specific punishments would you like to see happen to these people?

[notesdev]

27. Maybe she can register the child as a bank holding company

Then the kid could go around murdering people and stay liability-free!