PDA

View Full Version : 4 year old can be sued


kluang
11-06-2010, 12:12 AM
www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/​29young.html

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, 4, and Jacob Kohn, 5, 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 of unrelated causes.

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.

Mr. Tyrie “correctly notes that infants under the age of 4 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence,” Justice Wooten wrote in his decision, referring to the 1928 case. “Juliet Breitman, however, was over the age of 4 at the time of the subject incident. For infants above the age of 4, there is no bright-line rule.”

The New York Law Journal reported the decision on Thursday.

Mr. Tyrie had also argued that Juliet should not be held liable because her mother was present; Justice Wooten disagreed.

“A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street,” the judge wrote. He added that any “reasonably prudent child,” who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there. The crucial factor is whether the parent encourages the risky behavior; if so, the child should not be held accountable.

In Ms. Menagh’s case, however, there was nothing to indicate that Juliet’s mother “had any active role in the alleged incident, only that the mother was ‘supervising,’ a term that is too vague to hold meaning here,” he wrote. He concluded that there was no evidence of Juliet’s “lack of intelligence or maturity” or anything to “indicate that another child of similar age and capacity under the circumstances could not have reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman.”

Mr. Tyrie, Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn did not respond to messages seeking comment.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: October 30, 2010


An article in some editions on Friday about a lawsuit that claims an elderly woman was severely injured by two children racing their bicycles on a Manhattan sidewalk misstated the timing of the woman’s death. The woman, Claire Menagh, died of unrelated causes three months after she was struck, not three weeks.

An earlier version of this article also misstated Jacob Kohn's age.


Correction: November 4, 2010


An article in some editions on Friday about a lawsuit that claims an elderly woman was severely injured by a girl and a boy riding their bicycles on a Manhattan sidewalk misstated the age of one of them at the time of the accident. The boy was 5 — not 4, which was the age of the girl. A correction in this space on Saturday also misstated the boy’s age.

Ok a 4 year old accidentally hit an 87 year old granny and 3 months later she died of unrelated cause.

And then they sued the kid?

WTF?

Marlboro
11-06-2010, 01:26 AM
www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/​29young.html



Ok a 4 year old accidentally hit an 87 year old granny and 3 months later she died of unrelated cause.

And then they sued the kid?

WTF?
Unless the 4 year old kid was mini-me, I don't see how they could fuckin sue her. I mean even if it was a 5 year old kid, 5 year olds are still unaware of what's right or wrong. The article clearly said that the old women had died of unrelated causes.

KillerNN
11-06-2010, 02:03 AM
Ridiculous.

Marlboro
11-06-2010, 02:47 AM
LOL, this incident reminded me of an episode of The Simpsons where they started enforcing old laws again to put more people in jail. ''It is breaking the law to walk during the day without wearing a hat'' :p

KillerNN
11-06-2010, 03:23 AM
Too early dude.

kluang
11-07-2010, 11:36 PM
reasonably prudent child,” who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous

How can you presume a 5 year old or 4 year old that looks both ways before crossing the street undertsand the danger?

Now the question, do they look both ways because they know the danger or they do it because their parents told them to.

Freshgrease
11-08-2010, 12:13 AM
The person who sued should be countered sued for being fucking retarded. If I can sue a person at the age of 4, I should be able to sue someone for being a complete idiot.

Numinous
11-08-2010, 07:33 AM
Shouldn't be an indicative of the absurdity of this case the fact they had to seek references to a case from the 20's? What's next, a bull getting sued based on the Valois trial of 1314?

Toddlers shouldn't be even near juridical decisions, they still don't grasp the full extent of their actions, and trying to blame them is the same as trying to blame a wall: they won't comprehend and it'll probably hurt more the suers than the sued.

The person who sued should be countered sued for being fucking retarded. If I can sue a person at the age of 4, I should be able to sue someone for being a complete idiot.

QFT. Stupidity of this caliber should be considered a felony by being hazardous to the society.

Mal
11-08-2010, 07:48 AM
The person who sued should be countered sued for being fucking retarded. If I can sue a person at the age of 4, I should be able to sue someone for being a complete idiot.Makes sense, both have an about equal understanding of the world.

kluang
11-08-2010, 08:26 AM
Here's to you Nicola and Bart

Sensei-Q
11-08-2010, 09:14 AM
The person who sued should be countered sued for being fucking retarded. If I can sue a person at the age of 4, I should be able to sue someone for being a complete idiot.

Justice .

stubborn_d0nkey
11-08-2010, 11:28 AM
The person who sued should be countered sued for being fucking retarded. If I can sue a person at the age of 4, I should be able to sue someone for being a complete idiot.

They would never allow that, because courts would be overflowed with such cases.

kluang
11-08-2010, 11:43 AM
They would never allow that, because courts would be overflowed with such cases.

So they allowed a case that sounds like a 4-year-old who doenst understand why they should eat green beans, but they should understand personal liability law?

stubborn_d0nkey
11-08-2010, 02:28 PM
So they allowed a case that sounds like a 4-year-old who doenst understand why they should eat green beans, but they should understand personal liability law?

That is irrelevant to what I said.

Miburo
11-08-2010, 02:51 PM
You can try to sue pretty much anyone for pretty much anything. You just won't win.

kluang
11-08-2010, 11:01 PM
That is irrelevant to what I said.

counter sued idiots wont be allowed but sueing a 4 year old is?

stubborn_d0nkey
11-09-2010, 08:50 AM
counter sued idiots wont be allowed but sueing a 4 year old is?

My post had nothing to do with "understanding" or being ok, or in anyway comparing the two through some sort of magnitude (or similar/whatever) of the act. That is why your post was irrelevant. Reread my post again. If you still dont get it I'll try to explain:
What I meant was that if you could sue somebody (and win, dah) "for being a complete idiot" there would be too many such cases, courts would be overflowed with such cases and a significant percentage of work done by judges, clerks, etc would be only for such cases. The reason judges wouldn't allow a win in such a case is because that would cause the above situation to occur (precedence created), which they obviously wouldn't want.

So your talk about "understanding" is irrelevant, because such cases would be nipped in the bud before it came to that level of consideration.

Understand now?

Sensei-Q
11-09-2010, 01:52 PM
My post had nothing to do with "understanding" or being ok, or in anyway comparing the two through some sort of magnitude (or similar/whatever) of the act. That is why your post was irrelevant. Reread my post again. If you still dont get it I'll try to explain:
What I meant was that if you could sue somebody (and win, dah) "for being a complete idiot" there would be too many such cases, courts would be overflowed with such cases and a significant percentage of work done by judges, clerks, etc would be only for such cases. The reason judges wouldn't allow a win in such a case is because that would cause the above situation to occur (precedence created), which they obviously wouldn't want.

So your talk about "understanding" is irrelevant, because such cases would be nipped in the bud before it came to that level of consideration.

Understand now?

A judge who will do the fucking job. Lawyers will be bathing in money.

ninjalostboy95
11-09-2010, 10:02 PM
SD was saying that if you allowed stupidity to be a felony and you could sue someone for infecting the environment with stupidity, the courts would overflow with such cases due to massive amount of stupid people in the world. -_-

kluang
11-09-2010, 10:09 PM
Oh yeah and sueing a 4 year old wont make it worse?

next we know the neighbour sue a 4 year old for tresspasing his lawn

Mal
11-09-2010, 11:59 PM
SD was saying that if you allowed stupidity to be a felony and you could sue someone for infecting the environment with stupidity, the courts would overflow with such cases due to massive amount of stupid people in the world. -_-So stupidity shouldn't be a felony, but the perfectly normal ignorance of youth must be punished?

LonelyNinja
11-10-2010, 01:27 AM
They would never allow that, because courts would be overflowed with such cases.
California's courts are backlogged for months. Yeah, I think it is allowed to sue for idiocy. Just hardly worth the effort.

stubborn_d0nkey
11-10-2010, 09:32 AM
So stupidity shouldn't be a felony, but the perfectly normal ignorance of youth must be punished?

No, thats not what I'm getting at. In all of my talk about stupidity and it not getting to court I never once brought the four year old issue into it, so please, people, dont do it. I think this case in the OP is ridiculous, and I personally do think stupidity should be a felony (or something along that line), however I dont think judges/law makers would allow that to happen due to the high amount of cases that would arise from it.

kluang
11-10-2010, 11:53 AM
No, thats not what I'm getting at. In all of my talk about stupidity and it not getting to court I never once brought the four year old issue into it, so please, people, dont do it. I think this case in the OP is ridiculous, and I personally do think stupidity should be a felony (or something along that line), however I dont think judges/law makers would allow that to happen due to the high amount of cases that would arise from it.

You know America have more attorneys then cases. This sueing idiots and stupid may help the unemployed attorney and lawyer to have a job

stubborn_d0nkey
11-10-2010, 12:27 PM
You know America have more attorneys then cases. This sueing idiots and stupid may help the unemployed attorney and lawyer to have a job

Its not about the lawyers, its about the judges and their time. And space and shit.

kluang
11-10-2010, 12:32 PM
Its not about the lawyers, its about the judges and their time. And space and shit.

So yoy're saying the judge have time for a possible high amount of cases that would arise from sueing little kids but have no time for sueing idiots who act like children?

stubborn_d0nkey
11-10-2010, 12:41 PM
So yoy're saying the judge have time for a possible high amount of cases that would arise from sueing little kids but have no time for sueing idiots who act like children?

more idiots than children.

Also you have to take into account the likelihood of somebody actually suing (taken into account that there is already a precedence and that they can win) There are not that many people that would sue a child. Also you have to take into account future prevention. If suing children becomes (more) popular then parents would definitely work more to prevent their children from doing something suable. There would then be less events which could be suable.

Idiots remain idiots.

-SassyLady-
11-10-2010, 04:34 PM
Hmm.

My thoughts.

OBJECTION I SAY!

Honestly what would anyway get from sueing a 5 year-old kid?

Some trading cards, a few action figures, and what a teddy bear?

Hm.

ninjalostboy95
11-10-2010, 09:42 PM
So stupidity shouldn't be a felony, but the perfectly normal ignorance of youth must be punished?

I was reiterating Donkey's post. I never said stupidity shouldn't be a felony nor did I suggest anything pertaining to whether the "Perfectly normal ignorance of youth" should be a felony or not. I was stating what would happen if stupidity was a felony, simply saying that the massive amount of stupid people in the world would cause a huge number of the same case(stupidity) to arise and would be too troublesome for the judges which wouldn't allow the law to pass because they're "Working too hard." I was just giving a possible explanation on why stupidity wouldn't be a felony but I wasn't suggesting that it shouldn't be a felony.

kluang
11-11-2010, 04:48 AM
Stupidity is always a capital crime. Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, only by legislation and the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.

ninjalostboy95
11-11-2010, 10:46 AM
Yeah but how do you legalize a limit on stupidity? You can't just say "lyke tis guy iz stoopid" because the plantiff could be stupid in this situation and the defendant could be perfectly just in the situation and was actually right but the stupid guy was too stupid to see how he was wrong and the defendant never counter sued. Wouldn't that be pointless since neither side sued the other? They should make it a felony but in order to make it so it doesn't over~work the judges with such pointless cases, they have to put a limit on how stupid someone can be before they can call it a felony, it can't be vague like that.