4 year old can be sued

kluang · 11-06-2010, 12:12 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/ny...3;29young.html

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by kluang

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/ny...3;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''

KillerNN · 11-06-2010, 03:23 AM

Too early dude.

kluang · 11-07-2010, 11:36 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freshgrease

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freshgrease

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freshgrease

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by stubborn_d0nkey

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by kluang

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.

11-06-2010, 02:03 AM	#3
KillerNN Λυρικής Σκέψεις Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Vagabond Posts: 2,097 Thanks: 3,614 Thanked 4,322 Times in 1,976 Posts	Re: 4 year old can be sued Ridiculous. __________________ The Cap'n

11-06-2010, 02:47 AM	#4
Marlboro Drop The World <3 Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: N/A Age: 22 Posts: 1,207 Thanks: 2,799 Thanked 1,121 Times in 669 Posts	Re: 4 year old can be sued 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'' __________________ I am the stone that the builder refused I am the visual, the inspiration That makes ladies sing the blues

11-06-2010, 03:23 AM	#5
KillerNN Λυρικής Σκέψεις Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Vagabond Posts: 2,097 Thanks: 3,614 Thanked 4,322 Times in 1,976 Posts	Re: 4 year old can be sued Too early dude. __________________ The Cap'n

11-08-2010, 12:13 AM	#7
Freshgrease ▂▅▇█▓▒░◕‿‿◕░▒▓█▇▅▂ Join Date: Feb 2005 Age: 25 Posts: 4,112 Thanks: 1,489 Thanked 1,005 Times in 546 Posts	Re: 4 year old can be 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. __________________

11-08-2010, 08:26 AM	#10
kluang One Punch Man Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 6,420 Thanks: 3,186 Thanked 4,668 Times in 2,102 Posts	Re: 4 year old can be sued Here's to you Nicola and Bart __________________ To err is human, to forgive, divine. Humans aren't machines... they have souls, feelings. They live, they die, they love, they hate... And yes, they even make mistakes..... When kluang finds you creepy and wrong then you are beyond horrible. He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you. Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Being Malaysian is about driving in a German car to an Indian restaurant for an Indonesian food, then travelling home, grabbing a Pakistani kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV. Because we have no originality.

11-08-2010, 02:51 PM	#15
Miburo Deos Fortioribus Adesse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Valhalla Posts: 3,543 Thanks: 34,417 Thanked 17,643 Times in 5,442 Posts	Re: 4 year old can be sued You can try to sue pretty much anyone for pretty much anything. You just won't win.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Should school require PE for more then one year?	Darkshy	Debates Section	30	11-29-2009 01:46 PM
13 Year Old Steals Dad's Credit Card to Buy Hookers	OffTheChain	World News	45	06-27-2008 06:13 AM
Favorite Bret Hart Quote	Nexus	Spam Zone	15	03-17-2008 05:04 PM
Happy new year!!!!	miho_san	Chit Chat	49	01-01-2007 03:38 AM
Funniest Instant Messenger Convo?	typhoon_4434	Chit Chat	34	08-10-2006 01:10 AM