Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
“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.
CaféAuLait;2908313 said:4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case
She was racing another 4 year old on her bike...
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.
A parents 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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=1
She was FOUR freaking years old. WTF is going on in America?
According to the National Highway Traffic Safe Administration (NHTSA) children, even in the same grade, vary in their readiness to handle traffic situations, such as choosing a safe time to cross a street. In general, children are not ready to cross a street alone until age 10.* Ideally parents are a central figure in their children's safety education. Parents have the best opportunities to effectively assess their individual child's skills and teach safe behavior in the course of daily life so they should be encouraged to participate in their child's safety education. It is also important to emphasize to children that they need to check with their parents before walking or bicycling alone. Children may believe that because they have been taught how to cross a street, for example, that they are ready to do so on their own.
when i was 5, i hit a softball through someone's window....broke it. my mom went to the owner of the house with me, and apologized for what i did and offered to pay for the new window to replace the one i damaged, even though it was an accident, on my part....and even though we were poor and mom had to make arrangements with this neighbor to make weekly installments till it was paid. My quarter a week allowance was taken away from me for a while as well....
i am not certain if my situation relates, or not....but this story brought it to mind....more how things have changed....back then, we faced who we wronged, and offered our own restitution without ''the courts''...
i also learned to be more careful...
I can understand allowing the suit to go forward, but why would anyone want to sue a four year old? They have no money. How many juries are going to be like "She would have known better." It's a 4 year old.
I've heard that it's actually this woman's estate that is suing the kid. Apparently she died at a later point of time for something unrelated. At least if I heard correctly.
So stupid.
yup this is america where you sue anyone of any age.
Seriously common sense is no more in this country.
From the OPs link:
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 of unrelated causes.
Yes, suing isnt out of the question.
Unlike in criminal law, neither insanity nor infancy are defenses for intentional torts. However, intent is subjective and requires that the defendant actually desires or be substantially certain the elements of the tort will occur. Consequently, if the defendant is extremely mentally impaired or very young, she may not actually possess the requisite intent.
For example, if A, a one-year-old, pulls the trigger of a gun, she may intend to pull the trigger, but not intend a battery and for that reason not be liable. The child or the insane person need not, however, appreciate the significance or wrongness of their act. If a child knows an adult will fall when he pulls a chair from under her, he intends wrongful contact and consequently a battery, without the need to prove the child intended serious harm.
From a moral perspective, it would appear questionable to impose liability on individuals too immature or mentally impaired to know right from wrong. On the other hand, the law of torts is not criminal law and does not condemn, but only shifts the economic burdens of loss. Should the victim bear the loss when the insane or juvenile defendant has assets to pay for the loss inflicted by their conduct? From an accident avoidance perspective, one can argue that liability encourages those responsible for preserving the insane or juvenile’s assets to control the risks presented by such defendants. Such arguments, however, ignore the proposition that the guardians themselves may, in many instances, be personally liable for their negligent failure to adequately supervise juveniles or the insane.
Coleman v. Notre Dame Convalescent Home, 968 F. Supp. 809 (Conn.
1997) (patient suffering from senile dementia could be held liable for battery); McGuire
v. Almy, 8 N.E.2d 760 (Mass. 1937) (insane person intended harmful contact); Cornell v. Cornell, 42 B.R. 860 (1984) (bankruptcy court holds seven year-old capable of forming intent for arson).
Every law student in America knows the case of the little five year old who mischeiviously pulled away a lawn chair as an adult was sitting, causing the adult to be injured. The child was liable because the court found he had the capacity to form the requisite intent...he did deliberately pull away the chair and he did know the adult would fall as a result. The child did not intend the adult to be injured, but even in an adult defendant that would not matter. The act was wrongful and deliberate, and the defendant takes the consequences.
Every law student in America knows the case of the little five year old who mischeiviously pulled away a lawn chair as an adult was sitting, causing the adult to be injured. The child was liable because the court found he had the capacity to form the requisite intent...he did deliberately pull away the chair and he did know the adult would fall as a result. The child did not intend the adult to be injured, but even in an adult defendant that would not matter. The act was wrongful and deliberate, and the defendant takes the consequences.
Know why that kid pulled the chair out? Because they were five! For crying out loud, accidents happen and some people automatically think 'LAWSUIT!!'. Ridiculous.
The four year old was riding her bike and the woman stepped out in front of her . . . and yet it's the kid's fault? Please. Besides the woman was 87, I'm sure medicare took care of everything!
Every law student in America knows the case of the little five year old who mischeiviously pulled away a lawn chair as an adult was sitting, causing the adult to be injured. The child was liable because the court found he had the capacity to form the requisite intent...he did deliberately pull away the chair and he did know the adult would fall as a result. The child did not intend the adult to be injured, but even in an adult defendant that would not matter. The act was wrongful and deliberate, and the defendant takes the consequences.
Know why that kid pulled the chair out? Because they were five! For crying out loud, accidents happen and some people automatically think 'LAWSUIT!!'. Ridiculous.
The four year old was riding her bike and the woman stepped out in front of her . . . and yet it's the kid's fault? Please. Besides the woman was 87, I'm sure medicare took care of everything!
Playing Devil's advocate:
my mother is an 87 year old, still living alone and still getting around in the city on her own....going to her Doctor's appointments, going to the grocer, with no need for any assistance walking.
Some mother, has her child out on the sidewalk, (NOTE! that it is a sideWALK in the middle of the busy CITY), riding her bike with another little child riding his bike, and his mom supposedly overlooking and supervising, as well....and these 2 children zoom in to my mom, enough to knock her down, and break her hip.....she is hospitalized, has surgery and is now BED RIDDEN for the rest of her life, she dies 3 months later, of supposedly unrelated causes.
The last 3 months of my mom's life that i had to spend with her, were not spent in joy...getting around town with one another, but dealing with a crippled and handicapped mother.
Medicare pays for 80% of the cost of surgery and the hospitalization, and doctor's and medication fees, but the remaining 20% has to be paid by my mother.
Shouldn't the parents of these children have AT LEAST offered to pay the 20% for this elderly woman's medical bills, since their supposedly supervised children, riding bikes haphazardly on a sideWALK, meant for WALKERS, CAUSED the harm and injuries to my mother?
The lawsuit is against the PARENTS and these children, WHICH I am against putting the children in this suit, BUT there is plenty of REASONS for the Parents of these children to be held accountable for what their children DID, whether an accident or intentional.....as my parents took the responsibility for me, breaking the neighbor's front window with the ball i hit through it?
