4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case

[Ozmar]

If the woman was just standing or walking down the sidewalk and the kid knocked her over, the parents should pay the remaining 20% of the bill. But if the woman was entering onto the sidewalk she is also responsible for what happened because she failed to look first.

Kids do not always listen to their parents, even if said parent is screaming like a lunatic telling the kid to stop. Kids are not dogs that stop when commanded.



Do you know if they weren't actually supervising their kid (talking on a phone for example) or if they were supervising them and the kid ignored or didn't hear them?

zoom, EVEN IF the children ignored their parents, the parents are responsible for the children's actions....are you saying they are not?

I don't understand why you think, that the parents are not responsible for the damage their children may cause? Even if the parents yelled at the kids to stop or be careful not to hit the old woman walking on the sidewalk, if the children hit the woman on the sidewalk and she fell, breaking her hip, the parents are held accountable financially, as they SHOULD BE. this is responsibility for their own children and is fair and just....

I don't buy in to it being the old lady's fault for walking out the front door of her high rise on to the sidewalk, if it happened that way....which it didn't or it would have been in the story.... the old woman is the victim, not the person you should be blaming. And as said even if the parents tried to control their children and the children did not listen to them, the parents are STILL financially responsible for their own children's wrong actions.

Care, did you NOT see the first sentence in my post above???

IF the woman was walking onto a busy sidewalk and did not look both ways before entering, she is also responsible for the accident. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

As to my question to p kirkes, it was just a question. I find it off-putting when folks assume that kids can be 'controlled' and never do kid things . . . like take off on a bike down a sidewalk, even if they've been told not to do that.

If I walk out on a busy sidewalk and get shot, is it my fault for not looking to make sure there wasn't a bullet traveling down the sidewalk?
One of those scooters that goes 50 miles an hour max-speed? Rollerbladers?

Someone riding a bike on an area clearly designated for walking. Bikes are considered road-vehicles. It's up to police discretion whether to ticket someone for having them on the sidewalk. In this case, as guardian, it was the mother's responsibility for the kid on that bike, and not the responsibility of granny to be 100% alert and dodge little uncontrollable brats.

 

[Ozmar]

Not sure what to make of this? What happened to the commonsense idea that sometimes accidents happen and they don't require litigation dragging a four old into a system even adults find confusing and often unnecessary - proving once again stuff happens and life is often unpredictable.

There are different types of accidents. There are accidents where no one is at fault, and there are accidents where someone is at fault (negligent). Think about car accidents where someone's tire blows out: Did that person fail to change their balding tire, or did they run over a nail on a plank? Big difference.

I remember my NY grandmother, who stood all of four feet five, chasing a man down the street with a broom over a brother's bicycle mishap. Mom tries to explain, he didn't listen and grandma said enough is enough, cursing in a manner unmatched she went after him, he quickly shut up and ran. lol How weird America has changed.

Indeed.

 

[Sarah G]

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 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.

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

She was FOUR freaking years old. WTF is going on in America?

The woman was 87 and suffered serious injuries like a hip fracture.

You've gotta watch your kids. Sheesh, the woman has died of unrelated causes. How sad.

 

[Sunshine]

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 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.

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

She was FOUR freaking years old. WTF is going on in America?

Yes minors can be sued. There was a case in TN involving two young children who played with a newborn as though it was a rag doll, causing severe damage to the infant. It may surprise you to know that even 4 year old can have assets. One is an insurance policy. Many people take insurance on their young children to cover funeral expenses in case they die or to cover the cost of college later if they live. And in TN parents are not responsible for torts of their children. Parents are, however, expected to maintain reasonable control over their children.

 

[George Costanza]

Parents are liable for the torts of their children, as I recall from tort class a number of decades ago. The question is, are the parents to be held liable vicariously (no fault on their part - strict liability) or must it first be found that the parents knew or should have known of the child's propensity to do whatever was done in the particular case, and failed to take steps to prevent it?

I think the requirement for holding parents liable varies from state to state. Perhaps Jilian or some other lawyer in here who is more familiar with civil law than I, can jump in on this.

 

[Sunshine]

Parents are liable for the torts of their children, as I recall from tort class a number of decades ago. The question is, are the parents to be held liable vicariously (no fault on their part - strict liability) or must it first be found that the parents knew or should have known of the child's propensity to do whatever was done in the particular case, and failed to take steps to prevent it?

I think the requirement for holding parents liable varies from state to state. Perhaps Jilian or some other lawyer in here who is more familiar with civil law than I, can jump in on this.

Not in Tennessee. Lavin v. Jordon, 16 S.W.3d 362 (Tenn. 2000). Author: Justice William M. Barker.

·' As this language makes clear, lack of parental negligence is no longer merely a defense to liability; parental negligence is now the basis of that liability. In other words, unlike the original statute, plaintiffs now need to show more than the mere existence of a parent/child relationship to establish a prima facie case; plaintiffs must now show that the parents are actually at fault before any liability can attach." P. 369 (footnote omitted).

F. "We hold that Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-10-103(a) does not establish an independent cause of action against parents for the intentional acts of their children

 

[George Costanza]

Parents are liable for the torts of their children, as I recall from tort class a number of decades ago. The question is, are the parents to be held liable vicariously (no fault on their part - strict liability) or must it first be found that the parents knew or should have known of the child's propensity to do whatever was done in the particular case, and failed to take steps to prevent it?

I think the requirement for holding parents liable varies from state to state. Perhaps Jilian or some other lawyer in here who is more familiar with civil law than I, can jump in on this.

Not in Tennessee. Lavin v. Jordon, 16 S.W.3d 362 (Tenn. 2000). Author: Justice William M. Barker.

·' As this language makes clear, lack of parental negligence is no longer merely a defense to liability; parental negligence is now the basis of that liability. In other words, unlike the original statute, plaintiffs now need to show more than the mere existence of a parent/child relationship to establish a prima facie case; plaintiffs must now show that the parents are actually at fault before any liability can attach." P. 369 (footnote omitted).

F. "We hold that Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-10-103(a) does not establish an independent cause of action against parents for the intentional acts of their children

Thank you. So TN is not a vicarious liability state.

Too bad their professional football team didn't cover the spread today. Oh well. That's another issue, I guess.

 

[Sunshine]

Parents are liable for the torts of their children, as I recall from tort class a number of decades ago. The question is, are the parents to be held liable vicariously (no fault on their part - strict liability) or must it first be found that the parents knew or should have known of the child's propensity to do whatever was done in the particular case, and failed to take steps to prevent it?

I think the requirement for holding parents liable varies from state to state. Perhaps Jilian or some other lawyer in here who is more familiar with civil law than I, can jump in on this.

Not in Tennessee. Lavin v. Jordon, 16 S.W.3d 362 (Tenn. 2000). Author: Justice William M. Barker.

·' As this language makes clear, lack of parental negligence is no longer merely a defense to liability; parental negligence is now the basis of that liability. In other words, unlike the original statute, plaintiffs now need to show more than the mere existence of a parent/child relationship to establish a prima facie case; plaintiffs must now show that the parents are actually at fault before any liability can attach." P. 369 (footnote omitted).

F. "We hold that Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-10-103(a) does not establish an independent cause of action against parents for the intentional acts of their children

Thank you. So TN is not a vicarious liability state.

Too bad their professional football team didn't cover the spread today. Oh well. That's another issue, I guess.

With regard to some things. Just not this one.

TN Football? I'm a Vandy girl myself!

 

[ConHog]

Not in Tennessee. Lavin v. Jordon, 16 S.W.3d 362 (Tenn. 2000). Author: Justice William M. Barker.

Thank you. So TN is not a vicarious liability state.

Too bad their professional football team didn't cover the spread today. Oh well. That's another issue, I guess.

With regard to some things. Just not this one.

TN Football? I'm a Vandy girl myself!

Well, you got that ass beat last night.

 

[Luissa]

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 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.

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

She was FOUR freaking years old. WTF is going on in America?

I thought they had to be at least 8 and show the mentality of a 12 year old? or 12 years old? My PA friend told me that last night.
It could be just Washington State, too.

 

[ConHog]

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 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.

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

She was FOUR freaking years old. WTF is going on in America?

I thought they had to be at least 8 and show the mentality of a 12 year old? or 12 years old? My PA friend told me that last night.
It could be just Washington State, too.

Here is each state's parental responsibility law.

http://www.mwl-law.com/CM/Resources/Parental-Responsibility-Chart.pdf

In Arkansas , for example, the parent's can only be held liable for $5000.

 

[Sunshine]

4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case

She was racing another 4 year old on her bike...




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

She was FOUR freaking years old. WTF is going on in America?

I thought they had to be at least 8 and show the mentality of a 12 year old? or 12 years old? My PA friend told me that last night.
It could be just Washington State, too.

Here is each state's parental responsibility law.

http://www.mwl-law.com/CM/Resources/Parental-Responsibility-Chart.pdf

In Arkansas , for example, the parent's can only be held liable for $5000.

Nice chart, however the case I posted earlier interprets quite differently than it would seem. The parents have to be shown to actually be at fault.

·' As this language makes clear, lack of parental negligence is no longer merely a defense to liability; parental negligence is now the basis of that liability. In other words, unlike the original statute, plaintiffs now need to show more than the mere existence of a parent/child relationship to establish a prima facie case; plaintiffs must now show that the parents are actually at fault before any liability can attach." P. 369 (footnote omitted).

F. "We hold that Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-10-103(a) does not establish an independent cause of action against parents for the intentional acts of their children

Lavin v. Jordon, 16 S.W.3d 362 (Tenn. 2000). Author: Justice William M. Barker.


The law doesn't boil down to something someone copies out of the code and puts on a graph. In TN, at least, the statute has been tested and interpreted by the courts. So the statutes quoted in the graph have another dimension to them altogether.

 

[Zoom-boing]

zoom, EVEN IF the children ignored their parents, the parents are responsible for the children's actions....are you saying they are not?

I don't understand why you think, that the parents are not responsible for the damage their children may cause? Even if the parents yelled at the kids to stop or be careful not to hit the old woman walking on the sidewalk, if the children hit the woman on the sidewalk and she fell, breaking her hip, the parents are held accountable financially, as they SHOULD BE. this is responsibility for their own children and is fair and just....

I don't buy in to it being the old lady's fault for walking out the front door of her high rise on to the sidewalk, if it happened that way....which it didn't or it would have been in the story.... the old woman is the victim, not the person you should be blaming. And as said even if the parents tried to control their children and the children did not listen to them, the parents are STILL financially responsible for their own children's wrong actions.

Care, did you NOT see the first sentence in my post above???

IF the woman was walking onto a busy sidewalk and did not look both ways before entering, she is also responsible for the accident. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

As to my question to p kirkes, it was just a question. I find it off-putting when folks assume that kids can be 'controlled' and never do kid things . . . like take off on a bike down a sidewalk, even if they've been told not to do that.

If I walk out on a busy sidewalk and get shot, is it my fault for not looking to make sure there wasn't a bullet traveling down the sidewalk?
One of those scooters that goes 50 miles an hour max-speed? Rollerbladers?

Someone riding a bike on an area clearly designated for walking. Bikes are considered road-vehicles. It's up to police discretion whether to ticket someone for having them on the sidewalk. In this case, as guardian, it was the mother's responsibility for the kid on that bike, and not the responsibility of granny to be 100% alert and dodge little uncontrollable brats.

Although sidewalks are designated for walking, scooters, skateboards, bikes, heelys, etc. are found on them as well. Have been for quite sometime. I find it odd that someone wouldn't look both ways before entering a sidewalk. Cripes, I look both ways before crossing the street (foot or car), even if the light is green and have avoided getting hit on a few occasions (car). It pays to be careful out there.