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

[Missourian]

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.

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.

Intent is an interesting legal thingie. Consider:

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).

Powered by Google Docs

This is very confusing stuff, and it trips many a law student. It's important to remember, the law of intent for a tort is not the same as the one for criminal law.

No state in the country criminalizes the behavior of four year olds.

An interesting legal argument, but pulling out a chair isn't riding a bike.

It's a bridge too far to expect a four year old to equate riding a bike to hurting someone IMO.

 

[Care4all]

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?

Did the woman look up and down the sidewalk before she entered it to make sure nothing was coming towards her? Sidewalk . . . not to be used for things like bikes and scooters and rollerskates and strollers? In the middle of a busy city? Come on. Did the woman know children lived nearby? Did she not ever encounter a bike on the sidewalk before? If this had been a runner who bumped into her causing the same injuries, would she have sued the runner as well?

How do you know the mother wasn't supervising and watching her child? The kid is riding down the sidewalk, the mother watching and . . . the woman steps onto the sidwalk without looking. The mother yells but . . . too late, the kid hits the woman. Accidents happen. Accidents happen and that doesn't automatically mean 'lawsuit'. The kid wasn't negligent, nor was the parent imo.

As for the rest of it (having to pay the remaining 20%, woman having to recover, etc.). Sometimes shit happens, that's life; doesn't mean sue someone over it. If it were my mother I'd still feel this way.

Aside from any of that, this judge did agree that the four year old could be sued because a four year old was 'reasonably prudent'. That's just whack.

you obviously have not lived in a city, i lived in nyc. If you want your kid to be able to zoom around on their bike, you take them to the park. My mother should not have even had the thought that she should have to worry about a supposedly supervised kid running in to her....she never had to worry about something like that her PREVIOUS 87 YEARS.....???

The mothers of these kids were negligent, and NOT watching them closely enough, OBVIOUSLY, or they would have warned the children to slow down or to be careful not to hit the 87 year old person, walking on the sidewalk.

What if they zoomed out on to the street instead of zooming in to this woman, and ran in to a moving delivery truck instead? BOOM, their dead?

Their parents, should have offered to help this woman with the 20% owed on the medical expenses that were due, to their children running in to her on the sidewalk with their bikes....

Instead we have a lawsuit. I don't agree that the parents supposedly supervising these 4 year olds are not responsible for who they supposedly were supervising.

I do agree with you that the judge is off the rocker with his permitting the suit to go forward, naming the children along with the parents....it should have been against the parents or better yet, the parents should have settled this, before the other family injured sued.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

I blame the 87-year-old woman. A reasonably prudent old person should probably have taken better measures to ensure nothing like this happened. I think old woman and her family are as negligent as the child on the bike and the parents. Also, as for any civil suit against the girl, I hope they take the girl for every penny she has... Im sure at age four shes amassed a grand fortune.

 

[Zoom-boing]

you obviously have not lived in a city, i lived in nyc. If you want your kid to be able to zoom around on their bike, you take them to the park. My mother should not have even had the thought that she should have to worry about a supposedly supervised kid running in to her....she never had to worry about something like that her PREVIOUS 87 YEARS.....???

An 87 year old woman should be even more vigilant when on a busy city sidewalk. It could have just as easily been a blackberry texting nimrod who knocked her down causing the same injuries.

The mothers of these kids were negligent, and NOT watching them closely enough, OBVIOUSLY, or they would have warned the children to slow down or to be careful not to hit the 87 year old person, walking on the sidewalk.

Proven how?

Kids don't always listen to their parents; doesn't mean the parents weren't doing their job. True story.

What if they zoomed out on to the street instead of zooming in to this woman, and ran in to a moving delivery truck instead? BOOM, their dead?

Yes.

Their parents, should have offered to help this woman with the 20% owed on the medical expenses that were due, to their children running in to her on the sidewalk with their bikes....

Instead we have a lawsuit. I don't agree that the parents supposedly supervising these 4 year olds are not responsible for who they supposedly were supervising.

The woman should have looked both ways before entering the sidewalk.

 

[Madeline]

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!

Tort law is not really about guilt, Zoom-boing. An injury occurred, and the question is where should the burden (financial) be placed? On the innocent adult or the child who has assets and who acted intentionally? (There is not much point to suing a poor child.) The law since the Magna Carta has tried to balance the interests and has decided that some people who could never be charged with a crime will nonetheless be financially liable in some circumstances.

Dun be mad at me; I did not create this rule of law....I am just the messenger here!

 

[Zoom-boing]

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!

Tort law is not really about guilt, Zoom-boing. An injury occurred, and the question is where should the burden (financial) be placed? On the innocent adult or the child who has assets and who acted intentionally? (There is not much point to suing a poor child.) The law since the Magna Carta has tried to balance the interests and has decided that some people who could never be charged with a crime will nonetheless be financially liable in some circumstances.

The 87 year old woman was negligent, as she didn't look both ways before crossing the sidewalk.

Dun be mad at me; I did not create this rule of law....I am just the messenger here!

How'd you come to the conclusion that I was mad?? That's silly.

 

[Care4all]

you obviously have not lived in a city, i lived in nyc. If you want your kid to be able to zoom around on their bike, you take them to the park. My mother should not have even had the thought that she should have to worry about a supposedly supervised kid running in to her....she never had to worry about something like that her PREVIOUS 87 YEARS.....???

An 87 year old woman should be even more vigilant when on a busy city sidewalk. It could have just as easily been a blackberry texting nimrod who knocked her down causing the same injuries.

The mothers of these kids were negligent, and NOT watching them closely enough, OBVIOUSLY, or they would have warned the children to slow down or to be careful not to hit the 87 year old person, walking on the sidewalk.

Proven how?

Kids don't always listen to their parents; doesn't mean the parents weren't doing their job. True story.

What if they zoomed out on to the street instead of zooming in to this woman, and ran in to a moving delivery truck instead? BOOM, their dead?

Yes.

Their parents, should have offered to help this woman with the 20% owed on the medical expenses that were due, to their children running in to her on the sidewalk with their bikes....

Instead we have a lawsuit. I don't agree that the parents supposedly supervising these 4 year olds are not responsible for who they supposedly were supervising.

The woman should have looked both ways before entering the sidewalk.

the blackberry texting nimrod, would have been AT FAULT.

btw, why do you keep saying she was "entering the sidewalk"? Is this in the article, and I missed it?

I still disagree with you, the parents should be held responsible for monetary damages, in the least. their children caused great harm to this woman. The parents should have offered to pay the 20% of her medical bills for the injury their children CAUSED. the victim should not be blamed....she IS the VICTIM.

fyi-what you are supporting is not Biblical either...in case you wondered what God's word on this is....you settle your wrongs, and you do such, outside of the court, or you could be held more accountable monetarily or imprisoned if it goes to court....rephrased.

 

[Navy1960]

I have a better idea, rather than waste the courts time with this nonsense, why not do the following, send the parents to a class on how to teach their child manners, then take away the girls bike for a while and send the judge to a "common sense" class for not having the good sense to see that cases like these are a complete waste of time.

 

[Madeline]

I have a better idea, rather than waste the courts time with this nonsense, why not do the following, send the parents to a class on how to teach their child manners, then take away the girls bike for a while and send the judge to a "common sense" class for not having the good sense to see that cases like these are a complete waste of time.

Hey Navy! How have you been? Happy Halloween, brotherman!

 

[Navy1960]

I have a better idea, rather than waste the courts time with this nonsense, why not do the following, send the parents to a class on how to teach their child manners, then take away the girls bike for a while and send the judge to a "common sense" class for not having the good sense to see that cases like these are a complete waste of time.

Hey Navy! How have you been? Happy Halloween, brotherman!

Happy Halloween to you too!! , been hanging in there, everyday is a blessing , hope all is well with you and yours.

 

[Care4all]

I have a better idea, rather than waste the courts time with this nonsense, why not do the following, send the parents to a class on how to teach their child manners, then take away the girls bike for a while and send the judge to a "common sense" class for not having the good sense to see that cases like these are a complete waste of time.

seems too liberal of an idea...just sending parents to get reprogramed!

the parents should have offered to pay the 20% that medicare did not pay for, on her medical expenses for the injuries she got DUE to the children of these parents, running in to her and knocking her over hard enough to cause her hip to break.

they would have gotten off easy....with just the 20% restitution.

Instead, we have a lawsuit, to retrieve the cost of the harm these children of the parent's caused.

Just like when I broke the neighbor's window with me hitting a softball through the window....my parents did not expect me to do that, I did not at 5 years old intentionally do this, it was an accident....but it was still my fault and my parents took responsibility for such and reimbursed this neighbor for the cost.

 

[Navy1960]

I have a better idea, rather than waste the courts time with this nonsense, why not do the following, send the parents to a class on how to teach their child manners, then take away the girls bike for a while and send the judge to a "common sense" class for not having the good sense to see that cases like these are a complete waste of time.

seems too liberal of an idea...just sending parents to get reprogramed!

the parents should have offered to pay the 20% that medicare did not pay for, on her medical expenses for the injuries she got DUE to the children of these parents, running in to her and knocking her over hard enough to cause her hip to break.

they would have gotten off easy....with just the 20% restitution.

Instead, we have a lawsuit, to retrieve the cost of the harm these children of the parent's caused.

Just like when I broke the neighbor's window with me hitting a softball through the window....my parents did not expect me to do that, I did not at 5 years old intentionally do this, it was an accident....but it was still my fault and my parents took responsibility for such and reimbursed this neighbor for the cost.

Theres the keyword though Care, responsibility and your parents realized that as you were their child your actions are their responsibility, seems like a simple enough concept, however, I suppose for an old duffer like me, this takes a village thing does take some getting used too. *laughs*

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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?

This is the most moronic thing I've read. FOUR?? The judge is a fucking idiot not only in the ruling of the four year old, but in the bolded above.

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.

National Center for Safe Routes to School: At what age can children walk to school by themselves?

Why? Younger children are short and cannot see far enough down the road or around parked cars, cannot judge the speed of the car like an older child/adult can, cannot judge if they have enough time to cross before the car hits them; they have not matured enough to do this.

See thats how 2 post

 

[Care4all]

I still say the judge is a loony toon for allowing the charges to be brought against the children.

 

[Solace]

What has America come to?

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

I fault the parents for not really supervising their children's racing down the sidewalk. They should have seen the elderly lady on the "track".

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?

 

[Care4all]

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.

I fault the parents for not really supervising their children's racing down the sidewalk. They should have seen the elderly lady on the "track".

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.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

I fault the parents for not really supervising their children's racing down the sidewalk. They should have seen the elderly lady on the "track".

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.

 

[midcan5]

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. 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.

 

[Ozmar]

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?

Did the woman look up and down the sidewalk before she entered it to make sure nothing was coming towards her? Sidewalk . . . not to be used for things like bikes and scooters and rollerskates and strollers? In the middle of a busy city? Come on. Did the woman know children lived nearby? Did she not ever encounter a bike on the sidewalk before? If this had been a runner who bumped into her causing the same injuries, would she have sued the runner as well?

How do you know the mother wasn't supervising and watching her child? The kid is riding down the sidewalk, the mother watching and . . . the woman steps onto the sidwalk without looking. The mother yells but . . . too late, the kid hits the woman. Accidents happen. Accidents happen and that doesn't automatically mean 'lawsuit'. The kid wasn't negligent, nor was the parent imo.

Do you know of many elderly women who are completely alert? The mind gets a little slower when they get up in that age group. The child's mother is mostly to blame.

As for the rest of it (having to pay the remaining 20%, woman having to recover, etc.). Sometimes shit happens, that's life; doesn't mean sue someone over it. If it were my mother I'd still feel this way.

Nonsense. Shit like this happens due to negligence. Not on the part of the child, but of the mother. The child can't reasonably be assumed to be prudent, and the old lady can't be assumed to be completely alert.

Aside from any of that, this judge did agree that the four year old could be sued because a four year old was 'reasonably prudent'. That's just whack.

I agree.