http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?no_interstitial 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 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. 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.
Ridiculous. You sue the parents. What the h*ll do you sue a 4 yr old for. . . their Lunch money for the next 12 yrs? Rocket River
Boom! That old woman is about to get PAID! Little skank is gonna lose her Huffy bike AND her Barbie doll house!
what if she promised to never never do it again. i mean...the lady was old, and would have died anyway. why can't they just leave the sweet and tender hooligan alone
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me you should sue the person who committed the actual act, and in this case (like it or not), it's the kid. I would normally agree that suing the kids is wrong, but we're talking about an incident that resulted in serious injury, and might even have been a contributing cause to her eventual death. If some kid barrelled into my grandma and broke her hip, you bet your a$$ I'd be coming down on that kid (and his/her knucklehead parents) like the wrath of God. Obviously, the parents aren't teaching the kid right from wrong, or general safety (Really? Racing your kids on a Manhatten sidewalk near an old lady? You think that's a good idea?), so the court needs to intervene. Not to mention: isn't riding a bike on the sidewalks illegal to begin with?
Before even clicking this thread I knew it was in the US. Lazy Americans sue for anything these days.
Reasonable prudent child standard. LOL What would a reasonable child do in that situation? :grin: Oh BTW suing the child = suing the parents in this case.
Something tells me you'd be singing a different tune if it was your wife, your mother, or your grandmother on that operating table. Or if you had to bury a loved one because of their negligence. Or if you got stuck with the medical bills. These people acted without regard for others and they should be held to account.
No wonder our kids are all fat. The threat of being sued is one more thorn in the childhood jungle that drives them to comfort food.
Isn't this double standard? I'd like to think that any "reasonably prudent" 87-year old woman without the agility to escape training wheels should not be walking on the street. And that she does so at her own peril. So basically, an old woman can perform an extremely unsafe task. In this case walking down the street littered with 4-yr olds on mini-bikes when she can barely move. But 4-yr olds aren't allowed ride bikes without fear of accidently running into old ladies?
Umm no. Because I'm an educated and rational adult who can recognize an accident. You should try it sometime. lol. By that standard, I'm going to sue everyone in the whole ****ing United States then. Every day.
Here's a question: If a child throws a baseball into a window and breaks the window, is the child responsible for that? Can the owner demand payment from the child via legal means?
