[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 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. [/quote]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?no_interstitial[/url]
Because a 4 year old should know better than to have a bicycle race.
What's next, infants?
[editline]1[/editline]
Suing 11 week-old infants for knocking a drink off the table.
That judge should go fuck themselves.
Damn.
Cue bill ordering bicycles to be padded with foam and not go faster than 1 km/decade.
Damn, kids trying to have fun!
Seriously... ?!
:psyboom:
My reaction:
[img]http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/1225/1286766273453.png[/img]
What is it with Americans and suing everything?
Surely it was the parent that was negligent for not watching over her children, if anything?
[quote=fergeh;25727582]surely it was the parent that was negligent for not watching over her children, if anything?[/quote]
[quote]“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.
[/quote]
i am the law.
[editline]29th October 2010[/editline]
[\caps]
We can now sue everyone and anyone.
This comes with great pleasure.
[editline]29th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Del91;25727659]i am the law.
[editline]29th October 2010[/editline]
[\caps][/QUOTE]
:raise:
"What's the kid in here for?"
"Word around the cell block is she kiwwed an owd wady."
fuck it
[QUOTE=booster;25727570]What is it with Americans and suing everything?[/QUOTE]
What is it with saying stupid shit like this, is it a disease that only affects Europe and the UK?
[QUOTE=booster;25727570]What is it with Americans and suing everything?[/QUOTE]
It's not just Americans you know?
[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;25727890]It's not just Americans you know?[/QUOTE]
But it is for the most part in honesty.
@ the story: Judge is a dumbass. A 4 year old hardly can create a coherent sentence most of the time. How can she be liable to be negligent for having a bike race?
When people say "Think of the Children" it doesn't mean "Think of the children as a way to get money"
hopefulyl the OP from the "i confiscated cigarettes from a kid" whatever thread doesnt read this
he may try to sue the 12 year old for "attacking" him
[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;25727890]It's not just Americans you know?[/QUOTE]
Well I sure don't see any Europeans suing 4 year olds :downs:
mmomm the bagyilifts are taeking mey bike11!
They are effectively only allowing the suing of the parents of the child for allowing this to happen. The article is just worded to encourage controversy. In reality, its pretty fair. If the parents weren't watching the child which caused the accident then the parents should be liable, unless it was a freak accident.
[QUOTE=booster;25727570]What is it with Americans and suing everything?[/QUOTE]
Judge creates a judgment, free money.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;25727445]Damn.
Cue bill ordering bicycles to be padded with foam and not go faster than 1 km/decade.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLlUgilKqms[/media]
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;25727858]What is it with saying stupid shit like this, is it a disease that only affects Europe and the UK?[/QUOTE]
It's funny cause in the UK they can let people break into your house and claim squatter's rights
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
