4-Year old kid sued!

Found this on another forum http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=2&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. "

 

Is this even real? Wow never thought you could sue a 4-year old!

 

Yea it's real. It's the TIMES!

 

Oh well the judge is just going to laugh at the person and tell them to get the fuck out of their courtroom.

 

interesting story. still cant believe that it was real.

 

That's ridiculous. How can anyone expect this case to be held up in court. I could do far worse than that and get off trouble free. Just goes to show how our society is nowadays, people are so obsessed with money that they try and gain it by suing 4 year old children.

 

Funny yet confusing. a 6 year old can't even be taken to court so.....

Also source?

 

wow, that's just cruel

 

Really? This is bullshit.. goes to show just how fucking ridiculous people are. Why would you even want to put a 4-year-old through that? Some people... I swear.

 

The source is The New York Times. I have the link in the first sentence.

 

Some people just can't read... nothing as of yet has happened the person is 6 years old... and at that age you can't even stand in court so she will not suffer anything... either her/his parents are getting sued..

 

"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. "

Although I don't know if they will punish the child in anyway.

"Her estate sued the children and their mothers, claiming they had acted negligently during the accident."

 

Are you alright upstairs. What punishment do you think the kid will get community service? juvenile, please don't act stupid makes me feel so ashamed of my generation.

The worst that can happen is the parents getting a fine. The child will have a representative for the case. The child ain't even going to know about this untill her parents tell her when she is older.

 

Stupid, why would someone even do such a thing.

 

When I say, "Although I don't know if they will punish the child in anyway," I mean I don't think the child will be punished. I was speaking casuallly.

Also, where, in this thread, did I say anything about the parent's being punished at all? All I did was bring an article to the attention of the sythe community.

 

What a world we live in! Some of these laws need to be re-done and re-read.

 

sorry about what happened to the old lady
she was bound to fall and injure herself sometime though
anyways 4 year old children shouldnt be held liable for anything that happened
they are below the age of reason (7) and the mothers should be charged if there are going to be any at all

 

"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."

I agree with you.

 

I agree, there are some really stupid laws or rules out there.

 

lol.. todays society are just obsessed with sueing and money, the children should be able to go scot-free but the parents deserved to be punished. I guess it would be a stronger case if they sued the parents, not the children as that will probably cause a public outrage