4 Year Old Could Be Sued for Bike Race

[Corrderio]

4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case
By ALAN FEUER
Published: October 28, 2010

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.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/ny...o_interstitial

Seriously, what the hell?

[archibaldcrane]

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/ny...o_interstitial

Seriously, what the hell?

The parents should be liable, the judge made the correct ruling.

permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward.

[OWS_Tonx]

shouldn't be riding bikes in a warzone

[Eanae]

...

[Corrderio]

The parents should be liable, the judge made the correct ruling.

I know, but still.... demanding money from a 4 year old? WTF is wrong with people?

[BerenTebogo]

6 year olds have been demanding money from 4 year olds for decades. This is just expanding on the concept.

[Cream Soda]

I know, but still.... demanding money from a 4 year old? WTF is wrong with people?

Because the money fairy is going to come and compensate them.

[Jodwahh]

America cracks me up lol.

[Xno Kappa]

If only that elderly woman had a gun.

[Bilopdop]

They should be tried as adults for murder in my opinion.

[Fereydoon]

6 year olds have been demanding money from 4 year olds for decades. This is just expanding on the concept.

I laughed harder then I should have.

[archibaldcrane]

I know, but still.... demanding money from a 4 year old? WTF is wrong with people?

You're an idiot. The 4 year old hurt the lady, you sue the parents through the kid. That's how shit works.

[Greatguardian]

I'm willing to bet the only reason the children are being included as defendants is to get to their parents, who they have a legitimate complaint against. You can't sue a 4 year old directly for hitting a woman on the street, and you can't sue someone based on what their kids do at school. But you can sue parents for something their kids did while under their supervision. I highly doubt the kids will be hit with any sort of legal ramifications.

[archibaldcrane]

Also it's always interesting to find someone for whom the answer to this:

http://howmanyfiveyearoldscanyoutakeinafight.com/

is "less than 1".

[Valisk]

Ofcourse the kids won't be hit with any legal ramifications. What is the state going to do? Garnish their lunch money? The parents will take all the responsibility and punishment. The kids just have to be included for legal purposes.

[aurik]

The parents may be liable, the judge made the correct ruling.

^ This, with the obvious correction. Whether the parents are actually liable will be determined by litigation, as it should be. This ruling was just that the litigation should go ahead.

[Demosthenes11]

what happened to "shit happens?" someone always needs to be held responsible now. shame on you America

[pohibaba]

what happened to "shit happens?" someone always needs to be held responsible now. shame on you America

So who should have to pay the bill for her surgery/hospital bill? The old lady's kids/grandkids who weren't responsible for what happened, or the people who actually were responsible for what happened?

[aurik]

The point of the ruling is that the old lady should be allowed to petition the court for relief. Derp @ the idiots that can't grok this. Fault or no fault will be determined later.

[Eanae]

Did anyone read the entire thing? Old lady can't do shit. The family is suing, and has all the right to.

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.