4-Year-Old Able To Be Sued, NY Judge Rules

[Jim Johnson]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/29/national/main7003546.shtml?tag=stack

NEW YORK, Oct. 29, 2010

4-Year-Old Able To Be Sued, NY Judge Rules
Toddlers Racing Bikes On Sidewalk Struck An Old Woman, Who Later Died, And Now May Be Held Accountable For Their Negligence.

(AP)

(CBS)  A "bright line" has been drawn for future negligence cases by New York State Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten, who ruled this week that 4-year-olds approaching their fifth birthday are not "presumed incapable of negligence," The New York Times reports.

Justice Wooten was referring in this case to Juliet Breitman, who had been racing her training-wheel-laden bike against fellow toddler Jacob Kohn on East 52nd Street in Manhattan two years ago when they struck 87-year-old Claire Menagh. The elderly woman suffered a hip fracture and died three weeks later.

Ms. Menagh's estate sued the children and their parents, who had been supervising the kids at the time of the accident, claiming negligence on everyone's behalf. Breitman and her mother's lawyer, James P. Tyrie, sought to dismiss the suit against the toddler by arguing 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, the Times reports. Kohn and his mother did not seek to dismiss the suit.

Tyrie argued that the precedent had been set by previous courts who have held that "an infant under the age of 4 is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence."

Justice Wooten, however, ultimately disagreed with Tyrie's arguments, noting that Breitman was three months shy of her fifth birthday at the time of the accident. The Gothamist reports that Justice Wooten's ruling stated: "A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across the street. A reasonably prudent child, whom we may presume has been told repeatedly by the age of four to look both ways before crossing a street, knows that running across a street is dangerous even if there is a parent nearby." And furthermore, the defense failed to prove any "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."

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

W T F ?!?!?!

That's absurd. I've read in the past that it is quite common in elderly people for the hip to fracture first, from some twist or turn (usually when trying to keep balance such as on a somewhat slippery walkway) and THEN the fall to happen. I've also read that there is a high incident of death subsequent to such injuries because the person gets an infection when being treated for the fracture.

I understand and agree with the premise that (for example) if you injure someone and they happen to be young and resilient, good... but if that person happens to already have some conditions which your injuring them exacerbates, then it's still your fault and you just have to live with the consequences.

HOWEVER... FOUR year olds? FIVE, SIX, SEVEN year olds? That don't really understand the consequences of their actions? And anyone who has or has had children should know (or remember) sometimes things that are perfectly fine can change for the worse so fast that you simply can't completely react in time.

I really hate calling everything that happens in a car "an accident", when it's usually caused by negligence. But sometimes things like this (especially when young children are involved) are truly "accidents" and that's just life (and death)... Sorry she died and I understand the families grief. I SERIOUSLY doubt any child in single digits for age could understand the proceedings that this moron of a Judge is going to subject them to.

[Jim Johnson]

Lauren has pointed out to me that Judges can't be sued for their negligence, which means Judges in NY are less accountable than 4 year old children.

[Pat K]

Well that only seems fair, since they
are less intelligent and lack the common
sense of 4 year old.

[Roycerson]

I'm totally ok with this.  Kids can be taught not to knock old ladies over by the age of four.  If you choose to make one you should do that before unleashing them on the public.  There are safe places to race your bicycle, around pedestrians isn't one of them.

[KBCraig]

I'm totally ok with this.  Kids can be taught not to knock old ladies over by the age of four.  If you choose to make one you should do that before unleashing them on the public.  There are safe places to race your bicycle, around pedestrians isn't one of them.

Yes, but that's a parental responsibility, and the parents who didn't teach, supervise, or constrain the kid are the ones liable for her behavior.

Suppose the pre-schooler is found liable.... then what? Garnishee her lunch money? Put a lien on her bicycle and Barbie collection? Finding the kid liable absolves the parents. What's the point?

[Jim Johnson]

Suppose the pre-schooler is found liable.... then what? Garnishee her lunch money? Put a lien on her bicycle and Barbie collection? Finding the kid liable absolves the parents. What's the point?

Exactly... what is the point of suing someone that has no money?
Which probably means that the parents are hiding a lot of their money behind their child.

[Roycerson]

Suppose the pre-schooler is found liable.... then what? Garnishee her lunch money? Put a lien on her bicycle and Barbie collection? Finding the kid liable absolves the parents. What's the point?

Yeah, but this...

Which probably means that the parents are hiding a lot of their money behind their child.

I'd hate this to follow the kid after she leaves the nest but that's a whole different argument than whether or not this should be actionable against all guilty parties.

[KBCraig]

As they say, judgments last forever. At some point, decades from now, this tyke might inherent some money, even if it's just life insurance. Or, once she graduates and starts making a living of her own, her income would be subject to the judgment.

That's an interesting calculation if that is the plaintiff's strategy. Revenge is best served cold, but planning the menu at least 20 years in advance is downright ghoulish.

[MaineShark]

Well that only seems fair, since they
are less intelligent and lack the common
sense of 4 year old.

Judges average fairly intelligent.  It's just that they turn their intelligence to evil.  Can't twist facts and come up with convoluted arguments like they do, without some intelligence.  Can't do it if you have a conscience, either.

I'm totally ok with this.  Kids can be taught not to knock old ladies over by the age of four.  If you choose to make one you should do that before unleashing them on the public.  There are safe places to race your bicycle, around pedestrians isn't one of them.

Yes, but that's a parental responsibility, and the parents who didn't teach, supervise, or constrain the kid are the ones liable for her behavior.

Suppose the pre-schooler is found liable.... then what? Garnishee her lunch money? Put a lien on her bicycle and Barbie collection? Finding the kid liable absolves the parents. What's the point?

Ms. Menagh's estate sued the children and their parents...

[emphasis added]

Finding one party liable does not automatically absolve other parties.  They can find that various parties all have liability, in various percentages.  Finding that the kid is liable, and then that the parents are liable for the kid's actions, is a much tighter case than just finding against the parents.  I expect they'll only seek a token percentage against the kid, and the rest against the parents.

They do that stuff a lot in regulatory cases.  Some employee dumps toxic waste, because some manager told him to.  So they find that the employee was 5% liable, the manager was 20% liable, and the corporation is 75% liable ('for fostering a culture of disrespect for environmental regulations,' or somesuch).  That the percentages line up with what the entities are able to pay is just sheer coincidence, I'm sure...

Joe