• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New York- 4 year old can be sued

scas

Jr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Found this on the BBC news this morning
Shared with the usual:

New York child sued for woman's death after bike crash

A New York child can be sued for crashing a bicycle into an elderly pedestrian and causing injuries that led to her death, a judge has ruled.

Juliet Breitman and another child were four years old when they raced their small bicycles on a Manhattan street and ran into Claire Menagh, 87.

Juliet's lawyer had argued Juliet was too young to be held negligent.

The judge disagreed, ruling Juliet's lawyer had presented no evidence she lacked intelligence or maturity.

According to court filings, in April 2009, Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn were accompanied by their mothers, Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, as they raced their bicycles along the pavement near the East River in New York's Manhattan borough.

'No bright line'

The children struck Ms Menagh, knocking her to the ground. She underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died three months later.

Ms Menagh - and later her son, acting as executor of her estate - sued the children, arguing they were "negligent in their operation and control of their bicycles". The estate also sued Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, saying they had consented to the race.

Juliet's lawyer sought to have the case dismissed, filing with the court a copy of Juliet's birth certificate showing she was four years and nine months old at the time of the accident.

Citing several cases involving young children who had been in accidents, New York Supreme Court Judge Paul Wooten ruled that Juliet, now six years old, could be sued.

While he noted that the law presumes children under age four are incapable of negligence, "for infants above the age of four, there is no bright line rule", he wrote in the decision.

He also wrote that the Juliet's lawyer had presented no evidence as to the child's lack of intelligence or maturity, nor that "a child of similar age and capacity" would not have understood the danger of riding a bicycle into an old woman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376
 
This should be under the "Dumbest thing you heard" thread.  ::)
 
By this logic, a 15 year old wielding a hand grenade knows damn well what will happen when it is thrown at someone.
 
Good point.

Of course now we have two different cases, arguing conflicting points of view, both bringing forth cases to show precedence. 
 
The judge needs a kick in the junk. Period. What an.....oh never mind....
 
If you can be killed by getting knocked over by a four year old, stay home.
 
The more I read this the angrier I get. What a nut bar left leaning nanny state North America has become. 300 million whiners.

What next, cops giving four year olds speeding tickets on their bikes? This freakin insane.
 
Jim Seggie said:
The more I read this the angrier I get. What a nut bar left leaning nanny state North America has become. 300 million whiners.

What next, cops giving four year olds speeding tickets on their bikes? This freakin insane.

Hey.  You can sue Mcdonald's for millions for drinking out of the wrong side of your cup ...... ummmm!........spilling hot coffee on your lap.
 
George Wallace said:
Hey.  You can sue Mcdonald's for millions for drinking out of the wrong side of your cup ...... ummmm!........spilling hot coffee on your lap.

I have a new idea for a movie....."The Living Baloneyheads" Its about people, stupid people who get appointed to high office.
 
"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."

Edit to add:
"...noted insurance companies would be responsible for any damages awarded.
"It's not coming out of the kids' pockets or their mothers' pockets," Kownacki said.

"Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten held that whether or not Juliet Breitman was negligent was an issue for a jury."








 
It should not have gotten that far. The Living Baloneyhead needs a dose of common sense and a kick in the junk.
 
This story just gives me one more reason to be glad I'm canadian. I can't imagine living in a country where you can sue a 4 year old. for anything. the kid is 4.... Now if the 4 year old had said to her buddy, "hey look at that old hag, lets go break her hip" then it might be a different story.
 
One of Toronto's talk radio stations had a segment on this and apparently the judge based his judgement on a 1928 law.
 
Retired AF Guy said:
One of Toronto's talk radio stations had a segment on this and apparently the judge based his judgement on a 1928 law.

He based it on a lot of cases, going as far back as 1928:
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2010OCT/3001078562009002SCIV.pdf
 
mariomike said:
He based it on a lot of cases, going as far back as 1928:
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2010OCT/3001078562009002SCIV.pdf

The radio show only mentioned the part about the 1928 law. The amazing thing listening to show was that a lot of the callers actually agreed with the judge's decision.
 
Retired AF Guy said:
The radio show only mentioned the part about the 1928 law. The amazing thing listening to show was that a lot of the callers actually agreed with the judge's decision.

I think I know the show you may be referring to, AFG. From some of the callers I have listened to, that would not surprise me at all!  ;D
 
Back
Top