http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?no_interstitial

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. Readers' Comments 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."

a really bizarre legal case.

10/29/2010 2:22:47 PM

I could see suing the parents I guess but suing the kid is a bit overkill.

10/29/2010 2:26:22 PM

For damages the kid can give up a barbie doll and Hannah Montanna T-shirt

10/29/2010 2:28:16 PM

Maybe they'll award the estate the kid's college fund

10/29/2010 2:28:51 PM

i see no problem with this

10/29/2010 3:14:26 PM

garnished allowance

10/29/2010 3:16:12 PM

I don't know anything about law, but I figured since the parent's didn't move to dismiss the suit against them by the estate, that should be good enough?

Unless there is some legal wrangling behind the scenes that I don't know about?

10/29/2010 3:16:59 PM

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and was later thawed by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! When I see my image on the security camera at the country club, I wonder, are they stealing my soul? I get so upset, I hop out of my Range Rover, and run across the fairway to the clubhouse, where I get Carlos to make me one of those martinis he's so famous for, to soothe my primitive caveman brain. But whatever world you're from, I do know one thing: in the 20 years from March 22, 1972, when he first ordered that extra nicotine be put into his product, until February 25, 1992, when he issued an interoffice memorandum stopping the addition of that nicotine, my client was legally insane.

10/29/2010 3:19:15 PM

Four is a little young. And the topic of the suit is very strange.

I'd sue a kid if he or she broke my stuff or stole my stuff. But I'm not :gonna sue a child for accidentally hitting my grandma on a tricycle.

This four year old must be pretty darn evil (and rich or going to be rich when she turns 18).

[Edited on October 29, 2010 at 3:38 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2010 3:35:24 PM

this isn't negligence

this is just "shit happens"

10/29/2010 3:41:19 PM

It's absolutely negligence. As a father of a 4-year old boy, though, I can say that just about every damn thing that kid does is negligent.

Your average four year old doesn't have the mental capacity to be negligent by adult standards.

10/29/2010 3:45:11 PM

This isn't as big a deal as everyone will try to make it out to be. Basically the judge was ruling only on the question of whether this 4 year old could be held negligent. The judge looked at previous rulings and said yes, since the previous case stated "children under 4," then she could be sued. If the lawsuit ends like the last one (the one the judge based this decision on) then the new rule would probably be "children 4 and under" can't be held negligent. It's not up to this particular judge in this particular ruling to decide mental capacity, etc. That would be up to the judge during the actual lawsuit.

[Edited on October 29, 2010 at 4:13 PM. Reason : I think. I'm no lawyer though.]

10/29/2010 4:05:43 PM