New York court lets man sue child.

[Kobuk]

How stupid do some people have to be, to be sueing a child?  The guy didn't sue the parent of the child, but rather the child instead. And the New York court is upholding this?  W-T-H?

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.

[Shim]

This is ridiculous. I likely can't say anything that lawyer already hasn't. THE CHILD WAS 4! Words escape me for this. What, this much time later, a 6 year old WOULD understand what happened?

Edit: Forgot to add a bit: This should be the parent's responsibility. Not the child.

[Foxpup]

It's not ridiculous, it's America. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. This isn't the first time a child has been sued for negligence and it won't be the last.

[Shim]

It's not ridiculous, it's America.

You're speaking as if the public doesn't think that people should have standards. I am from smack in the middle of the country, and I, along with many many others, do believe its ridiculous.

[Yip]

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.

Ok...  so maybe they should get an expert on child psychology on the stand to testify as to the likely "intelligence or maturity" of a four year old.

Although it might seem like common sense that a kid that young is more likely to do stupid things, for the sake of the law, they do need to have evidence to go by. Though it does surprise me that they wouldn't already have something like that established. I mean, "younger than 4" seems like an awfully low place to draw that line.

[Alexandre]

I agree that 4 is a young age to draw that line.

I wouldn't entirely be opposed if the people decided to sue the kid's parents.  Sounds like they might have been neglecting their parental responsibilities.  Simply put, the parents are the ones who will have to pay for the decision, so it might as well be against them.

[Foxpup]

It's not ridiculous, it's America.

You're speaking as if the public doesn't think that people should have standards. I am from smack in the middle of the country, and I, along with many many others, do believe its ridiculous.

Unfortunately, the law doesn't care what people think. From a legal perspective, this isn't ridiculous at all.

[Sigurd Volsung]

I say that a lot of the people involved need a good hard slap up the back side of the head. Not the kids though, at four you don't really understand a lot of things. The parents need to be slapped for not keeping control of their brats, the lawyer should be slapped for not hiring a child psychologist, the dead woman's son should be slapped for being a jerk, and the judge should slapped for letting someone sue a four year old and not telling them to sue the parents.

[Serra Belvoule]

A boot to the head, Sigurd hun. That's classier.

I'm appalled that economy is that bad to want compensation from a 4-year old.

In a serious psychological approach here, there has been a lot of debate regarding the psychological limits versus legal limits. It is very hard to define something in such a way that laws can be made, since most cases require an individual evaluation... still, It sounds kinda safe to assume that children that small couldn't possibly be held responsible for that level of control that requires to hold them against the law.
Seriously, what is the world coming to?

[RedneckFur]

I think it is the parent's responsibility for not maintaining control of their chidlren.

Still, I think the son of the elderly woman does have a right to compensation.  These children hit her with their bikes, and caused the injures that killed her.

Is there a requirement that children be supervised when on bicycles?  If not... A child thats mature enough to ride a bicycle should be mature enough to be responsible for their actions on said bicycle. 

[Shabbernigdo]

only further proves the country is circling the drain.   

[Alsek]

Wondering what they intend to do here.  The 4 year old can't exactly file for bankruptcy,  can't exactly be sent to jail.

[Mooshi]

I can't believe I just now heard of this thread. Guess I'm gonna have to put my own perspective on this. When I was 4, I was taught better. :l Whenever I was acting hyper, I was told that older people were brittle and to be careful around them because they can break a bone easyly. So in my little mind, that meant "behave around old people or get in trouble". Guess what? I didn't run down any elderly people!

It's easy to get pissed off, but hardly enough evidence is presented in this topic. All I see is a mass of keywords. It's way too easy to word things and make someone go "awww little kids are innocent! Grown ups are mean!!"

 Was said elderly woman out of harms way or was it a case of wrong place at the wrong time? Do you have any idea how easy it is to hit something if it suddenly came at you out of nowhere? If that were the case, it was an honest accident. Now if these kids were going out of their way to hit her, I have no hope left for this gen and that's pretty sub-par parenting. There are alot of factors to consider. Instead of all this he sad she said mentality, why not look at them. Sueing a kid is pretty damned stupid, they have no money..duh. However, you can't ignore the fact a death resulting from this. On the other hand, how healty was she? At 87, she's close to death anyway. Harsh, but that's life. I do understand her son's perspective. You guys don't know if he was really attached to his mother. Just because alot of twirps think it's "cool" to disrespect their parents, some have nothing but love. If you were close to your mother and a couple of brats killed her, you'd be pissed too. Especially if you also had children of your own that also lost thier grandmother. Losing a loved one AND paying hundreds of thousands of dollars on medical expenses  you can not sit there and honestly be demonizing him. Yes, sueing the kid instead of the parents was a dumb move as is the overpayed half wit of a judge..but try to see the entire picture.

[Alsek]

I can't believe I just now heard of this thread. Guess I'm gonna have to put my own perspective on this. When I was 4, I was taught better. :l Whenever I was acting hyper, I was told that older people were brittle and to be careful around them because they can break a bone easyly. So in my little mind, that meant "behave around old people or get in trouble". Guess what? I didn't run down any elderly people!

That's why it should have been the parents.  No one teaches their children to behave.  No one is willing to discipline their children anymore.  No one understands why their children do stupid things.

a death is defiantly a serious thing. it's very sad to see a close family member go,  especially when it could have been easily avoided.  But suing a child does not pay for medical bills.  It's nothing more than revenge.

As hard as this situation is,  The son is taking his vengeance and anger our on a 4 year old.  He needs to grow up.  He needs to sue the parents to help pay for the medical expenses and work compensation (they should be held responsible for their kids),  and move on.

[Narei Mooncatt]

It's not ridiculous, it's America. Anyone can sue anyone for anything....

I was about to say this too, but there's a second part to how I've heard it:

...But that doesn't mean they'll win

I think a lot of times a court has to let something go to trial based on raw legal basis even if it sounds idiotic, then things usually work out more sensibly during the trial. The thread about the animal cruelty media ban being over turned comes to mind as well.

(That thread is HERE for those that may have missed it)

[Shabbernigdo]

I can't believe I just now heard of this thread. Guess I'm gonna have to put my own perspective on this. When I was 4, I was taught better. :l Whenever I was acting hyper, I was told that older people were brittle and to be careful around them because they can break a bone easyly. So in my little mind, that meant "behave around old people or get in trouble". Guess what? I didn't run down any elderly people!

That's why it should have been the parents.  No one teaches their children to behave.  No one is willing to discipline their children anymore.  No one understands why their children do stupid things.

Parents should be able to whoop there kids but if you try that now days and some one see you then you have the police / child protective services and other orginizations riding your  ***.  

I can say in all honesty the only reason im not in jail is because my parents did take the belt to my back side. They should able to do that now days as well without having to worry about the police showing up on there door step.

If the kids were playing and hit the lady by accident then theres really not much you can do .
If they did itnentionally then they should be punished but really what is suing gonna do . Just screw the parents.

[Serra Belvoule]

If the kids were playing and hit the lady by accident then theres really not much you can do .
If they did itnentionally then they should be punished but really what is suing gonna do . Just screw the parents.

Well, how INTENTIONAL can a 4 year old be? Seriously?
I mean, at that age kids are just not much caring on what you can and cannot do. It's mainly to their keeper's care to make sure these things don't happen.

[Mooshi]

Dunno about 4, but I vaguely remember kindergarden. At that age, it's not unusual to get with your mates and sword fight with sticks or pester ants - even after adults give you various reasons not to do so. So going out of your way to hit someone to see what happens honestly isn't that unusual. We don't give enough credit. Just because we're older, it doesn't mean they dunno what they're doing - they just dunno the extent of their actions, that's all. Sometimes even proper parenting isn't enough to save some people. Case In point, I'm 23 now and have no police record. In contrast, my little brother bearly turned 15 and already has a record and an active arrest warrent. And we were raised by the same person! --;

Even before the age of 4, children learn on their own to lie. I've seen this study where young children were left alone in a room with hidden cameras and an object of interest (chocolate ect). The adults come back later and ask if they eaten it and alot of the kids lied and said no - inspite of having chocolate on their face and being caught on camera. Some things we pick up on our own to not get in trouble. The notion kids are 100% innocent is a good laugh, no one is. :p