4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case

[Anonymous]

How is this possible?

I'm not saying it is anyway OK for a whild to ride her bike into pedestrians, and it is horrible that the elderly woman died as a result of her injuries. There's not excuse for that and the parents should be held responsible. But how can a judge say a 4 YEAR OLD is responsible for anything? 4???



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

[Anonymous]

did you even read? the old woman died of UNRELATED causes.

[Anonymous]

Whereas a 15-year-old murderer in DC is out the next day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is this possible?

I'm not saying it is anyway OK for a whild to ride her bike into pedestrians, and it is horrible that the elderly woman died as a result of her injuries. There's not excuse for that and the parents should be held responsible. But how can a judge say a 4 YEAR OLD is responsible for anything? 4???



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

Because the case law was that a child of 4 and under could not be help responsible. This child was 3 months shy of turning five. Maybe this will be a lesson to all parents to teach their children rules of safety apply to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this possible?

I'm not saying it is anyway OK for a whild to ride her bike into pedestrians, and it is horrible that the elderly woman died as a result of her injuries. There's not excuse for that and the parents should be held responsible. But how can a judge say a 4 YEAR OLD is responsible for anything? 4???

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

Because the case law was that a child of 4 and under could not be help responsible. This child was 3 months shy of turning five. Maybe this will be a lesson to all parents to teach their children rules of safety apply to everyone.

BIG difference between teaching children to be cautious and allowing a 4-year old to be sued.

[Anonymous]

They will probably try to get the supervising parent on duty. They need the 4yo as the defendant and then can add the mom as a party.

[Anonymous]

Great.

I am so going to sue my kids now.

I have a great invasion of privacy suit against my 4-year old. Probably a few negligence cases against my toddler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:did you even read? the old woman died of UNRELATED causes.

I didn't read that the woman had died of unrelated causes. OK, I stand corrected.

Still the point is, how can a 4 year old be held negligent for anything? 4 year olds -- or 5 year olds -- don't exactly have fully developed ability to anticipate the consequences of their actions, self restraint or impulse control. This is why, for instance, one typically does not allow a preschooler access to knives, guns, or matches. We do not give a four or five year old a jack knife and expect them to follow the rules safely in using it. We don't allow them to stay home alone. If we leave them in a parked car alone, people call the police on us, the adults, and report us as being negligent (as well they should!)

So how exactly can you say a 4 year old child, or five for that matter, was negligent in running her bike into a pedestrian? The parent, sure, for allowing it to happen -- but the child??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They will probably try to get the supervising parent on duty. They need the 4yo as the defendant and then can add the mom as a party.

Why can't they just start with the mom or dad to begn with? Why involve the child?

[Anonymous]

The court didn't find the child negligent. It found that the plaintiff (the estate of the elderly woman) had stated a legal claim that could proceed to trial. The caselaw in NY apparently says (since the 1920s, but the age of the law alone doesn't mean it isn't still in effect) that a 4 year old can't be held liable. But there hasn't yet been a decision that an older child (i.e., one almost 5 years old) cannot be.

So, all the judge said was that the case could proceed, because the estate had made out a legal case that, if proven factually, could be a violation of NY law. It doesn't mean that the plaintiff will prevail against the kid. It just means the estate gets a further hearing/trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will probably try to get the supervising parent on duty. They need the 4yo as the defendant and then can add the mom as a party.

Why can't they just start with the mom or dad to begn with? Why involve the child?

Because that's whom the plaintiff (the estate of the injured woman) sued. Also, the kid hit the woman. It's a lot easier to prove causation in that case than trying to show that the parent was somehow responsible.

[Anonymous]

Is it legal to ride bikes on the sidewalk in NYC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The court didn't find the child negligent. It found that the plaintiff (the estate of the elderly woman) had stated a legal claim that could proceed to trial. The caselaw in NY apparently says (since the 1920s, but the age of the law alone doesn't mean it isn't still in effect) that a 4 year old can't be held liable. But there hasn't yet been a decision that an older child (i.e., one almost 5 years old) cannot be.

So, all the judge said was that the case could proceed, because the estate had made out a legal case that, if proven factually, could be a violation of NY law. It doesn't mean that the plaintiff will prevail against the kid. It just means the estate gets a further hearing/trial.

OP here. OK, I guess I get it.

So there's no law in NY State that says a child can't be held liable... (except for those under 4 apparently) -- what about in other states, like MD? I'm just wondering.

No, this isn't about wanting to let my child ride bikes on the sidewalk or behave badly or anything like that. I'm just really surprised that a young child CAN be held liable, legally, for anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it legal to ride bikes on the sidewalk in NYC?

If you are 14 (or 13?) it is legal to ride on sidewalks in NY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will probably try to get the supervising parent on duty. They need the 4yo as the defendant and then can add the mom as a party.

Why can't they just start with the mom or dad to begn with? Why involve the child?

Because that's whom the plaintiff (the estate of the injured woman) sued. Also, the kid hit the woman. It's a lot easier to prove causation in that case than trying to show that the parent was somehow responsible.

I think I read that they also sued the parents. Right now the judge has only made a ruling that the case can go forward against the girl; the parents didn't try to get the case against them dismissed, so the judge hasn't had cause to issue any ruling regarding them.