Printable View
This seems kind of stupid...since the woman died of unrelated injuries. If some kid hit me with a bike I'd maybe expect some help with any medical treatment and leave it at that. Maybe a lecture to the parents about watching their kids better...but this kind of crap is just a total waste of money and resources that could be used to genuinely help people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html
Thoughts? Technically this IS legally correct but...seriously? *sighs*
That's... it's a four-year-old.... Goodness!Quote:
Originally Posted by DJFyrewolf36
Yep, it is a 4 (nearly 5) year old, but, it was also an 87 year old woman. Perhaps someone's mother, sister, wife, aunt, etc. She is as deserving of rights as anyone else, right?
The Court said that the lawsuit could move forward, and has made no ruling on liability (whether the child/ren were/could be held negligent). When we begin closing the courthouse [I]doors[I] to people, we lose the right to avail ourselves of the justice system. Many people think a particular lawsuit is ridiculous. LOL, probably most people that GET sued think the suit is without merit. Thankfully, they aren't the arbiter...the jury or Judge is.
We could go back in time and deal with the suits of segregation, for example. If these suits were [I]barred[I] at the courthouse door (not allowed to be brought/filed) by someone because someone felt them unworthy, we would still be living in a segregated society.
So, what the Judge has said is nothing more than there is no bright line in the sand that precludes the filing of a lawsuit against a person over 4. This is so far from saying, "a lawsuit against a 4 year old will be successful".
I would have sued the parent for negligent supervision. I know what ONE kid on a bike with training wheels represents. Sidewalks are for pedestrians, not bikers (no matter their age). J bikes now on a sidewalk, and knows to immediately pull over and yield to peds.
One doesn't know completely from the story what the woman's injuries were from the accident. That might be what they are suing for, a broken hip. I know, from strictly a layperson's experience, what a broken hip means to someone of that age. It is often times an occurence from which the person doesn't recover. They don't DIE from the broken hip, but from complications.
The state isn't paying any costs in this. The insurance company for the little kid, the parent's insurance company, presumably, is paying for their lawyer. The other side (the deceased woman's side) is either funded by assets of the estate of the deceased, or paid for by the deceased's decedents.
Everyone has a difference of opinion on what is valuable, or worthy. I have seen many people's opinions change when it becomes something of value to them.
Thank you Cataholic for your post! I really am curious as to the particulars here, why the parents weren't sued to begin with and why the case is being presented as making the two 4 year olds liable. (The parents should be responsible for the victims bills at least partially if not fully, I think)
I guess it is just irritating to me that the parents didn't step up to begin with and help the victim out to the best of their ability. That is why people can sue people I suppose. And also too, if this is a privately funded case then more power to them, it only affects the people involved. It just seems odd that someone so young can be sued at all.
I am by no means a legal expert, so I welcome any info posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJFyrewolf36
It is the parents as well as the kids being sued:
Quote:
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.
I can't read the article, it says I have to register first.
Not knowing what it says, but suing a 4 year old sounds pointless to me.
"4 year old can be sued, Judge rules"
Is this Judicial Activism or Judicial Stoopidism ????
So who's the judge ??? Daffy duck ????
Again, the suit is not just against the child, but against the children and their parents, too.Quote:
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 judge is just permitting the lawsuit to move forward. He did not rule either way as to fault or whatever.
Am I right to assume that they are doing it this way to make sure some funny business doesn't happen during the lawsuit of the parents? *sigh* So complected...over what was most likely an accident. I wonder if criminal charges were filed ever or is this just a civil thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
If it was kept all simple and common sense was used, half of the legal turkeys wouldn't have a job.
Because the person in question in the lawsuit is a minor, they'd have to sue te parents. Also (okay, so I watch alot of Judge Judy), a minor cannot enter into a contract with anyone, because they aren't of legal age.
Do I think this lawsuit is stupid...ABSOLUTELY!!! I wonder what kind of value they'll put on an 87 year old woman as far as life expectancy.
That comment about the womens age is just disrespectful. Her life has as much value as yours and mine regardless of her age she deserves respect.
I don't think moosmom was being disrepectful of the woman because of her age.Quote:
Originally Posted by caseysmom
Court cases often cite a person's life expectancy in recouping damages for lost earnings, and the like. At 87, she was already above the average life expectancy for a woman (80.8) so I do not know they would begin to calculate that.
I'm in NO WAY disrespecting this woman's age. I worked for lawyers as a paralegal for many years. I was just commenting on the law. When there is such a fatal tragedy and the family sues, they actually have a chart showing a human's life expectancy, depending upon whether or not they smoke, drink, recreational drugs, etc. I was simply trying to explain the law.
Sorry you took it the wrong way, Cassiesmom.
Karen,
Thank you for putting it so eloquently.
Here it is -Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady711
Quote:
October 28, 2010
4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case
By ALAN FEUER
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.
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 of unrelated causes.
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.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: October 30, 2010
An article in some editions on Friday about a lawsuit that claims an elderly woman was severely injured by two 4-year-olds racing their bicycles on a Manhattan sidewalk misstated the timing of the woman’s death. The woman, Claire Menagh, died of unrelated causes three months after she was struck, not three weeks.
I wonder was it legal for the children to even be biking on the sidewalk? Our little town has an ordiance against biking on the sidewalks but it is not carried out. People are always complaining in the local newspaper about bikers on the sidewalks downtown. Law enforcement is to busy with other things to hand out tickets to violators.
Thank you!!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
Where I live it also is against ordinance to ride a bike, rollerblade, or skateboard on the sidewalks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonny
It is illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk here unless it is too dangerous to ride in the street and I do see cops pulling people over for violations. Biking is the primary mode of transportation for a lot of people here, though.