What in the HELL is this world coming too?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=1&no_interstitial

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 weeks 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.

I'd say the world is coming to the same place it was back in 1928. Perhaps the judge should have simply legislated from the bench?

WOW.

So what this means since the child can be held responsible, but the child is a minor with no assests the childs parents can be sued. Which in this case I believe they should be held responsible, would it be any different if you bought your 16 year old a 400hp vette and they killed someone with it.

Yes, because they were a 4 year old on a bicycle with training wheels. Sure, it was unfortunate, but it was an accident. How is all the money spent on attorneys and any judgement in the lawsuit help the old lady?

I think a child riding a very small bike w/ training wheels doesn't match up to a 400hp killing machine..

It does nothing to help the old lady, who was the only one wronged in the first place. That's my problem with what I like to call "financial justice."

We can say what we want about our compassion for the elderly, young kids, and other "vulnerable" groups, but in the end, we're all just a bunch of greedy vultures who are sold on the notion that money makes everything right.

Seems like the judge isn't saying anything about liability, only that the case can go forward.

IMO, the parent is the culpable party. Parents are responsible for the actions, particularly supervised actions, of their minor children. That seems pretty open and shut, but a judge or jury will get to decide in this case. The affected party, the old lady, is out of the picture, but her estate is reasonably entitled to compensation just as if a careless car driver had driven up onto the sidewalk and struck and killed her. It really doesn't matter that in this case it was a 4, almost 5, year old child.

Sg

A child on a bike with training wheels killed a frail old lady just as dead as a 400hp vette would. So I would imagine this started out as a lawsuit against the parents whose lawyer tried to argue that a 4 year is not responsible for his/her actions which I agree, but the childs parents who bought the bike and allowed the child to ride unsupervised are, which is why I carry a million dollar umbrella policy which sets me back about 160 dollars a year. It's the society we live in, I'm sure in Afganistan the parents would have just given the estate 1 sheep and 2 chickens and everyone would have been just happy.

I suppose this is all true, as much as it pains me to say it. Perhaps I am having trouble seeing past all the injustice that comes from justice being served in a case like this.

Fricken kid should've been in the street where she belonged!!! I used to hammer my kids about keeping thier bikes on the sidewalks so they dont get run over... Not anymore!!!

I must say that the old lady's family in this case is lucky that they were able to find a skapegoat... But I think that they are also negligent in letting her walk the sidewalk alone without some sort of assistance... I mean come on, she could've tripped on a rock and died...

The kid should counter sue...

Piper...if she tripped on a rock and died her estate would be suing the County, City and possibly a building owner. The practical reality here is that any judgment, against either the kid or the parent, is going to be satisfied with money from the parent's insurance policy. Money comes from the same pocket no matter who is ultimately found liable.

I know that's the law. BUT, just be cause it's lawful, doesn't necessarily make it right or ethical. Satan has a special place for people like that!!! . The judge simply opened the gates of hell :lol:
I know that it was unfortunate that the kids being just that... kids, knocked the old... gal down and she hurt herself and ultimately passed away. But whos to say she died as a direct result of her injuries. When old people fall and break a hip, it usually means that's the end of them. Guess it's up to the courts to decide.
In my humble opinion, Granny lived a full life and most likely didn't have much time left anyways. It's unfortunate that in today's society, people are looking to coin it or blame someone for a simple mistake.
I'm wondering how many would be singing the same song, if they were in the parents shoes? Letting a 4-5 yr old kid ride in the road is a disaster in the making.
Bottom line is, I feel sorry for the parents of the kids. But that's just me.

Just because the lawsuit is allowed to go forward doesn't mean the old ladies estate automatically wins. The kid and parents will still get to argue causation, comparative fault on the part of the lady etc. Hopefully, a jury will hear all of the testimony and make a good decision, which might be giving the old ladys estate nothing.

Up until 1908 in England children as young as 7 were executed by hanging for petty crimes such as stealing an apple off a cart.

This judge is just "good ole fashioned."

Death panels and ObamaCare should make the streets safer for 4 year old inner city yutes and their nefarious bike rides.

Part of my job is to read court cases. I think the judge punted. He dug thru the depths of case law to justify his decision because he didn't want to be the bad guy that decides the case. Doing what he did means someone else will now be the judge for the actual case and he doesn't have to make a decision as to who prevails in the case.

Dude...seriously? Pretty coarse judgment on a guy by an opinion on a news article.

If people judged all of us on a comment we made on here and not knowing us first hand, many of us would likely not have any friends.

Hell, maybe that explains why I....oh never mind...

KK is jeleous because nobody in his family cares enough to sue if he gets knocked off by a 4yo...