4 year old racing bicyclist sued for negligence

[mattyboi]

i agreee u cant hold the 4 year old responsible the kid dont even no whats up but the parents should be responsible or watch there kids better

[mattyboi]

i wonder how much the "estate" got for this lawsuit?

[essenmeinstuff]

Hell if judgements from 1928 can be used as precedence, I motion to have black people banned from certain sections of buses. (racial segregation banned in 1956).

I'm not racist, just making the point that $hit has changed since almost 90 years ago...

Or in this case, US sue-you mentality is as alive as it was in 1928 when suing a child seemed like a good idea.

[mattyboi]

lmao i like the way u put that cuz its true!

[HTFR]

I think humanity last peaked sometime in the 1950s, its been an exponentiol curve downwards since.

Do you mean the 1950's when black people had fire hoses and dogs let loose on them for fighting or their civil rights?

[tmarkos]

Times are changing, you hit someone on your bike, and you are over the age of 4, you can be sued and held for negligence. This just showed up on Yahoo News.

Keep in mind, this happened on a sidewalk, something in use by pedestrians. As are multi use trails in use by pedestrians. There is also a blurb there about "holding a person accountable for encouraging risky behavior."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/ny...o_interstitial


4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case
By ALAN FEUER
Published: October 28, 2010
RECOMMEND
TWITTER
COMMENTS (353)
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
REPRINTS
SHARE

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
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (353) »
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.

A version of this article appeared in print on October 29, 2010, on page

Such the doom sayer. You're like the male Debbie Downer. WTFC.

[b-kul]

When someone ends up dead three weeks later from the incident, it's no longer a "little mistake." It's being ignorant and acting irresponsibly.

i knew someone would say that. if it was a younger person it is highly doubtful they would have broken their hip. 87 is old, its morbid but it was probably close to that lady's time anyways. my point was if this happened to say a 50 year old and they just got a bruise and sued it would be rediclous.

[mattyboi]

she didnt even die of the accident she died 3 months later of unrelated causes its jus ridicoulous!

[Nwray]

1) the judge needs a smack upside the head
2) people need to get their heads on straight, the dammed kids are 4 !!!!!!!
3) OMG WTF BBQ?
4) ?????
5) profit?

shits ****ed, if your sueing a 4 y.o you have some serious **** ****ed up in your head. people need to take into consideration at the age of 4-6 very few kids have legitimate thoughs of malicious behaviour towards others.

[chauzie]

But the judge is only following a precedent. That's what a judge is supposed to do. The judge didn't make the law, only there to interpret it, and in this case, I think he interpreted it correctly regarding the 1928 law. If the judge hadn't interprete it like that, then the lawyers will point it out to him! It's not like the judge can ignor the law. If we don't like the law, then we have to vote to change it.

As far as suing the child, I would not worry about it. The old lady's lawyers are after the child mom's and their money, not the child. You can bet on this.

As i recall, East 52nd St is at midtown Manhattan, it got a big sidewalk. Because it's midtown, it ususally has people walking about; Manhattan in general always have people walking about anyway. If i were the parents of the 2 kids, I would not let my kids race down a crowded street like that. There are playgrounds in NYC, take them there. Now they say an adult chimpanzee has the intelligence of a 6yr old kid, yet I don't think they would allow a chimp to roam free on the street. So by this reasoning, shouldn't a 4 yr old kid not be allowed to roam a crowded street so freely? and certainly not race on it? My point here is that the parents should have thought better. Not the kids' fault though.

On a sidenote: I've also seen too many Manhattanites letting their dogs run without a leash. It annoys the hell out of me. They keep saying "oh don't worry he won't bite". Ughh, who cares, I hate dogs running at me.

Anyone has lived in NYC? it's a concrete jungle on the streets.

[shwinn8]

Dear Admins........ TOO much spam showing up on the board these past few weeks

sorry, this specific post was based off a post that was above mine that contained spam thus prompting me to make a follow up post identifying the anomaly. next time i'll make sure to include a portion of the spam post so others are aware that i'm not purposely making random posts myself

[iWiLRiDe]

A friend in the riding community died from a female driver who was texting. She did not get sued and did not face any jail time. A child riding down the street, with no intent to harm anyone, runs into someone and is sued? That makes absolutely NO sense to me at all.

[C S]

Dear Admins........ TOO much spam showing up on the board these past few weeks

You revived a thread from two years ago... to complain about spam??

[shwinn8]

no, a spam post was above mine which has been deleted. my post was to inform the admins of that post as that's what i had written. you need to get your facts right before making assumptions

[C S]

no, a spam post was above mine which has been deleted. my post was to inform the admins of that post as that's what i had written. you need to get your facts right before making assumptions

Well, now that makes sense. Suppose that's what happened with that 10 year old post that got revived recently as well.

[Reelchef67]

When someone ends up dead three weeks later from the incident, it's no longer a "little mistake." It's being ignorant and acting irresponsibly.

It was three months later of untreated causes as per ther article linked.

[jakester29959]

Wow. That is wrong.