4 year old racing bicyclist sued for negligence

[Boyonadyke]

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

[mattyboi]

wtf that is absolutly ridicoulous there 4 years old they dnt no any better!!!!! ppl are efffffed!

[sodak]

This is obsurd.. What is the world coming too? Sad....sad..

[Boyonadyke]

It's been a case precedent since 1928, nothing is new. Just saying, be careful out there, ride in control, and know that if you hit someone, you can be held liable for negligence.

Best bet is to ride areas / bike parks that have controlled, one way traffic trails to avoid such risks with pedestrians or equestrians.

[Skidhucker]

It's been a case precedent since 1928, nothing is new. Just saying, be careful out there, ride in control, and know that if you hit someone, you can be held liable for negligence.

Best bet is to ride areas / bike parks that have controlled, one way traffic trails to avoid such risks with pedestrians or equestrians.

I think if I were to hit you on the trail, I'd get an award from everyone on the Arizona forum... They'd be cheering "whoooo skidhucker!!!!"

[ExCactus]

What about the grandma for being involved in risky behavior by being over the age of 85 and strolling on a sidewalk in NY by herself? Or her children for that matter for not putting her in a retirement home, thus allowing her to live a risky lifestyle? I'm only kidding, but these arguments would have held up in a court like that... What an ******* of a judge.

[b-kul]

What about the grandma for being involved in risky behavior by being over the age of 85 and strolling on a sidewalk in NY by herself? Or her children for that matter for not putting her in a retirement home, thus allowing her to live a risky lifestyle? I'm only kidding, but these arguments would have held up in a court like that... What an ******* of a judge.

hahaha yeah. i understand the premise but when people start sueing other people for little mistakes kids make the world is screwed.

[Boyonadyke]

I think if I were to hit you on the trail, I'd get an award from everyone on the Arizona forum... They'd be cheering "whoooo skidhucker!!!!"

Then you'd be no more intelligent than the 4 year old kid that ended up in court as a co defendant with her mother?
.

[Boyonadyke]

hahaha yeah. i understand the premise but when people start sueing other people for little mistakes kids make the world is screwed.

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.

[mattyboi]

that dont matter the kids r 4 they dont no any better hes right the werld is screwed when that happens

[LonesomeCowboyBert]

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

Stuff like this?, edit, ...reading this properly, its the judge that needs a kick in the teeth

[Prettym1k3]

The legal system and its illusion over-protectiveness and complete lack of common sense and lack of a working system of checks and balances will be the downfall of our society.

In 100 years, if you're not a lawyer, you're nobody.

[ccspecialized]

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.

You must have skipped the part where it said she died of unrelated causes. Or did you ignore that part?

[bxxer rider]

This is obsurd.. What is the world coming too? Sad....sad..

what is America coming to?

totally ridicules like most court cases in America, get over your selves!

[dagenhay]

You must have skipped the part where it said she died of unrelated causes. Or did you ignore that part?

Apparently, I also missed the part where it said she died of unrelated causes. Re-read it still can't find it. Just because she died three weeks later does not mean it is unrelated. Just because she had to have hip surgery does not mean it is unrelated.

[jcook1989]

Sounds like vehicular manslaughter to me.

[dagenhay]

A 1928 precedent?? Really, because that precedent was determined by a judge that lived in a very different world. Do we not see things differently now?

Think of the other laws that people lived by back then. Prohibition, was from 1920 to 1933, that when the precedent was established. The judge that established the precedent hadn't had a drink in 8 years, of course he was a grumpy old man who hated kids. Or was it that he knew all the bootleggers and was actually trashed at the time?

[Iceman2058]

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

Hey man, just wondering - did you leave out the words about "unrelated causes" when you copied the article? Cause those words are there, if you click the link to the original.

Also, there's been a correction published by the NY Times:
__________________________________________________ ___
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: October 29, 2010
An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Claire Menagh died three weeks after the accident. She died three months later.
__________________________________________________ ___

Anyway, back on topic: I have nothing to say, really. That is about as f-ed up as it can get. She should have "reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman" - WTF????? WTF?????

[dagenhay]

Hey man, just wondering - did you leave out the words about "unrelated causes" when you copied the article? Cause those words are there, if you click the link to the original.

Also, there's been a correction published by the NY Times:
__________________________________________________ ___
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: October 29, 2010
An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Claire Menagh died three weeks after the accident. She died three months later.
__________________________________________________ ___

Yeah, I originally the story on Yahoo, when it first came out. It did not mention unrelated causes, then read the OP copy and paste which also didn't mention unrelated causes.

This is even more f***'d up with the dieing of unrelated causes.

Plus what are they gonna sue the kids for? Their toys, the clothes off their backs, they don't own anything. You wanna sue the parents, okay. But the kids?

[ccspecialized]

Apparently, I also missed the part where it said she died of unrelated causes. Re-read it still can't find it. Just because she died three weeks later does not mean it is unrelated. Just because she had to have hip surgery does not mean it is unrelated.

Maybe you should read the original, not the copy and pasted version. He seems to have left that little part out

[doesyourchainhanglow]

Omgwtfbbq

[dagenhay]

Maybe you should read the original, not the copy and pasted version. He seems to have left that little part out

"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 did read the original on the New York Times website, before it was revised. The original original not only said three weeks, it also did not mention unrelated.

So prior to this point our discussion is apples and oranges.

Unrelated or not, this judge is a joke.

[DucJ]

what is America coming to?

totally ridicules like most court cases in America, get over your selves!

Did someone just fart?

[suicidebomber]

And its even in Comic Sans!

[SHIVER ME TIMBERS]

What about the grandma for being involved in risky behavior by being over the age of 85 and strolling on a sidewalk in NY by herself? Or her children for that matter for not putting her in a retirement home, thus allowing her to live a risky lifestyle? I'm only kidding, but these arguments would have held up in a court like that... What an ******* of a judge.

nah it isn't right for someone to knock over another person period, but holding a four year old in court isn't funny either....still the parents should pay hospital bills