Judge declares 4 year old can be sued for the death of an eldery woman

[Anyerfillag]

I just wanted to put this out there for discussion:

A New York child can be sued for crashing a bicycle into an elderly pedestrian and causing injuries that led to her death, a judge has ruled.

Juliet Breitman and another child were four years old when they raced their small bicycles on a Manhattan street and ran into Claire Menagh, 87.

Juliet's lawyer had argued Juliet was too young to be held negligent.

The judge disagreed, ruling Juliet's lawyer had presented no evidence she lacked intelligence or maturity.

The article can be found here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376). So, do you think this decision was correct or is it just plain crazy?

[smorbie1]

Of course it's crazy. She's 4 or 5 now. She can't read. She can't consent to medical treatment. Obviously, other than a time out or swat on the bottom, there is no way she can be legally liable for a person's death. That's just stupid.
What are they hoping to win in their lawsuit, a tricycle and a barbie doll?

[anothereyjana]

I actually said something and linked a similar article in the "Vent!" thread in Off-Topic Discussion. In that one, it said that the woman died three months later, of causes unrelated to the "accident."
I also agree that this whole thing is insane. First of all, there doesn't seem to be any proof that the girl ran into the old woman on purpose. Not to mention that attempting to charge a child with "negligance," especially at that age, is absolutely asinine. They are trying to bring up the same charges one would bring against an adult who accidently injured someone because they were driving while distracted--the girl is barely five, plus, since when is a little pink bike with training wheels attached considered just as potentially lethal as a one-ton car?! The whole thing is just...ugh. :faceslap:
Was the judge just tramatised as a kid by that scene in The Omen of Damien running down his mom with his trike?

[el_flel]

Plain crazy. If she's below the age of criminal responsibility how on earth can she be old enough to be sued?! Who the heck is suing a 4 year old?! This is totally ridiculous, I saw it discussed on another forum and thought it had to be a joke, but sadly I don't think it is. Perhaps that judge should do some reading on children's development, then he might rethink the statement that there is "no evidence she lacked <snip> maturity" (removed the word 'intelligence' because unless she has some kind of mental condition, then her IQ isn't relevant). Kids of her age are only just starting to become aware of the fact that other people are different to them. She is way too young to be held responsible for causing this woman's death.

[HystericalParoxysm]

A 4 year old barely has -any- concept of death or injury. She probably knows that running her bike into an old woman is a bad idea, but at that age, it's more of a thought of herself getting hurt, or getting in trouble than "this old woman is fragile and I could seriously injure or possibly kill her by doing this." Unless there's evidence she did it on purpose, it sounds like a tragic accident. Suing won't bring back this woman - and she was probably near the end of her life anyway. This little girl already is going to have to deal with this situation for the rest of her life (can you imagine, knowing you killed someone at 4 years old?) - why make it uglier than it has to be? How will MONEY help at all?

[Eternal Rose]

I saw that article too & was shocked. I think the judge needs to be impeached & his head needs to be examined by a professional psychologist!

[fragglerocks]

If the child gets sued, wouldn't her legal guardians be held responsible? It's an honest question, because I don't know much about this part of the law. (Now ask about child support or custody and I'm a pro!)

I have a 4 year old girl. Now, given she is autistic...but even then I can't even fathom how a child this age could be expected to really understand cause and effect. My daughter has her bad moments when I will have to ask her at least a hundred times to stop doing something before she listens. She doesn't understand why I won't let her stick things in that really neat little light socket thingy. The other day we went to feed the ducks at the lake, and she REALLY wanted to jump in the water and get to them. She doesn't understand that she can drown. I mean, hey, the ducks are floating, so she can too right? ;)

[whiterider]

I don't know specifically about US law in this area, however if you adhere strictly to the basic principles of liability - yes, she's liable. Her action caused serious harm to someone else, and I don't think it's terribly unrealistic to expect a kid to understand that cycling into someone could end with somebody getting hurt. That said, just because she's liable doesn't mean the court should order her to pay compensation (fraggle - whether or not her parents would have to pay any compensation depends on the system, in many systems they would, in some others the court just wouldn't demand compensation since there's obviously no way a 4 year old can pay), and you can't do anything in a civil case except demand either compensation or an injunction - the judge is hardly gonna order an injunction here: an injunction against what? Hitting old ladies with a bicycle?

In some cases her parents would be considered liable, since it's their responsibility to keep an eye on their kid and make sure she behaves; but generally there's a reasonableness clause attached to that kind of rule, and not watching your kid every minute while she's cycling in front of her own house doesn't reasonably constitute negligence. SO while, yeah, technically I guess she's liable... that's pretty meaningless. There's no justifiable remedy here whether the kid is liable or not. I just hope they haven't forced this kid to go to court - I'm not even sure if kids that young are allowed to be crossexamined in court.

[Purity4]

A 4 year old barely has -any- concept of death or injury. She probably knows that running her bike into an old woman is a bad idea, but at that age, it's more of a thought of herself getting hurt, or getting in trouble than "this old woman is fragile and I could seriously injure or possibly kill her by doing this." Unless there's evidence she did it on purpose, it sounds like a tragic accident. Suing won't bring back this woman - and she was probably near the end of her life anyway. This little girl already is going to have to deal with this situation for the rest of her life (can you imagine, knowing you killed someone at 4 years old?) - why make it uglier than it has to be? How will MONEY help at all?

HP, the incident between the 4 year old bumping into the old lady had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of the woman.

As far as who is suing, it is the dead lady's estate. The woman is already dead, of completely unrelated causes, and the people in charge of the old lady's estate (likely her family or offspring) are going through her estate(monies and property) and are probably trying to find a way to make it more. So, they are going back in time to sue a kid for bumping into old lady, when old lady was alive, so they can get more money, to add to the estate, before the estate is distributed. I cannot believe this judge approved. He must be receiving a portion of the estate if they win the suit.

Again, the kid didn't kill anybody!

[Wild Missingno]

Why is this in the debate section when there's only really one side to this?

Anyhow, what's the point of suing a 4-year-old? It's not like they have money. I can understand suing the parents (which, as I've read in another article, they're doing), but not the kid.

[fakepeeps7]

The children struck Ms Menagh, knocking her to the ground. She underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died three months later.

That's not entirely unusual. My grandmother broke her hip while she was at a relative's house. She survived the surgery, but had a stroke about a week later and died shortly thereafter.

Three months is quite a bit different. What did she actually die of? It may have been something to do with being immobile because of the accident, but at that age, any number of things could have led to a fractured hip. She could have tripped the next day at the grocery store and done the same thing!

It's sad and it's tragic, but we can't go suing children every time an old person dies. Good grief! :faceslap:

[el_flel]

the incident between the 4 year old bumping into the old lady had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of the woman. This is what I wondered, because the article said "injuries that led to her death" - the wording of that is quite loose. Inuries which led to someone's death isn't quite the same as injuries which caused someone's death. In UK law, at least, an intervening act can be sufficient to change the liable party.

Another thing I don't get is: if the judge has ruled her liable and is allowing the estate to sue her, why are criminal proceedings not also being taken? If she isn't being, or can't be, prosecuted, how on earth can she be sued? It doesn't make sense to me.

[smorbie1]

I would love to comment more, but I have to go file a lawsuit against my 6-month-old niece. She throw up on my very expensive sweater and completely ruined it.

[Rawra]

This is crazy. World's gone mad. Jesus! It's just a child! And those old people are guilty most of the times. They think they have priority more than anyone else, they cross the road on red, just cause they're old, they yell at you and insult both you and your dog if you disturb them... And now, what? They'll send the poor kid to the jail school? Jesus f**king Christ!

[kerryanne13]

This is disgusting, people are so foul and money hungry. My daughter, who is now seventeen, dropped her Guinea Pig and knocked one of it's teeth out when she was about four-years-old. There was blood and she felt awful but everything seemed alright and the Pig lived for about another 3 months before it died. And my absolutely -brilliant- ex-husband and her father commented "You killed it because you knocked it's tooth out.". It died months after she'd dropped the thing and it had been eating fine after it's little mouth healed up, drank water, played about it's cage. Now this scarred my daughter, she'd thought she murdered her guinea pig, cried and cried and I tried to explain to her that small animals like that don't live long lives like we do, not even as long as puppies or kittens. I don't know the exact life span of pigs but what I'm really trying to say here is if it could make my child feel that bad over a little animal, I just feel sick thinking about what that other little girl is going through, all over the freaking almighty dollar!

[smorbie1]

[QUOTE=Wild Missingno]Why is this in the debate section when there's only really one side to this?

Apparently there are two sides. The judge and the woman's estate disagree with us. It would be interesting for someone who agreed to write in and give us the rationale behind what really is an out-of-bounds crazy idea.

[mangaroo]

Apparently there are two sides. The judge and the woman's estate disagree with us. It would be interesting for someone who agreed to write in and give us the rationale behind what really is an out-of-bounds crazy idea.

I don't agree, but I also don't know the whole story. Idle searching only turned up more "gasp! they're suing a child"-type articles. So here's a scenario where this makes sense to me: the lawsuit began when the woman was alive. Hospitals are expensive, and the children's families did not offer to cover the costs of her surgery, hospital stay, and lengthy (sadly, not so) recuperation, so the woman decided to seek legal help. Her lawyer -- who knows more about the law in the state of New York than the rest of us combined -- recognizes that liability is a slippery issue. If the parents are the only ones named in the suit and a judge finds that the parents cannot be held responsible because they did not perform the act, the case is lost. If the child is recognized as negligent and the parent is held responsible for the child's actions, the case is won.

Hypothetical scenario, but there are always two sides to a story.

[Mistermook]

I don't have any problem with allowing the lawsuit to go through, per say. There was harm done and all that. I'll be more interested and outraged if the child lost the suit. Even more interestingly, I'm curious about restitution they're seeking from the child, or if the real focus of the suit is against the parents and the idea is to allow the parents to plead lack of competence in the child making them liable for the actions of the child?

Most of the time "stupid" lawsuits pegged by the media as dumb, that don't involve crazy people or prisoners, have a bit more to them than the media's really equipped to report on I think. In this case there's a estate suing these people, that implies money... hell, the whole thing could be strategic in another lawsuit between the heirs if there is enough money involved? If it stays in the papers I'll try to catch up and see what else I can find out about it.

[Bailey Weggins]

Hospitals are expensive, and the children's families did not offer to cover the costs of her surgery, hospital stay, and lengthy (sadly, not so) recuperation, so the woman decided to seek legal help.
I have a different question: won't the mother's insurance cover that? In Germany, we have private liability insurance which is supposed to pay when negligent or gross negligent acts cause damage.

[smorbie1]

In America I don't think there's any insurance for that. The child wasn't in a motor vehicle nor was she in her own home. I don't think we have any kind of liability insurance that would cover a child injuring another person just out in the world. It's such a ridiculous situation, I don't think an insurance company would have ever considered it.

[Rectos Dominos]

Plain crazy. If she's below the age of criminal responsibility how on earth can she be old enough to be sued?! Who the heck is suing a 4 year old?! This is totally ridiculous, I saw it discussed on another forum and thought it had to be a joke, but sadly I don't think it is.
Only in America you can sue for anything there.

[Purity4]

The article stated that the old woman died from "unrelated causes."

[fakepeeps7]

The article stated that the old woman died from "unrelated causes."

You've said that twice, Purity4, but I don't see that anywhere in the linked article. Are you using a different source?

[gabrielorie]

WTF :blink: They can't sue a little four year old girl for racing a bike,i'm positive it was an accident...No four year old would kill intentionally (I think :| ) :( I'm guessing that the judge is single and dosen't have any kids (I can't inagine why :rolleyes: )

[fragglerocks]

What the fuck :blink: They can't sue a little four year old girl for racing a bike,i'm positive it was an accident...No four year old would kill intentionally (I think :| ) :( I'm guessing that the judge is single and dosen't have any kids (I can't inagine why :rolleyes: )

I agree with you completely, except that I don't believe the lawsuit would be about intent, but more so about negligent actions. People get sued all the time for accidents. Almost kind of like "You break it, you buy it."

[Rawra]

No four year old would kill intentionally
Who knows? Maybe she was possessed by some dark evil forces ? :heyhey:

[Mistermook]

I agree with you completely, except that I don't believe the lawsuit would be about intent, but more so about negligent actions. People get sued all the time for accidents. Almost kind of like "You break it, you buy it."
Exactly so. If your four year old is in the Precious Glass and Delicate Objects Shop with you and through no intent but only accident demolishes the place, either the child or you is liable for damages. This isn't a criminal trial where the person is accused of a crime, they're accusing the child of causing harm. The real question I think, in terms of a lawsuit, is (also IANAL, but I've read waaay too many lawsuit court briefs):

A. Is anyone truly liable? Neither the child or the woman harmed are competent legally to give any testimony, so everything depends on witnesses. Accidents happen even in the law, did the parents make reasonable efforts to keep the child from harming others? Is there a pattern of parental negligence that might be considered when establishing whether or not they have a fault in the care presented to prevent accidents? Did they have the capability whatsoever to prevent the harm from occurring? Did they have a duty to prevent harm, or is that entirely weighed upon the child for some reason?

B. Lawsuits seek restitution. What damages can apply to a child or their legal guardian to make amends for the harm caused the woman? Essentially the person harmed by the accident isn't present any longer, so the judge has ruled that the estate has standing in her stead. What restitution aids in recovery to the estate? I'm not sure if a judge is allowed to make that distinction between someone and their legal representatives after their death though.

[gabrielorie]

People get sued all the time for accidents. Almost kind of like "You break it, you buy it."

Its just a kid :( If she does go to court she'll probably wonder whats going on or if its nap time or something...

Who knows? Maybe she was possessed by some dark evil forces ? :heyhey:

:lol: you never know :P .

[Purity4]

You've said that twice, Purity4, but I don't see that anywhere in the linked article. Are you using a different source?

Sorry, you're right about a different article. Multiple-forum confusion can be blamed. The article linked in another forum I frequent was 4 Year old Can Be Sued (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=2&no_interstitial)

And this part is what I was referring to, from the article I've linked:
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.

And I'd like to add that the article I have linked also points out the ruling took place 2 years after the actual incident, one year 8 months after Claire's death.

A short Google search for Claire Menagh brought up, among other things, this confusing article about her husband's death. Menagh (http://http://acorn-online.net/acornonline/obits/menagh.htm)
First line says:
He was 85 years old and the husband of Claire Menagh.
Next to Last line says:
Besides his wife and his son Douglas and his wife, Lucille Falcone Menagh, Mr. Menagh is survived by two grandchildren, Douglas and Nancy Menagh, all of New York City.

How many wives was this man married to at the time of his death?

This article explains who began the lawsuit BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376)
Ms Menagh - and later her son, acting as executor of her estate - sued the children, arguing they were "negligent in their operation and control of their bicycles". The estate also sued Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, saying they had consented to the race.

*note* some 4, and even 8 year olds, can't even ride a bicycle, as in, they are not physically capable of pedaling, steering, and controlling speed and direction all at once. All of which have to do with gross motor skills and balance, neither of which have anything to do with intelligence, yet the judge supported his decision be saying the intelligence of said 4 year old was developmentally average, although intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with physical abilities.

Here is a copy of the suit filed NY State Court (http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2010OCT/3001078562009002SCIV.pdf)

I disagree that there can be a law that purports that all *older than 4 years old* children display the same abilities as described here: by what is expected of a reasonably prudent child of that age, experience,
intelligence and degree of development and capacity”

[Purity4]

Its just a kid :( If she does go to court she'll probably wonder whats going on or if its nap time or something...
.

My kids stopped taking naps at the age of 2 and Juliet is now 6 years old.

[fakepeeps7]

Okay, thanks. If the death was due to unrelated causes, then the judge is just crazy.

As for the guy having two wives, I think that Lucille Falcone Menagh is actually the son Douglas's wife. Kind of strange wording there, so I can see how it would be confusing. They should have referred to her as the daughter-in-law.

[mangaroo]

*note* some 4, and even 8 year olds, can't even ride a bicycle, as in, they are not physically capable of pedaling, steering, and controlling speed and direction all at once. All of which have to do with gross motor skills and balance, neither of which have anything to do with intelligence, yet the judge supported his decision be saying the intelligence of said 4 year old was developmentally average, although intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with physical abilities.

Intelligence is being used as the measure of comprehending the consequences of one's behavior, which is the measure of negligence. Physical coordination is irrelevant. The judge is addressing the question of whether a 4-year-old knows that you might run into people if you "race" a tricycle on a sidewalk where there are pedestrians.

Personally, I don't think four-year-olds are that good at conceptualizing. How many times does a parent have to tell a child of 6 not to play ball in the house until they break something and see why they are not supposed to play ball in the house? But apparently the law sets the line of automatic dismissal at 3 years of age. So now -- assuming the case ever makes it to trial -- the lawyer is tasked with demonstrating a 4-year-old couldn't be expected to understand that tricycle race + people is a bad idea.

[Purity4]

Intelligence is being used as the measure of comprehending the consequences of one's behavior, which is the measure of negligence. Physical coordination is irrelevant. The judge is addressing the question of whether a 4-year-old knows that you might run into people if you "race" a tricycle on a sidewalk where there are pedestrians.

Personally, I don't think four-year-olds are that good at conceptualizing. How many times does a parent have to tell a child of 6 not to play ball in the house until they break something and see why they are not supposed to play ball in the house? But apparently the law sets the line of automatic dismissal at 3 years of age. So now -- assuming the case ever makes it to trial -- the lawyer is tasked with demonstrating a 4-year-old couldn't be expected to understand that tricycle race + people is a bad idea.

I agree with your conclusions. There's no way my 4 year old would have that reasoning capacity. She hasn't even mastered impulse control yet, which is not expected until the age of 6-8 anyway.

[Mistermook]

After reading some more on the case it's essentially not having anything to do directly with the child - the lawsuit is about getting the child's insurance to pay for the medical expenses from the woman's injury. The child has to be found liable for the insurance to be liable to pay for the medical expenses. There's no issue whether or not the child is competent, the issue is purely whether or not the child is (meaning the insurance company) is liable for the damages because, I assume, a reasonable person would have watched their child closely enough that they didn't run over an 87 year old woman and break her hip.

The woman was injured is a fact, and there doesn't seem to be any contesting the notion that the children caused the injury. As far as I can tell the only issue was whether or not the children and their parents were exercising reasonable care in the incident and are not liable for the damages. The girl whose parents were contesting her naming in the suit were also represent the only parent (the mother) present during the incident but

“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.”

The wording of that suggests to me that in the detailed documents there might be something in there suggesting that the children took an action that might have reasonably be interpreted as them not merely acting without care, but taking some sort of action wholly inappropriate that caused the injury.

(As always, IANAL)

[Bailey Weggins]

After reading some more on the case it's essentially not having anything to do directly with the child - the lawsuit is about getting the child's insurance to pay for the medical expenses from the woman's injury.
What's the insurance called that pays when someone negligently (not intentionally) causes damage?

[el_flel]

There's no issue whether or not the child is competent, the issue is purely whether or not the child is (meaning the insurance company) is liable for the damages because, I assume, a reasonable person would have watched their child closely enough that they didn't run over an 87 year old woman and break her hip. See, I think that's a bit of an unreasonable thing to expect. Parents cannot watch their children every single second of the day, and even if they had been sat out watching her on her bike, it could very well have still happened anyway.


Bascially, I find it absurd that a four year old child can be sued, whether she was at fault or not. The parents, I could understand, but a four year old? I know the law can often be very contradictory when it comes to ages of responsibility (in the UK you be charged for a crime at 10; can have sex and buy a lottery ticket at 16; drive at 17; drink, gamble, legally an adult at 18; certain other minor things at 21) but surely there has to also be a minimum age of responsibility for suing someone?

[fakepeeps7]

Bascially, I find it absurd that a four year old child can be sued, whether she was at fault or not. The parents, I could understand, but a four year old?

What are they expecting to get out of the lawsuit? Her bike? The average 4-year-old doesn't have any assets to speak of.

Unless they're going after any future earnings, which is just cruel and vindictive. Ruin her life before it even begins!

The people doing the suing sound very unpleasant.

[mangaroo]

I clicked the disagree there, Fakepeeps. I think the outrage over the impression of a child being sued is the result of the media not presenting a well-rounded view of the legal nuances. An old lady was injured, people. She may have incurred thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills as a result of the child's actions. The responsible thing for the parents of the children who caused her injury to do would be to cover those medical bills. They sound like very unpleasant people if she had to go after them in court.

What if a 14-year-old skateboarder had run into her? An 18-year-old on a motorcycle? When do the injured woman and her family stop sounding unpleasant to you?

[Purity4]

Claire's husband and son were both lawyers, so they have that going for them, I guess. :blink:

[fakepeeps7]

I clicked the disagree there, Fakepeeps. I think the outrage over the impression of a child being sued is the result of the media not presenting a well-rounded view of the legal nuances. An old lady was injured, people. She may have incurred thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills as a result of the child's actions. The responsible thing for the parents of the children who caused her injury to do would be to cover those medical bills. They sound like very unpleasant people if she had to go after them in court.

What if a 14-year-old skateboarder had run into her? An 18-year-old on a motorcycle? When do the injured woman and her family stop sounding unpleasant to you?

A 4-year-old doesn't understand the concept of negligence. They don't have an understanding of lots of things. It's a matter of brain development. Unless the courts can prove that she ran into the old lady on purpose, it doesn't make any sense to sue. Even if she did run into her intentionally, a 4-year-old wouldn't necessarily understand the consequences. In a child's mind, doing such a thing might just seem amusing because the person fell down. They don't understand that old people are more fragile and that a broken hip can lead to death. The difference here is that a 14-year-old skateboarder can understand these things. Nobody sues a toddler when he gets hold of daddy's gun and shoots his cousin. You can argue that he should have known that the gun could go off and hurt someone, but that would be an unrealistic thing to expect.

The suing family wouldn't sound so unpleasant to me if they had gone after the kid's parents instead of the kid herself. That just makes them look vindictive, because they can't possibly hope to gain anything financially by suing a 4-year-old.

[RoseCity]

A 4-year-old doesn't understand the concept of negligence. They don't have an understanding of lots of things. It's a matter of brain development. Unless the courts can prove that she ran into the old lady on purpose, it doesn't make any sense to sue. Even if she did run into her intentionally, a 4-year-old wouldn't necessarily understand the consequences. In a child's mind, doing such a thing might just seem amusing because the person fell down. They don't understand that old people are more fragile and that a broken hip can lead to death. The difference here is that a 14-year-old skateboarder can understand these things. Nobody sues a toddler when he gets hold of daddy's gun and shoots his cousin. You can argue that he should have known that the gun could go off and hurt someone, but that would be an unrealistic thing to expect.

The suing family wouldn't sound so unpleasant to me if they had gone after the kid's parents instead of the kid herself. That just makes them look vindictive, because they can't possibly hope to gain anything financially by suing a 4-year-old.

I haven't read any of the relevant documents myself, but didn't Mistermook say that the reason they were suing the kid was to establish fault so that the insurance company could then be sued. Which seems to assume that there is an insurance company that can be sued, and I'd love to know what kind of insurance that is. Do kids in NYC have bike insurance?

[mangaroo]

The suing family wouldn't sound so unpleasant to me if they had gone after the kid's parents instead of the kid herself. That just makes them look vindictive, because they can't possibly hope to gain anything financially by suing a 4-year-old.

I imagine they hoped to gain an out-of-court settlement.

The mothers of both children are also named in the suit. The children are named to establish a chain of liability (the parents were not riding the bicycles). Even if Menagh's lawyers won the case, the court is not going to put a lien on little Juliet's allowance or her future earnings. The financial responsibility would fall to the parents.

Personally, I don't know enough about civil law in the state of New York to know if this case could be won if it were simply based on the negligence of the parents. I also don't know if the Menagh family is suing for medical expenses or punitive damages. Knowing these things would definitely shape my opinion, but nobody is bothering to report on that when the media outlets can garner ad revenue by being shocked spectators rather than critical thinkers. This is some of the stupidest, most careless reporting I have ever seen.

[fakepeeps7]

I guess there's only one answer, then. Handcuff your children to the kitchen table, wrap them in bubble wrap, and hope that a sudden burst of childish laughter doesn't give some passing old lady a heart attack. If that happens, get a lawyer fast. :rolleyes:

I've searched online, but I can only find the same couple of stories repeated over and over. There really isn't a lot of information on this case, as you pointed out. But the thought that kids can be sued for playing still rubs me the wrong way. It's a heck of a lot different than this case (http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Pros+deconstruct+buying+selling+home/2999886/comfortable+seats+those+judge/3249531/Escaping+Nanaimo+shoplifter+runs+over+year+suffers+broken+suspect+photo/3396348/story.html?id=3396348), where the idiot pushed over a 99-year-old man and broke his hip while doing something illegal.

The problem is, if elderly people are allowed to sue for anything that breaks a hip, then the legal system is going to be absolutely flooded in the next few years as all the osteoporitic baby boomers age. This case sets a rather dangerous precedent.

And it probably would have ended with a lawsuit, no matter what. Where are young children supposed to ride their bicycles? In the street? Then one of them gets hit by a car and the parents sue the driver (or the city)! You just can't win.

[mangaroo]

The problem is, if elderly people are allowed to sue for anything that breaks a hip, then the legal system is going to be absolutely flooded in the next few years as all the osteoporitic baby boomers age. This case sets a rather dangerous precedent.

No, this case says that your kid can't ride her trike into old ladies with walkers. Nor can they ride their bikes into businessmen, pregnant women, and other 4-year-olds. It doesn't give free reign for the elderly to sue if they fall down the stairs or slip in the tub or take a tumble while snowboarding. Elderly people are allowed to sue for the same thing young people are: when someone else's negligence causes them harm. Elders are not lesser citizens.

[RoseCity]

The problem is, if elderly people are allowed to sue for anything that breaks a hip, then the legal system is going to be absolutely flooded in the next few years as all the osteoporitic baby boomers age. This case sets a rather dangerous precedent.

And it probably would have ended with a lawsuit, no matter what. Where are young children supposed to ride their bicycles? In the street? Then one of them gets hit by a car and the parents sue the driver (or the city)! You just can't win.

They should probably ride their bikes in the park; the sidewalks in NYC are way too crowded. (Nice dig at baby boomers)

[fakepeeps7]

No, this case says that your kid can't ride her trike into old ladies with walkers. Nor can they ride their bikes into businessmen, pregnant women, and other 4-year-olds.

No, they shouldn't, but we don't even know if that was the intent here. They were four years old, for goodness sake. I know I didn't have great control of a bike at four years old. (Ever watched a kid that age try to ride a bike? There's a lot of swerving involved.) If it was an accident, it was an accident. Putting the child and her parents through this isn't going to bring the old lady back. Nor will it teach the child anything (except maybe to be afraid of riding her bike at all because people will sue you and make your mommy cry). You can't learn not to have an accident; the nature of accidents is that they are unpredictable!

It doesn't give free reign for the elderly to sue if they fall down the stairs or slip in the tub or take a tumble while snowboarding. Elderly people are allowed to sue for the same thing young people are: when someone else's negligence causes them harm.

Maybe the builder was negligent when he built the house and the stairs weren't up to code. Maybe the tub was slipperier than advertised. Maybe the snowboard's bindings broke. Could you not claim negligence in those cases?

I just don't see how you can sue the child for negligence in this particular case. Unless the courts can prove that the child did this on purpose, it's a weak argument. It was most likely an accident.

If I'm walking down a crowded street and I bump into an old lady and she falls over and breaks her hip, does she get to sue me? Can't I turn around and sue her because she wasn't paying enough attention to where she was going? Why didn't the woman in this case step aside? Could she not see two children coming at her?

Elders are not lesser citizens.

I didn't say they were. I was simply pointing out that if one elderly person is allowed to sue a child for an accident, then there's a great big pool of people who are going to want to be next in line. It's not a matter of taking digs at baby boomers. They simply happen to be a huge generation, and people are litigious these days. Put the two together and you'll have more lawsuits.

They should probably ride their bikes in the park; the sidewalks in NYC are way too crowded.

Agreed. But how do they get their bikes to the park? What if there's no park close enough? Not everybody is lucky enough to live near a park.

That's beside the point, anyway. The only people who should be sued for negligence in this case are the parents. The judge is overestimating the skills and cognitive abilities of very young children. I don't see how it can possibly be "negligence" when you're not even capable of doing the task proficiently in the first place.

[Mistermook]

What's the insurance called that pays when someone negligently (not intentionally) causes damage?
Personal liability insurance, sometimes packaged under umbrella liability insurance.

[Ledgo]

That won't go far. I highly doubt a higher court would let that go far without putting their foot down and ruling it unconstitutional. A four year old does not have these concepts in their mind, they're highly undeveloped mentally so you cannot hold them to that seeing as it was an accident.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

i suppose if it was her fault that the old woman was...well, old and brittle, then yes. or if she intentionally steered her bike into said fragile old bat while fully aware that yes, it could kill her....



ffs, shes 4 years old. what is wrong with these people?

when i was 4 i was crashing my bike into walls. because i lacked complete control of my motor skills. now im guessing if theyd seen me break the fence, i couldve been sued for what scrapes i inflicted?

kids do stupid things. its not always linked to malice.

[mangaroo]

Negligence has absolutely nothing to do with the intent to cause harm. The intent to cause harm is assault. Is this child being arraigned for assault? No.

Negligence is a failure to behave with reasonable caution to avoid causing someone else harm. The assertion of negligence against the children is the allegation that they were racing their bikes on a city sidewalk and not demonstrating adequate care for the pedestrians around them. The decision on the pretrial motion merely states that the law (at this point) will not assume that a 4-year-old cannot behave with reasonable care. It's now the lawyer's responsibility to convince a court that this individual 4-year-old cannot be held to that standard.

Why didn't the woman in this case step aside? Could she not see two children coming at her?

First, she used a walker. People who need to use walkers are not the most mobile or agile people on the sidewalk. Do you know the speed the children were traveling at? Do you know what direction Mrs Menagh had been facing? Could you try not to blame the victim?

[apv301]

You know what, I'm just going to be cold hearted here.

A: This is rediculous, a 4 year old held responsible for murder? Most asinine thing ever

B: The lady was 87 freakin' years old, yes it's a shame she died, but for god sakes you're going to ruin a 4 year olds life, a kid who had probably 80+ years left in their life. Over someone who had probably 4 at best? Don't get me wrong I'm not saying killing ANYone is right, it's horrible. But it was a 4 year old, it obviously wasn't premeditated, it was just an accident. Which apparantly is a word lawyers and judges don't know.

@poster above me
Considering the kids are 4, it's safe to assume they had very little control of their bikes themselves. What happened was a case of two bad scenarios colliding (no pun intended)

[whiterider]

The child isn't being held responsible for murder. Murder requires intent and deliberate actions directly leading to the death of another human being - and in some systems, premeditation; it is a crime. Tort law (suing) isn't about locking the wrongdoer up or judging them to be a criminal: it's about making up (providing compensation) for a situation in which someone (the child) has done something (accidentally hit the old lady with a bike) which has resulted in the other person being left unfairly worse off than they were before (dead, and with her relatives bereaved).

[apv301]

Yeah.... dead definitely counts as worse than before... but how do you even justify a 4 year old being sued...? I misunderstood the topic, but still why the kid? Her parents I could partially understand, I mean the kid was 4 where were the parents during all this =/?

[Mistermook]

Yeah.... dead definitely counts as worse than before... but how do you even justify a 4 year old being sued...? I misunderstood the topic, but still why the kid? Her parents I could partially understand, I mean the kid was 4 where were the parents during all this =/?
Again, don't think about it as "I'm suing the four year old." Whether you're four or forty, these kinds of suits aren't directed truly at the individuals but at the insurers assuming liability for the individuals. In this case I assume that means they name everyone present in the suit, assign liability and damages, and then figure out which insurance company pays out which portion of the damages. The girl's mother, I assume, tried to separate her daughter from this mess because there's a limited precedent for doing so and because it would mean that her portion of the insurance claims wouldn't have to be paid.

It's nice that everyone's trying to look out for the insurance company I guess, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest they're not going to be represented by four year olds and the judge isn't really going to bother with putting prepubescents in a box and forcing them to submit to Matlock. Procedurally I don't think anything has changed. Everyone still has to make statements, just like when you have a car accident.

[WaterWolf]

She's been traumatised by accidently killing an Elderly woman... That's enough.