4 year old being sued?

[HOF]

For the love of christ, is not bad enough that this child will grow up knowing that she injured an old woman. Nobody wins in this situation!

 

[tboy]

For the love of christ, is not bad enough that this child will grow up knowing that she injured an old woman. Nobody wins in this situation!

I'd like to get more info on the accident that caused the woman's death before passing any judgement as to whether or not this is right or wrong.

I bet the spin on this story is the fact that the suit is actually against the parents and the children are named as part of the suit.

If the child was zooming around with reckless abandon and the parents weren't paying attention or providing proper supervision then I'm all for the suit. Might make more parents pay attention as opposed to letting their kids run wild.

How many times have we seen kids going batshit and the parents letting them?

But if the suit is actually against the children then what could they ever hope to get out of them? I've sued people before and even though I won the case, being deadbeats they just didn't pay up and I had to either pay another $10,000.00 in fees to try and collect, or live and learn.

It would also matter if the children were in a playground or just blasting along the sidewalk. If they were in a playground then grandma should have been paying more attention (because like dogparks, kids should be allowed to go a little nuts in a playground).

 

[Bill The Pirate]

I wonder what it means, her estate is suing them. Like I know the US is the litigation capital of the world, but hopefully it's not the lawyers of her estate suing someone. I would have thought that if it were the children of the elderly woman then the article would have said so.

It's a dark thought but could the lawyer just be running up his fees from her estate? What if he had legal control over the estate?

 

[Bill The Pirate]

I went online to the Ny times and read the whole story.... I see a movie plot here.

After spending all of his money of drugs and hookers, tired, worn out and morally bankrupt Lawyer William Dewy of the law firm Dewy, Fuckem and Howe (played by Charlie sheen) sues a pair of 4 year olds for the sheer sensationalism of the controversial trial.

 

[Bill The Pirate]

During the trial, Dewey meets up with a devastatingly beautiful para legal and begins a steamy affair.

The beautiful Para (played by Sillygirl) derails his law suite, by exposing to the medai the real reason behind the suite and gets Dewey disbared.

Dewey is so upset he can't even fuck her out of spite.

 

[smylee52]

It's about time children were held accountable for playing with reckless abandon . How many times did her parents probably tell her it's all fun till someone loses an eye . Well it's time to pay the piper . She probably won't do time but she should at least have her bicycle riding rights suspended and spend some weekends cleaning up the local playground . Better take control of these 4 year olds before they hit full time school and really learn how to have fun with true abandon . The clock is ticking on the fate of our society as we know it . We need to act now .

 

[Smooth]

It's ridiculous to name the child in the law suit. The mom for allowing the young child to carelessly ride the bike on a busy street is understandable.

 

[tboy]

Here's more of the story:



Seems she was racing her friend down the street and ran into the elderly woman.

I think in legal terms she'd have to be named in the suit as the actual person who committed the offence and since the mother was "supervising" them, she would ultimately be responsible for any monetary damages.

Now on a basic level you'd automatically think this is ludicrous but don't forget, a woman IS dead due to the kid's direct actions and or the mother's ignorance/negligence.

Now on "the other board" I got into many MANY discussions on the merits or hazards of riding a bicycle on a sidewalk and was chastised repeatedly for my warnings. Now if a 4 yr old can kill a woman, what about a 15 yr old?

This is just one example of why I say bicycles have NO place on sidewalks.....of any size shape or form or being ridden by anyone. We have parks, driveways, etc for this activity........

This also brings up an interesting point: is a 4 yr old capable of operating a bicycle? If they cannot be held responsible for their actions, should they be allowed to operate a mechanized mode of transportation? I'm not saying take away their big wheels but this might just bring about parents being more in control of their kids.......

 

[Bubba]

Not sure what to say. She is only four years old and will be scarred for life. Same scenerio, the old ladies' children and grandchildren have also suffered (If she had any). Good points so far from all but I go back to saying, she is only 4 years old.

 

[HOF]

I went online to the Ny times and read the whole story.... I see a movie plot here.

After spending all of his money of drugs and hookers, tired, worn out and morally bankrupt Lawyer William Dewy of the law firm Dewy, Fuckem and Howe (played by Charlie sheen) sues a pair of 4 year olds for the sheer sensationalism of the controversial trial.

LMFAO

 

[HOF]

During the trial, Dewey meets up with a devastatingly beautiful para legal and begins a steamy affair.

The beautiful Para (played by Sillygirl) derails his law suite, by exposing to the medai the real reason behind the suite and gets Dewey disbared.

Dewey is so upset he can't even fuck her out of spite.

LMFAO

 

[HOF]

TBOY!

TBOY!

Often, I find your POV humourous and sometimes even insightful; however, in this instance, you're wrong.

The parent could have been right beside the child and a situation where nobody could get out of the way. It does say the children were racing, but what is racing to a 4 year old? The elderly woman probably wouldn't be able to get out of the way of anything.

As for a 15 year old riding on the sidewalk that's worlds apart. What do you want the 4 year old to ride on the road? The children were probably riding their tricycles to the park.

You use words like blasting and zooming around like these two were dirt bike racing. Cmon man, they're little bodies can only peddle so fast. Is a 4 year old capable of operating a bicycle? Yes. Are you capable of understanding that this is a tragic accident where an 87 year old woman with health issues died? We're talking about children who will be live with that for the rest of their lives.

3/4 years ago an elderly man backing out of his driveway killed a child that he couldn't see this happened in Welland.
Last year a grandmother ran over her grand-daughter backing out of the driveway, the child died. This was in Hamilton.

I think your thinking is maybe alittle over the top on this one. If these children are going to be sued; then Michael Bryant should have been publicly lynched.

 

[tboy]

HOF:

1) It wasn't tricycles, they were riding bicycles
2) The STORY said they were racing down the sideWALK not I
3) No, a 4 yr old shouldn't ride on the road, we have parks and playgrounds and backyards for that.
4) Obviously a 15 yr old riding their bike on the sidewalk ISN'T that different. if a 4 yr old could kill a woman, a 15 yr old could also.
5) There are/were those who DID think Bryant should be lynched
6) As for your other examples, they too are perfect examples of parents not taking proper care and caution in regards to their kids
7) as for the kids being scarred for life. I highly doubt that. I bet they really don't realize what they've done.....how many 4 yr olds know the true meaning of life? Death? Loss?I bet you dollars to donuts the kids cried when the old lady was hurt, the ambulance came and carted her away and I bet as soon as the flashing lights faded into the distance the little girl turned to her mom and said: what's for dinner?
8) The old woman SHOULDN'T have to get out of the way of anything, remember: pedestrians have the right of way.
9) Obviously a 4 yr old is capable of operating a bicycle, but safely? Obviously not.....

I guess you've missed the WSIB commercials about how "there are no such things as accidents"? The elderly woman would be alive today if: a) mom had taken better care to supervise her kid(s) and b) the kids were racing their bicycles in a playground NOT on a sideWALK.

So HOF, I guess if a kid ran over YOUR grandmother and killed her you'd pat them on the head and say: that's ok dear, it was an accident? How about if it was a 12 yr old who ran over a 4 yr old on their bicycle?

No matter what, I STILL stand by my opinion that sideWALKS are no place for skateboards, bicycles (peddle or electric), go carts, golf carts or any other mode of mechanical transportation.....

 

[SillyGirl]

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

It was a bicycle with training wheels. The other child and the mothers are also being sued.

The woman actually died from unrelated causes.

 

[HOF]

HOF:

1) It wasn't tricycles, they were riding bicycles
2) The STORY said they were racing down the sideWALK not I
3) No, a 4 yr old shouldn't ride on the road, we have parks and playgrounds and backyards for that.
4) Obviously a 15 yr old riding their bike on the sidewalk ISN'T that different. if a 4 yr old could kill a woman, a 15 yr old could also.
5) There are/were those who DID think Bryant should be lynched
6) As for your other examples, they too are perfect examples of parents not taking proper care and caution in regards to their kids
7) as for the kids being scarred for life. I highly doubt that. I bet they really don't realize what they've done.....how many 4 yr olds know the true meaning of life? Death? Loss?I bet you dollars to donuts the kids cried when the old lady was hurt, the ambulance came and carted her away and I bet as soon as the flashing lights faded into the distance the little girl turned to her mom and said: what's for dinner?
8) The old woman SHOULDN'T have to get out of the way of anything, remember: pedestrians have the right of way.
9) Obviously a 4 yr old is capable of operating a bicycle, but safely? Obviously not.....

I guess you've missed the WSIB commercials about how "there are no such things as accidents"? The elderly woman would be alive today if: a) mom had taken better care to supervise her kid(s) and b) the kids were racing their bicycles in a playground NOT on a sideWALK.

So HOF, I guess if a kid ran over YOUR grandmother and killed her you'd pat them on the head and say: that's ok dear, it was an accident? How about if it was a 12 yr old who ran over a 4 yr old on their bicycle?

No matter what, I STILL stand by my opinion that sideWALKS are no place for skateboards, bicycles (peddle or electric), go carts, golf carts or any other mode of mechanical transportation.....

Tboy,

Everyone knows that you'll stand by your opinion, but your opinion isn't always right. Nor is mine for that matter, and I'm standing by mine! We can agree to disagree. What is obvious is that you enjoy controversy and arguing with your shadow.

It was a bicycle with training wheels. You should read your own post very clearly; there is a significant difference in the abilities of a 15 year old and a 4 year old. True meaning of life, does anyone really know what that is? You highly doubt that these children will be scared for. Well thanks for your diagnosis Dr. Tboy. Children can and do suffer from this thing called post traumatic stress disorder; it's in the DSMR-IV

Well, my grandparents and parents are deceased so we'll never know how I would react, but I would definitely consider the circumstances that led to it. If it was a drunk driver or street-racer (I would be enraged). If it were this type of scenario, my parents wouldn't want me to be after the child or parents. In fact, mine would want me to embrace and help the child as part of a healing process for both families.

There is no possible way that WSIB injuries can be related to this situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwCyVku1HvI&feature=related
Every worker in Ontario has the right to refuse work or a work situation that could be potentially dangerous. If a worker refuses, it is the duty of the supervisor to ensure they're safe and the Ministry of Labour will attend the work-site and make a decision. Whether you know this or not, those WSIB commercials were banned because the Injured Workers of Ontario Associations demonstrated that they were causing injured workers to flashback.

You should look up the definition of accident as it would pertain to this instance.

 

[SillyGirl]

Perhaps the parents were rude and took no responsibility for the incident, and this is the estate's way of forcing someone to be held accountable. :neutral:

 

[tboy]

Perhaps the parents were rude and took no responsibility for the incident, and this is the estate's way of forcing someone to be held accountable. :neutral:

EXACTLY

Hof: my reference to the WSIB commercials is the ones that state: there is NO such thing as an accident. Any "accident" can usually be prevented by a little more attention to the situation.

Now in this case, Grandma should be able to safely walk the sidewalk without fear or need to have good reflexes. Therefore she cannot be held responsible in any way shape or form. Then, where does the responsibility lie? Well, with the parents for not paying enough attention to what their kids are doing.

HOF: now I thought we were going to have an adult conversation but out you come with the insults? Dude, I would expect that from fuji, Rubfucker or one of the other dweebs but you? come on.......

Now for the sake of discussion: your grandparents would want you to forgive unconditionally the kid and their parents but NOT a teen street racer. So, what you're saying is age is the only determining factor in your forgiveness? Isn't that a little hypocritical?

Let's compare the two:
Teen/Car: he should know better (don't race, don't drive too fast, watch where you're going)
Child/bike: they should know better (don't ride your bike on the sidewalk, watch where you're going, don't ride too fast)

Sorry, but your "forgiveness" of the child and the parents IS indicative of the problem with today's youth. You'd outright forgive them for KILLING an elderly woman.

BTW: SG? she died of complications of the surgery/treatment why else would they be able to bring suit against anyone if she died of unrelated causes?

OK, Hof: here you go:

"Accident: Law . such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought. "

And HOF, you can argue my opinion being wrong all you want, but I'm legally right, at least in New York State.........

 

[SillyGirl]

BTW: SG? she died of complications of the surgery/treatment why else would they be able to bring suit against anyone if she died of unrelated causes?
.....

They are being sued for negligence in regard to her injuries sustained in the incident, not for causing her death. Here's the article.

4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case

By ALAN FEUER

Published: October 28, 2010

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, 4, and Jacob Kohn, 5, 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.

 

[tboy]

Thanks SG, the story I read didn't say that nor that it was 3 months later.....that clears THAT up at least lol.....

BTW: I asked someone I know who is the mother of a 4 yr old and she confirmed what I believed all along, that the kid has no real idea of what death is......that being the case she's probably aware that she injured someone but not what the true consequences are.....

So, I take back my comment about them "killing an elderly woman" because they only severely injured her.......

 

[SillyGirl]

While I think most four year olds would understand that someone could get hurt if you run into them with a bike, I also understand that children that age are easily caught up in the moment, and these two were probably not focused on anything beyond who was winning the race.

Really, it's the moms at fault here. While they were apparently not encouraging the children to race, it doesn't seem they were trying to stop it either. And to kids that age, not saying No is the same as saying Yes.

Whether four and five year olds should be sued wasn't the question, though. It was if they could be, and under these cirumstances, apparently they can. Although this part of the judge's ruling makes me wonder who's padding the bill...

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.”

Mr. Tyrie is the attorney for the kid, and it seems so simple that the kid was over the age of four that I can't believe he thought it would fly.

I keep wondering about why someone would sue kids that young in addition to the parents. Could there be a larger settlement from a liability policy if two occupants of the household were found negligent for the same event? Wait, would a policy even pay if you were found negligent?

If a kid hit and seriously injured my grandmother with a bike, I think my reaction would depend largely on the reaction of the parents. If they were genuinely sorry and made the kids take some sort of age-appropriate responsiblity (draw Grandma a picture, apologize), I'd be a lot less likely to pursue legal action. Especially after Grandma passed away from unrelated causes.

If, however, they implied that Grandma should've gotten out of the way, and that the fault was hers...well, that would really piss me off.