Slashdot Mirror
New York Judge Rules 6-Year-Old Can Be Sued
suraj.sun sends this snippet from Reuters:
"A girl can be sued over accusations she ran over an elderly woman with her training bicycle when she was 4 years old, a New York Supreme Court justice has ruled. The ruling by King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten stems from an incident in April 2009 when Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, both aged four, struck an 87-year-old pedestrian, Claire Menagh, with their training bikes. Menagh underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died three months later. In a ruling made public late Thursday, the judge dismissed arguments by Breitman's lawyer that the case should be dismissed because of her young age. He ruled that she is old enough to be sued and the case can proceed."
Okay, a pair of four year olds on their bikes. Accidentally hit an old lady.
And they're going to sue the four year olds?
Okay guys. It really IS time to kill all the lawyers.
*Grabs a gun*
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
If I would have intentionally rammed my bicycle into anyone at the age of 4 years and 9 months I would have received, at a minimum, corporal punishment.
Of course today that would probably get my parents sent to jail.
If you're old enough to be sued you should be old enough to vote and vice versa. People who have grievances with a child should sue the guardian or supervisor of the child. In most cases the problem with a child should probably be dismissed as an accident. (Children are little walking accidents after all.)
Article 40 of the Convention of Children's Rights says:
"Governments are required to set a minimum age below which children cannot be held criminally responsible and to provide minimum guarantees for the fairness and quick resolution of judicial or alternative proceedings."
When the article was written, I am pretty sure that the signers didn't envision that 'tis of thee would set that minimum age at *four*. That's just ridiculous. 14 is the common standard, as far as I can tell.
1. Haul 6 year old girl into the court.
2. ???
3. Justice!
It's bizarre. If they judge her, then what?
She can't be sent to prison, has no income to pay a fine, and I doubt very much she can be made to perform community service. So I'm just wondering.
Also, there's this:
But running around is what 4 year old children do. I think pretty much everybody has noticed that young children have some problems with fine motor control and are ocassionally running into people while playing. They're children, they haven't completely figured it yet. What are the parents supposed to do, keep them on a leash?
It's shit like this, America.
- When you do things right, no one will be sure you've done anything at all.
Exercise judicial review of incompetent legislation?
Exercise judicial assessment of a meritless suit?
The position of "judge" is not a clerical one, tasking the person to do whatever they're assigned to do. As the title implies, it's a job that calls for the exercise of "judgment".
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Accidents don't mean no responsibility. If I crash my car into yours accidentally I'm still responsible for the damage. Now, since we're talking about a very young kid I think the parents should shoulder the responsibility (much like they would if their dog had run the old lady down) but apparently the law says otherwise.
So as long as I only murder sufficiently old people, I really shouldn't be held accountable by the legal system?
No but hows about we wait until the individual is old enough to understand the concept of life and death before we take them to court for murder. 4-6 years is NOT old enough.
Hey everyone, it's Captain Hindsight here to save us! Thanks Captain Hindsight!
> Use his brain. Four year olds can't by any
> stretch of the imagination be held accountable.
I think you underestimate the power of imagination.
But the main point is, you're right. We all think it's crazy to pin a woman's death on a toddler riding a bike with training wheels.
We also think it's crazy to blame the victim, an 87 year-old woman who may not have had full situation awareness and may have lacked the agility to evade a collision.
It's also hard to blame the mom - she let her kid ride a bike, which I think our culture considers benign.
The truth is that this was an accident. What's broken here is that somebody has decided to sue unwitting participants for an accident best blamed on happenstance and chaos.
... walking into someone by accident WHEN YOU ARE FOUR.
Remember, this is an age group that still pees or poops itself when out playing.
This is slashdot, we're computer nerds. Guys here seem to think about law as "orthogonal", cause-and-effect, etc.
Guess what guys: it's not. It's quite subjective. That's why there are appeals.
Saying "not to sound cruel" doesn't magically make this not a cruel comment.
It's a nice thought, but no, not all life has the same value. You want proof? Talk to a doctor about requirements for organ transplant recipients. Young before old, no druggies or drunks, no one with uncurable conditions, or even lasting illnesses. If all life was of equal value, then it'd simply be a matter of "who started needing the replacement first."
Then there's the legal system. Self-defence makes murder legal. Hmm. But if your life is worth the same as your would-be killer, you should be just as liable for his death as he would have been for yours.
I could go on, but it should be obvious by now that by any measure, different lives have different values.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Does this mean 4 year olds have the right to consent? I mean, if they can be sued for their actions why the hell can't they be trusted to make their own?
Feel free to mod me down, just know that unlike some Anonymous Cowards I'm not afraid to express my views as myself.
They are the child's guardian. If your child throws a ball and breaks someone's window, the parent is responsible to pay for and replace the window. Maybe not legally, but definitely morally.
Yes, though a small child running into most people would be one of the minor annoyances that happens all of the time, results in a talking-to, and everyone moves on. In this case, the woman was unfortunately fragile enough that the result, which normally would be harmless, was actually deadly. Should the child, who clearly already doesn't know not to run into people, be held responsible at age 4 for not knowing that elderly people are incredibly fragile and get potentially fatal complications easily?
The poor elderly lady's life may have the same value, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same durability. A 40 year old friend of mine was sucked under the wheels of a big-rig and survived, while my grandmother died due to having a very curable disease but for which the surgery would have killed her. Considering that healthy 4 year olds still use plastic cups, it's unfortunate but not surprising that the destructive force of large toddlers mixes poorly with the elderly.
Of course, that's why this is being litigated in Civil court, and not Criminal court.
The ______ Agenda
They could always file for bankruptcy after they've paid the kid's whole amassed fortune of $1.20
You must live in Louisiana. In English Common Law you follow precedent unless you can satisfactorily distinguish the instant case from prior cases. If you use your personal "judgment" to adjudicate that is judicial activism. Judicial review of incompetent legislation is usually handled by the Supreme Court of any state unless there is an egregious violation that the court needs to correct. Legislation is not at issue here so I'm not sure why you think the judge should have done this. Judicial assessment of a merit-less suit, I'll assume you mean failure to state a claim, is a job for the trial court. This was an interlocutory appeal to decide who could be sued. The judge could only decide that issue and could not, sua sponte, decide the case should go away.
Judges do judge, but they can only adjudicate very specific issues within a very strict rule set. They cannot do whatever they want. Judge's may decide only the issue that is before them. Dismissing the case was outside the scope of his authority.
The only useful post in this whole slew of comments.
I find it hilarious that so many comments are all like, "ONLY IN AMERICA. OUR COUNTRY IS RETARDED, THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM, etc"
They are complaining about ignorance or perceived stupidity in society, only to be revealing their own lack of understanding of the situation. Of course I'm complaining about their own ignorance probably reveals my own. All this ignorance and complaining will probably create some sort of infinite loop or black hole where no sane discussion can escape. Ah slashdot.
It's not like the 6 year old girl has any money to cough up to pay damages. Why are they bothering with her anyway? Does including the child on the list of defendants make it easier for them to claim from the parents?
There are various ways in which a parent may be liable for the negligence of a child, but the child's negligence must first be proved. In order to prove the child's negligence, the child must be a party to the suit. The plaintiff can then seek damages from the parent.
There may also be a separate claim of negligence on the part of the parent that is not dependent upon the negligence of the child. For example, if the child was not negligent because a reasonable child of 4 would in fact happily race her bike down a Manhattan sidewalk, then it may be argued that the parent was liable for giving the child the bike in the first place. The argument would be that a reasonable adult would not give a bike to a four year old to ride on a Manhattan sidewalk because a reasonable adult would judge that the risk of the child causing an injury is too great.
Great, as a lawyer it's great to know that you're going to try and kill me for the actions taken by another lawyer who I don't know, have never met, and is handling a case that I would never take. You're also going to kill the lawyers who presumably tried to stop this from happening, the other side of the lawsuit.
Keeping them locked and / or chained is the way to do.
If a dog attacks and eventually kills someone it is put down. A child is not unlike a dog.
No. You're confusing equal with identical.
Organ transplant triage is based on success rates, not the value of life. The young and those with no chemical dependencies or complicating conditions have a documented higher success rate. They can undergo the extremely traumatic procedures and will be more likely to have positive outcomes. This is, in fact, based ultimately on the fact that two lives *are* equal. Given the choice between a 70% chance of saving one life and a 40% chance of saving another, which is the more responsible choice of action? If, on the other hand, there were a surplus of suitable organs, then such procedures would be done to these less attractive patients. Triage is about preserving the most life, not selecting which is more valuable.
Self-defense is an accepted justification because it deters attacks. It means an attacker has to accept that by breaking another's right to safety, they themselves lose that same right. Again, this is equality in action, not a value judgement on life.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
I think it's completely insane for the family of the victim to want to be heard in court. In most countries this would be ruled as an accident, regrettable but nevertheless an accident between a small child not completely in control of their actions and an elderly person less aware and agile than a typical 40 year old. The media around the world is laughing at the USA right now, go and do an internet search to see the kind of reactions that are being published.
Do the majority of Americans believe a costly court case is the only way to find out all the facts and reach some resolution after such an unhappy accident? I think people are suprised in many countries that in the USA the resolution of a sad accident is not solved through the two families talking after a coroner has defined the facts, perhaps arbitrated by a counsellor, but that the victim's family is claiming that emotional laying to rest can only be achieved by sueing a pre-school child in court.
In most countries I think the police and legal authorities would rule that cause of death was an unfortunate coming together of circumstances, and probably there would be an opportunity for the victim's family to meet the child's parents. Child's parents would be terribly upset and offer sincere apologies, maybe ask the child to apologise, victim's family would probably be distraught but recognise that very sad accidents happen and accept apologies and understand that things happen that we can't control. Both families would probably agree that the small child was not an intentional murderer, not evil at heart, and agree that a small child shouldn't be traumatised or penalised for life for an accidental action so try to impress upon the child that you must be careful in what you do, but not load the kid with massive guilt complexes.
Meanwhile in the USA the victim's family wants to go to court and sue a pre-school child for millions.
Seems like you're moving back to a pre-20th century era when children were considered small adults with the same rights and responsibilities. Progress in science has proved that children are biologically as well as experientially unable to make the same level of decision making as adults and hence have to be treated differently. Their brains have not yet formed, they are simply not adults and cannot be considered accountable as an adult.
This was not an issue of first impression, though. Justice Wooten cites plenty of cases on point and decided that this case was not substantially different enough to break precedent.
Is the real issue here that: Because the 4 year old committed this act, the parents were going to write it off and say, "Well, they're 4 years old, what do you want?" and be free of culpability. I don't think that the lawyers really want to sue the 4 year old, I think what they want is for the parents to not be off the hook for damages...am I right? The issue is not that they want to sue a 4 year old, they want to sue the parents! While I don't agree with either of these suits, it does make sense that someone would want to sue the parents of a child that caused an accident to recover some of the costs incurred from said accident.
Am I the only person that thinks this is reasonable? The sensationalist headline is VERY misleading.
You wonder what is going on in the United States, their legal system appears to be pretty much broken.
Generally broken, but working flawlessly when it's being actively malevolent, as apparently in this case.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Well, if they're technically suing the kid (and not the parents), then just have the kid declare bankruptcy.
Right wrong or otherwise, after seven years, he'll still only be in his early teens and won't need to use credit for anything for another 3-5 years.
And if this isn't allowable, they've just set a precedence for essentially allowing the return of indentured servitude.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
You're right, the cost should be borne by insurance. Accidents happen, that's what insurance is for.
That argument cuts both ways:
By the same token, should a frail 87 year old woman be allowed to roam the sidewalks without assistance? Should she be left to her own devices, unprotected from every risk -- tripping over uneven pavement; stepping off the curb and landing wrong; her own perhaps-failing vision that didn't warn her of an oncoming hazard, such as toddlers on bicycles??
Perhaps her family should be sued for letting her out on her own, without their aid and protection. Perhaps she should be sued for failing to get out of the way of an obvious hazard, such as uncoordinated toddlers on bicycles.
Or maybe we should recognise that unless everyone lives in a bubble, sometimes stupid accidents happen and people get hurt, and no one party is to blame.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Car analogy:
So, if I hit a car that's so badly rusted the entire frame collapses, I'm liable to buy them a new car? No. I'm probably liable for the $300 replacement cost of a scrapyard rustbucket.
If it doesn't work this way with people, as well as cars, it should. I should not be liable for extreme bodily injury such as a fractured hip, if your osteoporosis is so bad that my actions would have caused a slight bruise for a healthy adult.
Not to mention the idea that suing a 4 year old is just crackers....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
There are no more perverts now than there were back then. What we have more of is paranoia.
Normally insurance works like that. If I get injured in an accident, that is why I have medical insurance. They pay for fixing me up. Doesn't matter if I caused it or if someone else did, they cover my bills. That's the point.
Now the only cases where this differs is in cases of negligence or if something was deliberate. If someone was negligent in their actions then they can be accountable for the harm they caused.
People need to accept that, in life, shit happens. That is the whole point of insurance, for when shit happens that you cannot afford. The actions of a 4 year old? Those count as shit happening. 4 year olds lack the mental capacity to be at all responsible for something like this. They cannot understand the consequences their actions have or plan for the future as implied. This isn't a case of "Well they should learn," no I mean they CANNOT, their brains are not developed to that stage. That whole, pesky, biology, thing.
"There's no question of what value you place on the lives involved."
Of course there is. It's implicit within your *reasonable* force. If an inocent life were as valuable as the one of a criminal within his criminal intent, then it would be no way you could apply reasonable force against the criminal in such a manner that the criminal ended up dead: the very fact the he died would be argument enough to probe you were beyond reasonable force.
Doofus, it's her family who is suing: the lawyers are not suing on their own behalf!! The family is on the hook for legal bills, I'd guesstimate anywhere between $500k to $1M. Imagine you'd suddenly become liable for that amount of money. You'd sue everyone and their mother too, it's merely a matter of self-preservation. The alternative is to go bankrupt, like many do in the U.S. due to medical bills.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
You missed a biggie there. NO 4 year old is reasonable. They're simply not capable of it. It's somewhat interesting that you suggest a calculation of risk that they were (and still are) years away from being able to even perform the mechanics of. 4 year olds don't know how to add (other than perhaps a rote knowledge of a few single digit additions), much less multiply.
At that age, they might well tell you they were chased by a bear in their bedroom and actually believe it to be literally true. You expect them to somehow predict the likelihood of causing a serious injury to an elderly adult from a particular action? Worse, from a non-volitional accident made likely from a particular action?
As a side note, if we're going to allow adults to sue 6 year olds, doesn't basic fairness suggest we must allow 6 year olds to sue adults as well (perhaps even pro se)? I can just see a court proceeding where the jury is asked to determine if, in fact, Mr. Johnson is a doodie-head.