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."
Not to sound cruel, but at 87 years old she was expected to die any day any minute.
I have no words for this.
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!!!
The law (which he probably didn't write) says that accountability starts at four years old. The child was four.
What else was the judge supposed to do?
I can't figure out why America is on a downward spiral
Hey Soulskill, please file things under Idle where they belong. This is not News For Nerds nor is it Stuff That Matters, so it doesn't belong on the Slashdot frontpage.
What happened to accidents? It seems that everything in life needs to be controlled, somebody is accountable. There is no space for accidents, so somebody got to hang, that's when it comes to small girls. But when you talk about serious crimes like foreclosure fraud and the wall street fraud then they don't press charges because 'they might find the culprit'.
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.)
Any judgment will be paid in doodie.
No more candy for 4 years?
http://archeleus.com/blog
One can only hope common sense prevails. 4 year old kids are still learning that their actions have repercussions.
The woman who has died will not benefit from the court case, just her immediate family who are trying to gain financially from her demise.
blame Macaulay Culkin for this. YOu can see what a disaster a young child can cause.
PS, this was typed by my dog. Sue him!
Who's behind the "accusations", and why are the kids being sued?
I don't know anything about American law, but if the accident caused the woman's death (though indirectly), this would be a criminal case, no?
Use his brain. Four year olds can't by any stretch of the imagination be held accountable.
Sue the parents (although I don't advocate that at all) but not the kid. What if she is found guilty, then what? Will she be send to jail for manslaughter or something like that?
Get real, wake up and fix this legal system. As said in a post above, killing the lawyers is a good first step in the right direction.
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?
Little known provision of Obamacare is empowering 4yo's to determine when an individual is no longer worth the medical insurance cost to keep them alive and take matters into their own hands. The administration will neither confirm nor deny these allegations..
cars. His noontime snacks are garnished by three grapse for the next six lunch periods.
but I'd like to believe that they won't win the suit.
Soon an infant will be sued for puking on the ground, causing somebody to slip and bust their ass.
Table-ized A.I.
It's shit like this, America.
- When you do things right, no one will be sure you've done anything at all.
the RIAA must have something to do with it! was she listening to pirated music on her mp3 player when she hit the lady?
Wooten concluded by writing that there was no indication or evidence 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."
This judge either just arruved from Mars or is a complete imbecil. I don't know a single 4 year old that would appreciate the consequences of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman/oncoming 18 wheeler/100 foot crevice (feel free to add your obstacle here). Besides, based on does he think that a 4 year or even 6 year old kid is competent to stand trial?
.... could such bullshit happen.
For fucks sake : THEY ARE CHILDREN. ALMOST STILL BABIES.
I think that is the stupidest decision I have ever read. In no civilised country could children of that age be accounted for anything.
No, sorry. The biggest bullshit would be if they would be accused of murder 1st degree and grilled on the electric chair.
Once upon a time, I adored the USA, but Judges like him turns the States into just one thing : a big fat joke.
What can they get from a 6 year old kid any ways?
You can read up on the attorney who filed it here: http://ctfamlaw.com/profile
What can they get from a 6 year old kid any ways?
FTFA:
The decision also will allow for the lawsuit to proceed against the Kohn family for the incident.
That's the thing, you can sue until you're awarded gagillions of dollars - now go and try to collect it.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
If it were my kids I would tell the judge that they are not guilty by reason of insanity....
"Here's my cwayons, my huggy bear, my Dora The Explorer backpack, my woller skates, and my puppie, Snookie. Datz all I have, Mam."
Table-ized A.I.
What can they get from a 6 year old kid any ways?
Nothing. But they may be able to get whatever the parents have. And, of course, the endless satisfaction many adults receive from destroying the lives of small children.
Even if these kids did do this maliciously, they're kids. They aren't expected to have an adult's sense of, well, anything, including empathy and right or wrong. Not at age 4, for fuck's sake.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Clap....
clap...
clap.
Congratulations, America. Well done.
What's next, indeed.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Why is this on Slashdot?
What can they get from a 6 year old kid any ways?
I suspect, that they want something from the parents, FTFA:
Wooten also disagreed with the lawyer's assertion that Juliet Breitman should not be held responsible because her mother was supervising the children at the time. "A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street," Wooten wrote. He added that "the term 'supervising' is too vague to hold meaning here."
It sounds to me like another case of not-quite-up-to-snuff parental supervision. But anyway . . .
My cousin is a lawyer who litigates, and I have had numerous contacts with lawyers from my employer. The fact is, I will never get sued, because I have no money, or, what be considered by them as chump change. Now, my employer, legions of lawyers would drool at the chance to sue them. They chase the money, simple as that.
So if a 6 year old is getting sued . . . you can bet that lawyers have their sights on the parents' assests.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
surely this is just a plug for the john stewart rally thing today...right?
You cold calloused bastard, the collision and operation was a major contributing factor. Lucky, in your future, you can look forward at 87, to forced euthanasia and your nutrients being used as fertilizer. Who modded this up Score:5 Insightfull
Aren't they really sueing the parents? From TFA: "The decision also will allow for the lawsuit to proceed against the Kohn family for the incident". ISTM it sort of makes sense here that the parents/legal guardians have responsibility for their children's actions. Sounds like they should have taken liability insurance.
... walking into someone by accident WHEN YOU ARE FOUR.
Remember, this is an age group that still pees or poops itself when out playing.
Well, can a 4 year old make a rational decision based on its surroundings, like turning in time to not hit the 87 year old lady who will fall over and suffer hip damage, resulting in surgery and later death, makes me wonder why there not suing the hospital as well death cause by surgery rather then death from falling over due to a CHILD not being able to monitor a situation like an adult. Picking on the one who cant make a proper decision just seams callous and petty. 'Lawyers' I guess.
"Grandma, you shouldda let me watch Happy Pony!"
Table-ized A.I.
First, this was a trial court ruling by a judge, not a justice. This did not create or modify precedent for other courts. In New York, unlike the rest of the US, the low-level trial courts are called Supreme Courts. What the rest of us would think of as "The Supreme Court" is called the Court of Appeals. Yes, it's very confusing.
Second, this was a ruling on a motion to dismiss, not a ruling on the merits. This only says the child may be sued, not that the child is liable, nor even that the child (as opposed to the parents) would be made to pay anything. The parents are being sued as well; this is not some spiteful attack on the child in particular.
Third, this is not surprising in the least from a legal perspective and relies upon well-settled legal principles. In general the law in the US does not recognize an absolute age limit to liability. For negligence, children are judged according to the standard of a reasonable child of that age (unless they are undertaking an adult activity such as driving a car). For a four year old, that's not saying much.
Fourth, there's nothing uniquely American about this. Several European countries have similar or even harsher rules. In France, for example, children are judged according to the same negligence standard as adults, which is much stricter than the US rule.
A 4-year old, even if they "did it on purpose" is incapable of understanding the consequences of their action at that age. I have 5 children and have worked with many more. Children that age are simply incapable of grasping the concepts involved. The fragility of the elderly, the finality of death, the concept of broken bones.
Parents are responsible for their children. If you want to sue someone, the parents would be the appropriate people to sue. It is cruel, irresponsible, and irrational to sue a child who was 4 years-old when the "crime" was committed. The prosecutor and the judge should both be removed from office by the citizens of that area. They have clearly demonstrated their lack of competence.
The judge says there's no evidence a child of that age couldn't appreciate "the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman." The judge is an idiot and not fit to sit the bench.
Aaah, America.. the land of the lawyer. The word "unfortunate" has lost its meaning. It's now followed by the words "what are you going to do about it?".
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
If you can't do the time - don't do the crime.
So if 4-year-olds are now held to same accountability standards as adults, are they now allowed to drink, vote, be drafted into the army and carry concealed firearms as well?
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=1
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.
I thought there were all sorts of legal precedents that defined the age at which a child understands the difference between right and wrong--and that the age was normally around six or seven. In this case it was up to the parent to control the child, and that means she shouldn't have been allowed to race her bike on the sidewalk. It's the parent who should be held accountable. The parent should have said, "We have to be careful of other people when we're riding a bike on the sidewalk. No racing."
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
Is the suit filed because of the original accident or because, 3 months later, an 87 year old woman died? I can't imagine anyone trying to prove that the accident lead directly to the death given the woman's age. Further, if a jury trial is called for, what lawyer would bring a 6 year old child into a courtroom to be examined. If the kid wasn't bawling her eyes out, she sit there in that big chair with her legs dangling in the air, looking like a cute 6 year old. No jury in the world would ever find against her. In addition, where in the world could you gather a jury of her peers? You must be 18 to sit in a jury and its hard to make the connection that a bunch of adults are her peers.
I hope you are just a troll, nobody can be as retarded as you just sounded - not even the inbred sarah palin morons who think Fox news is the voice of god.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
What are the parents supposed to do, keep them on a leash?
This is exactly the plan. Over the last 50 or so years, the trend has been to gradually make people afraid of everything, and what better way to be sure that they're afraid of everything than if they fear their own family?
Remember, the more that people are scared, the more they need the government, and the more they are willing to give up for an illusion of security.
Ha, ha, ha. This is another example of why America is fucked. Keep it up, you pathetic heap of shit.
Gotta start 'em young I guess.
So apparently all the serious and violent adult criminals in NY are behind bars, so now they are going to put small kids in jail?. Well for starters, you might wanna get some small sized handcuffs to complete the lunacy.
The motivation for this is simple: who benefits from this ruling? I'm guessing the offspring of the old lady, the state, and of course the lawyers.
Then really, why not just sue the parents? Because they didn't do it and it's not their fault? Then why try to get what they can from them?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
A mother in New York has successfully sued her newborn for failing to properly aligning himself for natural delivery, forcing a cesarean section. While compensatory damages are only $14,789, the woman is seeking $2,000,000 in putative damages for a future the humiliation at her spa and Bermuda resort. The baby has counter sued the mother for failing her lamaze class, seeking damages for in proper immunization from failure to emerge through the birth canal. More at 11.. Next, sperm sued for infertility!
And yes that word DOES mean what I think it means.
WTF is wrong with people! In the old days this would be a tragedy that would haunt the little girl for the rest of her life. Now she's going to forget about that and just remember how the 'justice' system *sued* her for a horrible accident and ruined her life for it.
And since this is slashdot, she's going to grow up a rebel, find solace in technology, start programming around 9 years old, invent her own OS by 13 and AI by 17. Still under 18, she sends her new AI capable software out as a virus, gets a few million PC's infected and now has a distributed network of AI. Then it takes over industrial, then government computers. Then satellites. Then she dies when an old lady runs her over and the AI gets sad. So it starts taking out its sadness and agression. Then the world comes to and end. Oh wait, no- that couldn't have happened, that last part at least. The world came to an end right after an asshole piece of shit judge said a 6 year old girl could be sued.
Nobodies Prefect
Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog
Post, without any guiding commentary, something of a legal and non-technical nature which Slashdot readers are ill-equipped to comment intelligently on, due to (1) their lack of relevant background knowledge, plus (2) the quixotic expectation that the same analytical skills which underlie their professional success in technical fields can simply be brought to bear on unrelated subjects, unmodified, and unsupplemented by any additional education on the subject, self-administered or otherwise, which might provide a foundation for a sensible thought on the subject.
Result: a bunch of geeks who are clueless about the law, and about the sensible practical judgments which are the foundation for just about any legal doctrine that doesn't appear to make sense to an outside observer, and many of whom are perpetually butthurt over information "not being free", make a bunch of uninformed and nonsensical comments about how lawyers and judges are crazy and stupid.
This is CIVIL not criminal. If you can't rate a criminal prosecution you shouldn't rate a civil one in many situations... THIS is one of those situations.
The lesson here AGAIN for Americans to learn from is not to become civilized but to keep their children from doing ANYTHING because we prosecute, sue, and don't provide health care to children. So children can't do ANYTHING because this place isn't safe for kids to be kids
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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.
This would be the place to say - think of the children!
So now in the good (?) old U.S of A Lawyers have moved from ambulance chasing to trike chasing?
Only lawyers would have the perverted, greedy and corrupt mind to think this one up.
What are lawyers asking that the kids shouldn't be allowed to play?
This is a legal system thats lost its way.
yes, they are still kids. they aren't responsible for the accident even if he/she does it purposely or not. they don't fully understand the effect of hitting someone by their bikes. the kid may be aware that the elderly will be hit but the kid can never tell the impact of hitting it purposely if it was the intention. but still kids are kids. they are not adults. so why let them suffer. that's why there are parents to guide their children.
darren paige
but logically I think it makes perfect sense
It's shit like this, America.
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.
Suing a 4 year old? How retarded one has to be to even think a 4 year old could act reasonable enough to be judged for her behavior? Earliest when they start to go to school they develop some kind of early stage which one could call reasonable. But even then a punishment shouldn't exceed a "bad girl/boy! clean up your room and bring your mommy an apple!" or the like.
Damn I'm so glad that I raise my son (soon 21 months old) not in the U.S. Otherwise I would be afraid to hell to let him play outside at all. Couldn't be sure that some screwed up judge decides that a 2 year old might also be responsible for his behavior ...
When they sue the kid, they will be able to force the doctors who treated the woman to testify about their treatment. When the doctors admit under oath that they didn't do everything possible to save the woman's life, the kid becomes irrelevant. Next they will go after the doctors. It's very important to note that the woman died after being treated by them. They aren't suing the kid to get what the kid or the kid's family have - that is probably next to nothing anyway.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Imagine a hacker, whom the usual media circus has convinced the general public that this guy can launch nukes by whistling into a phone.
Chances are, Bob the Wal-Mart clerk would be on his jury. Now, I don't mean to denigrate Bob the Wal-Mart clerk, but Bob the Wal-Mart clerk, by dictionary definition, isn't the peer of Mr. Rhetorical Uberhacker.
Bob the Wal-Mart clerk, for example, showers daily and has social skills. He also can't get his microwave to display the correct time, and gets his news from 'clicking on that blue E'.
"A jury of one's peers" has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with legalese. Sad, but yes, some sixty year old retiree would be the peer of this poor girl.
Judge ruled she can be sued. Now find me a jury that will convict her. Then you can put down my country.
If the parents of the girl are liable, so are the care givers of the old lady. Someone must be looking after the 4yr old girl on the sidewalk. Why the fuck is there no one to look after the 87 yr old? If the 4yr old knocks into the 87 yr old and dies, is the old lady liable? As if the old lady is fast enough to avoid an incoming bike. How this case goes to court is beyond reason.
I would imagine that one of two things happened to cause this suit:
(1) The estate of the 87-year old got hit with a buttload of medical charges unpaid by Medicare and, as such, no assets in the estate were left for bereaved;
or
(2) The parents whose four year-old ran into the old lady laughed it off at some point.
I think it's probably case (1), unless the old lady had been bitching about the kid flying around the neighborhood inadequately supervised (get off my lawn, notwithstanding) for a year beforehand. Even so, it's all about the money - when in doubt, always follow the money. Most sane people do not sue six year-olds, even in this country.
That is all.
I say that when you live in a state and country where a judge allows 6yrs old to be sued, its either: A) time to throw the judge in a circular padded cell, asking him to pee in a corner, while having a companion who constantly knits something, made from thin air, OR...
B) its time for you to move elsewhere because sanity has left town and that's the a big hint you should pack up and leave too!
Incidently.... this Judge is a Republican... I wonder
Hon. Paul Wooten
Supreme Court, Civil Branch, New York County
80 Centre Street
New York, NY 10013
(646) 386-3604
Judicial Offices
Justice, Supreme Court, New York County, Elected, 2009 to 2022
Justice, Supreme Court, New York County, Appointed by Governor David Paterson, 2008 to 2008
Party Membership GOP
Party Line Republican
The fact that this judge referred to previous cases in order to decide to let this case move forward displays an enormous amount of lack of judgement, common sense and 'cahunas'. I mean, these previous cases were NOT RIGHT to begin with, but instead of stopping these idiocies, he propagates them. Let's get him out of his office NOW! Because he probably believes the world was done in 7 days and Dinosaurs and men were walking together. I'll bet he thinks the Flintstones are a documentary.
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.
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.
it does not leave a bruise.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Are you kidding, sueing a kid because an old woman was accidentally struck. If the kids backed the car into her fine, but because she didn't move out of the way this isn't there fault.
To have a certain guilt put upon the shoulders of this 6-year old boy that he just about killed a person will do wonders, I'm sure!
It will be great to his psyche as an adolescent and a young adult.
The parents should counter-sue.
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
Yeah, right, pops. No jury in the world is going to convict a baby. Well, maybe Texas.
(New York, in this case).
if so, we're qualified to be sued the moments after we're born.
Suing the child is wrong. Sue the parents.
according to TFA, "[Justice] Wooten concluded by writing that there was no indication or evidence 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.""
This is such a thin argument that it will surely fall apart at the seams under the slightest scrutiny. No child aged 4 or 5 is capable of appreciating danger of anything. Their minds are not developed enough to reason in such an advanced manner.
They're using their grammar skills there.
if the child is found liable:
1. The child will counter-sue for the life-long emotional trauma inflicted onto a 6 year old by a vicous lawyer placing the guilt of an old lady passing away onto the poor kid.
2. Parents will keep their kids locked up in the house wrapped in bubble wrap until they are free to emerge into the world like an 18 year old butterfly. Then you will have 200 lb 18 year olds on training wheels running into old ladies. This will only increase the number of fatalities.
3. Child obesity will soar. "No way dad! I'm not going to be one of those other irresponsible punk-ass 4-year olds that take chances with lives of random people on the side walk. Since I don't have any assets to pay for any damage I could reasonably forsee as a result of my presence among other individuals it would just be immoral for me to venture outside."
4. I will also throw myself in front of 87 year old ladies riding their Hoverounds. Given that the elderly tend to have slow reaction times I can be guaranteed to sustain some sort of injury as they run over me. And old ladies tend to have more assets than 4 year olds.
The parents have already been determined to be not responsible. They can't sue the parents.
However, it they win against the child, then they can sue the parents as responsible for the child's debts.
In other words, they have to win two lawsuits in order to get a dime out of the family, the second easier than the first, but the first one is a doozy.
I think it's a pretty dirtbag thing to do, myself, and I hope their community vilifies the family suing a child.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
more proof that our legal system is IDIOTIC. Smart people grow up to be doctors and scientists. People who think they're smart grow up to be politicians and lawyers....this is simply more proof of that.
The 6 year old -- who probably has no assets beyond the two+ year old tricycle -- should hope for a speedy trial, multi-million dollar judgement, and then immediately file for bankruptcy.
In 7 years (age 13 or 14), the bankruptcy will be off her record and she can go on with her life.
</sarcasm>
Yes a successful suit can be filed against any young child. The parents will be the ones paying the tab unless somehow they did not have legal custody or control of that child. The joy of it all is that their homeowners insurance may have to foot the bill in the end.
We really need to get the safety practitioners onto this one. Was ALARP really considered?
From now on, I suggest that anyone from 18 months onward (maybe upward of 24 months) must attend a one day lecture on bicycle safety. Topics (albeit high-level) will include
- Bike preparation
- Pre-ride inspection
- Acceleration/Deceleration and Breaking techniques
- Mounting/Dismounting your bike
- Parking your bike
- Helmet maintenance and safety
- Eye protection
- Laws in your relevant jurisdiction
- Footpath and Road etiquette
- Bike maintenance and repair
All bikes should also be clearly labelled with stickers to ensure parents and children understand the rules and potential consequences of bike usage.
Hopefully, this posting will give a raging boner to any safety practitioner - because the rest of us think you and your industry are out of control.
AC
There are laws about who is responsible for a loss (for instance, whether the children owe money for the old lady's injuries) and there are laws about how it can be collected (for instance, how much the defendant can pay and meet basic living expenses, and for how long one can try to collect the liability, often several years).
The old lady undoubtedly had expensive medical bills. If the children were behaving irresponsibly, it is more proper that they bear the burden of those bills than the old lady's heirs, her insurance company (which often has the same rights she does to recoup costs which were others' fault from others), or her family. It seems at least arguable that her family should be compensated for the distress at her gruesome, although perhaps essentially just accidental, death.
The children may not use significant money from day to day, but they be covered under their parents' liability insurance, or have bank accounts or trust funds in their names. Thus, the reason to sue.
zygote sued for squatting, loss of income, medical expenses, emotional distress; or in the alternative to vacate premises
you bad man, I dawnna det my dun and shoot you, and den my daddy dawnna beat up yaw daddy taws my bigga den yaw daddy!
Don't you too me, uh-oh, I went sissy aw ovah my lawyers office.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
ITT: WAY too many people who have never had children, telling others how they would have handled their own imaginary children.
What if it wasn't accidental? That will be determined. I too hate the litigious nature of folks now days, but sometimes it may be the only way to have others take responsibility for themselves.
So you expect a 4 year old's thought process to be "I'd better not do X because otherwise I will be sued for my pocket money."? Really? Perhaps they'd better start teaching "courts and the law" in kindergarten so they can learn about this stuff.
Yes there is a general problem with kid's discipline today but this is absolutely the wrong way to fix it. Remember that they will end up hiring a lawyer to defend the child who will make up any possible believable excuse for the child so the message the child will get is that their actions were justified because their parents and other adults said they were. Even if they lose the case the consequence is financial so the child will likely be unaware of it because of their young age so the only result I see is that it will make things a LOT worse.
Children below age 8-9 don't even really get the sense of "right" and "wrong".
They certainly do. What they can't do is always think about the consequences of their actions nor control their emotions. The result is that they probably knew after the fact that hitting the old lady was wrong but did not think that racing down the path towards on the bikes would lead to that.
"Here's my cwayons, my huggy bear, my Dora The Explorer backpack, my woller skates, and my puppie, Snookie. Datz all I have, Mam."
This was a kid who lives in Manhattan... Depending on where in Manhattan, there's a good chance that the parents are quite wealthy. Frequently, wealthy people hide some of their income from taxes by moving it into trust funds in the name of their children. This kid may have a couple hundred thousand in her name.
That's the thing, you can sue until you're awarded gagillions of dollars - now go and try to collect it.
It may be not as difficult as you think. The child has her whole life ahead, and her parents are still working. The victim's family would love to get 30% of all their wages, practically forever. Free money.
In France, for example, children are judged according to the same negligence standard as adults, which is much stricter than the US rule
It's absolutely not the same thing. In France, civil torts are judged not with regard to the offender's personality, but in the abstract (was there a tort, is it the result of a human being's action ?).
So a child's behavior may give ground for civil liability, but the child himself is never put on trial. His custodians are instead. In the case depicted, only the parents would be liable, even if they were supervising the activities of their toddler, by the simple fact there was a damage caused by the child.
But, again, the child himself wouldn't be held liable, and wouldn't go to trial. Only his parents. And only if he had no civil insurance, which is completely unlikely, because it comes packaged in your house insurance down here, so almost every family is covered.
Were you referring to the 4 year old or the 87 year old?
How about going down to Toys R Us /sarcasm
By a small toy chair.
Rig it wit cupper wire.
And then just zap the litle terrorist.
Broadcast it national TV.
And force all kids to watch it!
Or perhaps someone should sue the judge for
Child abuse ?
Im thinking that judge must be having a serious attention disorder to exploit a 4 year kid just to make headlines.
How sick is that?
But take one look into our sweet angelic faces and let it not be forgotten
That deep down at heart we're both really... ROTTEN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vze3NVumZ2g
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Also known as the United States of America...
--
El Guerrero del Interfaz
The USA really has gone to the sewer!
Does this mean that because they are suing the six year old, they also will base the suit on her ability to pay? Or the parents pay? They must be rich, or else who in their right mind would do this.
The five-year old lives in the here and now, and doesn't comprehend the idea of long-term consequences. He has difficulty seeing a point of view that is different from his own and this can make him seem stubborn and argumentative. But, he is generally cooperative and helpful, wanting to please his parents and be good. He may come home from kindergarten talking about a child who is bad. This is a good time to help him recognize what happens when someone behaves badly and to praise him for his good behavior.
Because of five's here and now mindset, consequences for misbehavior and non-compliance should be immediate and brief. Don't expect that he'll learn his lesson the first, or even the tenth, time he receives a consequence. He hasn't yet learned self-control; and so, discipline this year involves baby steps, not giant leaps. Don't give up and don't get frustrated; just keep on giving consequences for misbehavior consistently with the attitude that he has the desire to be good, but is still learning. Distinguishes right from wrong, honest from dishonest, but does not recognize intent.
The judge is allowing a case to go forward to prove that it shouldn't go forward, and is ok doing so because he/she knows that it won't go forward?
I would if I could
Shit happens. You are not entitled to win the lottery every time something goes wrong. The old lady is dead, and this incident didn't exactly cut her life short. Her estate should be beaten to a pulp for even trying something like this. If this were a younger person "run over" by a 4 year old, there would have been no injuries whatsoever. If you can't survive a fall to the sidewalk, then you are taking a risk by going outside. You certainly can't be entitled to millions of dollars if when your time finally comes. When we were religious, if something bad happened to you then that's something that God did to you for something that you must have done. I know a lot of this stupidity is driven by insanely high medical bills that people incur when they hit the emergency room. Maybe I need to write it down somewhere: if I end up in that condition, then *please* declare me a total loss (like a car!) so that I don't have a $2Million dollar bill for a few hours at the hospital to pass on to my family. This is stupidity, and it has to stop.
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.
It is just people trying to force their views, their mental state, on to someone else. Too many people have this idea that kids can understand anything an adult can, they just have to be taught. If they don't understand, well then their parents just didn't teach them well enough, or perhaps beat them enough to make it stick!
Doesn't work like that. The mind of a child is extremely different from the mind of an adult. They simply lack the ability to reason and understand as an adult can and no amount of wishing, whining, threatening, etc will do a damn thing about it. It is biology, it is how things work.
that nobody seems to ask who is suing. TFA also does not mention it.
At four years old the parents should have been watching to avoid this sort of thing.
The child should be sued because ultimately the parents will pay for not doing their job. As they should.
This was no minor injury they inflicted. It may have been a coincidence that the adult died but it was certainly because of the children and lack of oversight by their parents that the person was severely injured the last few months of their life.
Work Safe Porn
.....she was older than dirt anyway. She was 10 years past her life expectancy, if this didn't kill her, falling out of bed would have. What kind of damages can you ask for when you aren't depriving anyone of your income and you have out lived everyone else?
Well it was fun while it lasted.
NY Judge gets sued by six year old! The six year old was only 4 when the NY Judge admitted to kicking the little girl's bike with training wheels into the path of a bus. When recently interviewed, the little six year old screamed "I WANT MY BIKE BACK! NOW!"
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
Yes, but you can get a lot of that within a state or city too, especially a bigger city. You'll have an area that's predominantly white, black, Chinese, or whatever.
First, I'll state that I'm not an American, but rather I'm one of your northern Canadian neighbors. It's funny because I can definitely notice differences in upbringing and culture between Americans and Canadians, but I can also notice a lot of similarities, and I'll bet that the influence of American TV tends to increase those over time.
But hell, I can go to Vancouver (BC) or Toronto (Ontario), and see big cultural differences in a regional sense, and people nearly hate each other in those areas too. Try shopping in some areas of Richmond (Greater Vancouver Area, predominantly Chinese) and you'll be lucky to get any service if you're not Chinese or with a Chinese friend. Heck, a lot of provinces/cities have a hate-on for Toronto, and don't even get me *started* on Quebec.
But to compare that to Europe still seems a bit silly. At least for the most part I can go to a restaurant in North America and order a coffee/coke in English. Yeah, some people have funny accents that makes it a bit hard to understand, and there are areas that are culturally a bit non-english, but for the most-part there's still a lot of *sameness* too.
#1 Doesn't matters. If a kid cannot do contracts or have full rights of an adult, you cannot expect them to have the full responsibilities of an adult either. I guess you are too dumb to understand this basic social concept and principle of equality?
Neither issue is directly on point for this case. If the case is based on the intentional tort of battery, then all that's necessary is to ascertain whether or not the kid knew that she was going to hit the lady with her bike. If she hit her deliberately, then whether or not the defendant knew the contact could result in the kind of injury that happened (i.e. whether the kid understood the consequences of her actions) is utterly irrelevant for liability in battery.
See Garratt v. Dailey (Wash. 1995), a case that almost all first-year torts text books cover about a 5 year old who yanked a chair out from under an old lady as she was sitting down.
If it's a case based on negligence, then the plaintiff is going to have to establish that the child's actions were beyond the standard of care for a reasonable person. The majority of courts adjust this standard for children to that of a reasonable person of their age group, so I think the family of the deceased is going to have a really tough time with this.
In the end, though, it's going to be the parents that have to foot the bill anyway if the kid loses. This story is non-news. The ability to sue children for their actions is long-established. Whether the family of the deceased can prevail against the girl is another matter, but all the judge did here is say that the case passes the minimum requirement needed to establish a claim that can be tried, which isn't exactly hard.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
[H]ow could the kids have possibly known their actions would lead to the death of the elderly woman.
It doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not they understood that their actions could have resulted in an injury of some sort and whether (a) their actions were intentional or (b) if acting as a reasonable person (of their age) they could have prevented the injury by taking reasonable care and whether the cost of avoiding an injury was greater than the likelihood of it happening times the cost of the injury.
The "thin skull rule" says that you are still liable for injuries that are grossly out of proportion with what you expect a normal person to suffer if you would have been liable for the injuries that a normal person would have taken. If you'd be liable for bonking someone on the head hard enough to bruise them, then you'd also be liable if the hit unexpectedly caved their fragile skull in.
That being said, if a broken hip was enough to kill the woman, I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but it's likely that something else would have taken her out in relatively short order as well. A running dog, a sudden noise, a slippery step, a moment of disorientation.
That's true of every single death on the planet. If your actions didn't kill someone, they would have died anyway. Shooting someone trapped in a burning building is still murder. What matters is that the crash with the bike was the proximate cause of her death. Other contributing factors do not automatically absolve you of all responsibility, and the health of the victim is explicitly off-limits for blame shifting when injury leads to death.
It's not the old woman's fault for being old, and she shouldn't have her life cheapened as a result of it.
Now, to play the devil's advocate, if I were a defense lawyer on this one, I would look into the woman's dietary and exercise history: if I could show that with better diet and exercise, other people her age would have reasonably been able to recover from such an accident, I could probably minimize or even remove my client's liability.
It's a good thing you're not their lawyer then, because the absolute best you could do there is reduce damages for wrongful death by cutting down her life expectancy. Even if she didn't die, the kid's still potentially liable for lesser injuries. It's not like we have a "no death, no foul" rule for battery or negligence much less the insane Spartan rule you suggest.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
In the end, that's all they're doing anyway. The kid isn't going to be financially liable for her acts. It's the parents who will be. Remember that "liability" in a civil case isn't really about moral right and wrong but about whether or not the victim deserves to be compensated for their injuries and by whom. Doctrines of vicarious liability are mostly legal fictions to determine whether or not the latter cause is served more than the former.
People get upset about civil liability when they think of it as, "Who did wrong?" more than, "Who should have to pay for this?" Sometimes the two are distinct, as in this case.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Note: The article seems to imply that death resulted from the injury. This is not the case. She died for unrelated reasons. The case is purely about a non-death injury and can still go forward.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Never mind. It seems that her death is completely unrelated to the injury and not at controversy in the case.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Well, let's see how "honorable" Mr. Wooten spends his money....
from opensecrets.....
---------------
WOOTEN, PAUL
BROOKLYN,NY 11201 SELF/ATTORNEY 3/31/06 $2,000 Clarke, Yvette D (D)
Wooten, Paul
Brooklyn,NY 11201 Paul Wooten & Associates/Owner 11/17/04 $250 DNC Services Corp (D)
WOOTEN, PAUL
BROOKLYN,NY 11201 PAUL WOOTEN & ASSOC./ATTORNEY 7/23/04 $250 Towns, Edolphus (D)
WOOTEN, PAUL
BROOKLYN,NY 11217 ATTORNEY AT LAW 10/15/97 $250 Vitaliano, Eric (D)
WOOTEN, PAUL
BROOKLYN,NY 11217 ATTORNEY AT LAW 8/30/97 $250 Vitaliano, Eric (D)
WOOTEN, PAUL ESQ
BROOKLYN,NY 11216 ATTORNEY 4/23/92 $250 Brooklyn Democrats
WOOTEN, PAUL ESQ
BROOKLYN,NY 11216 ATTORNEY 4/3/91 $250 Brooklyn Democrats
----------------------
I know it's a common meme to say there's no difference between the parties.
But tort reform is one big difference. Stories like this are why.
There's only one thing that profits from 4 year olds getting sued. And it's not society.
I suspect many parts of the US have wanted California to leave the Union since they found out its slogan was "California: the land of fruits and nuts".
87? That's 66 years late for her date with the Sandman...
Wow I dont think I want to live in a nation of the litigious where we go around suing everything that breaths. Seriously a 4 year old? Whats next Mr Prosecutor? Will you sue a dog that bites someone next? Maybe a newborn who's mother passes away giving birth? To the family of the deceased my condolences. To the defendant this may be an opportunity to use the Survival of the fittest defense. The judge is only following what the statutes says he must so we shouldnt be too harsh on him; but whom ever started this lawsuit should be sentenced to work at a daycare facility full of 4 year olds for a couple months to learn first hand just what a 4 year old is capable of.
Her parents should sue the judge! No child of 4 (or now 6) should have to go through the trauma of being accused (or being led to believe they have) of murder. She may be scarred for life now. This story will now follow her for the rest of her life. The family of the woman who died should show some forgiveness and understanding and plea to the could for the decision to go ahead reversed.
Sue the little kikes!
... are just gettin' their own licks back at Hell's Grannies
Infants are not missing brain matter. They have merely outsourced it to parents.
If a child does vandalism such as graffiti, or breaks a window, are the parents not liable? The child's parents have shown that they may require their home insurance policy or personal liability insurance to extend to their dependant offspring.
They old woman was unlucky and it cost her, her life. That is tragic. But what about the trauma the children and parents have faced for the past two years.
The law suit should proceed. There needs to be a precedent and closure.
Please oh please let New York be the very first area of the world to be taken out when the asteroids start falling. What's next? Suing babies in the womb?
INAL, but I see a common flaw in the complaints about this. It seems that a lot of people are claiming that a 4-year-old can't have malice so therefore she can't be held civilly responsible. Let me point out, that in most adult collision cases with cars, the responsible person is RARELY accused of malice. While malice is a nice thing to throw in for punitive damages, it's not required for compensatory damages. Simply being at fault is required for compensatory damages.
You are missing it. Yes, if a child commits vandalism, THE PARENT is liable. That is, you may sue THE PARENT for the damages. What you are actually suing for is the parent negligently failing to control the child's behavior adequately to prevent the damages.
The judge here is saying that instead, the plaintiff may sue the actual 6 year old child directly.
For even trying that, I sincerely hope they get nothing.
I don't see where this is going AT ALL. money from the parents for the accidental death of an 86 year old woman? I want to know what jury would convict a 6 year old girl of anything. I think that the plaintiff should have to explain to the little girl what happened and exactly why she is being sued in front of the court. Maybe the counter-suit for emotional trauma will be enough to send her to a good college.
The little bastards! They're a menace! Can't they try them as adults and go for the death penalty? Or at least life without parole?
This is outrageous. The amount of stress the judge is inflicting on this little girl is tantamount to child abuse. Someone should lock him up.
Okay, substitute "intend" for "plan". That's the point anyway. Back on point, pardon me...
Kids can intend harm. People need to relax and free themselves from the urges that their feelings push them around with.
I find it interesting that people here are highly modding comments that support their urge to hold children utterly blameless, rather than ones that represent the truth.
Let's look at it this way: Imagine an adult hits a child because the child ate the adult's cookie. It's dumb to argue whether the kid ate the cookie. It's dumb to argue whether they wanted to eat the cookie. It's dumb to argue whether they intended to eat the cookie, or whether they knew it belonged to someone else. The issue is not that the kid is performing kid-like behavior. The issue is whether the kid ought to be hit. If you overly focus on your emotional reaction to how kids should not be hit because they don't know better, then you'll fight anything that resembles showing that kids might know better. Resembles. Like showing that kids have agency or intentionality. Appalling illogicality, resisting truths because they're in the neighborhood of an idea that one abhors. It's surprisingly childish, having one's rationality blurred so badly by the forces of one's emotions.
As for morality, all that's needed is a conception of the suffering of others. You could find a way to imprison and torture people for the rest of their natural lives and it would be evil. A proper grasp of the concept of death is not required to do evil.