Four-year-old to be sued in NY...

[Pandora II]

Saw this on the BBC this evening and wondered what people's thoughts were on it...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376

I don't think a child of that age could possibly understand the full implications of riding into another person. I'm sorry the woman died and you can say that the child was the reason for her injury and subsequent death but I don't think you can hold them responsible!

 

[MichelleCarmen]

That's ridiculous!

 

[Brown.Eyed.Girl]

It's a bad situation all around, but I really don't think suing the four year old is the right way to go about this. I mean, what's the point really? It's not like the kid has assets, and it's definitely not like the kid understands the lawsuit and what's going on (other than that it's REALLY bad). I feel for the family of the woman who died, BUT I feel like this is a petty attempt at satisfaction that isn't going to leave anyone satisfied in the end (I mean, can you imagine bragging to someone that you "avenged" the death of your mother/sister/aunt/whatever by suing a four year old??).

 

[Pandora II]

Exactly, what assets does she have? Pocket money, a Barbie house?

Also who is paying the legal fees?

Couldn't her parents counter-sue for the probable psychological harm that putting a child that young through a court case could do?

 

[lyra]

That's ridiculous beyond all reason! I don't think children even have full depth perception and understanding of spatial relations under the age of 6. My kids couldn't even ride bikes at all before 6, let alone have any sort of sense of responsibility. This is a horrible thing for everyone involved, but it seems particularly heinous for the woman's relatives to be so greedy. Yuck!

 

[somethingshiny]

That is ludicrous. And, it's down right cruel to even consider making the children "pay" for the accident. You think those kids aren't going to be aware of what happened for the rest of their lives? By taking legal action, they are going to create people who can't function in society or monsters.

 

[redfaerythinker]

Those people are monsters. And the fact that the judge didn't throw them out on their ears sickens me. Sometimes I really hate this country.

 

[reader]

I'm lost, why wasn't the woman being minded and kept out of the way of children learning to ride bikes? If anyone should be sued, it should be the woman's family for not setting up adequate care for their fragile loved one and for frivolous lawsuits.

 

[charbie]

That's horrible. They are suing the parents....isn't that enough?
People want to sue for everything...its out of control. At my nursing home we present an arbitration agreement to every family agreeing to a mediation as opposed to lawsuits. Not everyone signs it...but I think people look at the elderly with dollar signs in their eyes all too frequently.

I really hope that executer feels better about himself

 

[Karl_K]

The estate is suing the parents and the children which is the way it has to be filed.
The insurance company lawyer is muddying the waters by separating the children from the parents in the suit. If they do so then they have a better chance of winning because they would have to prove the parents consented to the race.

If indeed the girls were racing down the sidewalk then the parents should be held liable and the rest is a smoke screen designed to muddy the waters.

 

[Haven]

This reminds me of a case we read about in torts class, it dealt with what I think is called the eggshell skull rule. A boy kicked another boy's shin during class, and that kick resulted in the boy losing his leg because he had an unknown degenerative disease, I think it was. The boy who did the kicking was held responsible for the loss of the other boy's leg, even though the kick was very slight.

I know this is a different situation, but I remember thinking "That's crazy! The boy barely touched the other boy and he's being held responsible for the loss of his leg!" It relates in my mind, at least.

ETA: I'll do a quick Google search before I post next time. This is the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vosburg_v._Putney
I know this situation is different, but it elicits the same kind of shock from me, at least.

 

[Bliss]

That is crazy, but in NY kids run wild on busy sidewalks sometimes and can be dangerous to the elderly. They go especially fast on those little scooters and bikes - the other day a very very frail elderly couple was on a crowded sidewalk tottering home together and a kid on a scooter purposely zoomed close enough to them to cause them to sway and then did a sharp turn like a stunt driver to pass them. He clearly did it on purpose to test his maneuvering skills like they were part of his obstacle course. He was so close to crashing into them it was scary.

Of course kids are kids but the parents didn't tell him to be careful. Plus they were a full block away. But if the frail elderly couple had fallen, they would have been seriously hurt. Anyone knows how big a surgery hip replacement can be on an elderly person. This also happened in Manhattan, not on a nice large residential street. Manhattan kids also tend to be very independent and less risk averse - so those who aren't supervised tend to zoom way ahead of their parents recklessly at times and I often fear they will hurt themselves and others. Still, suing a child is overboard. It's just sad all the way around.

 

[chemgirl]

I know this has nothing to do with the legalities of the case...but nobody bothered that the parents did nothing to stop their kids from racing down a sidewalk with pedestrians? I agree that the child shouldn't be held accountable and its probably just a tactic to get the case thrown out, but seriously, I think the parents should be held liable here.

 

[lyra]

I should have said earlier, yes, the parents should be held responsible. I didn't understand the legal ramifications of suing the children. If it's just a legal technicality, I guess that's the way it has to be, but that's not the way it sounded in the article. Again, a no-win situation.

 

[April20]

I don't get this. She's FOUR. Kids race. It was an accident. End of story.

Suing her? Really? And the Judge said she's old enough to be responsible and mature enough to understand? No way. Just wait till the next time she's told to go to bed when she doesn't want to or is told she can't have whatever it is she wants at that moment and pitches a hissy fit. Let the judge make the same judgement then. What a bunch of crap. And what happens if she's "convicted"? Do you lock up a four year old? Take away all her future allowance payments and make her surrender her favorite Barbies? It's certainly a sad situation, but the resulting litigation against the child is ridiculous. If you really need to sue, go after Mom and Dad and leave the child out of it.

 

[yssie]

There's a lot of outrage in this thread over the discomfort the children will go through in court.. what about the fact that the elderly woman broke her hip and later died as a direct result of these miscreants' antics??

The parents were negligent, and should be held responsible. And the kids *should* be made to understand how terrible the consequences of their actions are, because they are terrible.. and they'll never do stupid, dangerous things that their parents forbid ever again (I assume the parents forbid racing down the pavement, as any sane parent would). All the better.

 

[Brown.Eyed.Girl]

There's a lot of outrage in this thread over the discomfort the children will go through in court.. what about the fact that the elderly woman broke her hip and later died as a direct result of these miscreants' antics??

Of course the children should be held responsible - if that means no allowances and no barbies for the next year, they've only earned their just desserts.

The parents were negligent, and should be held responsible. And the kids should be made to understand how terrible the consequences of their actions are, because they are terrible.

Yssie, I do agree that there should be consequences, and the children responsible NEED to realize, if not now, then growing up, that their actions had seriously damaging consequences that shouldn't be ignored.

I just think a lawsuit against the CHILD is not the best way to go about it, y'know? I wish I could think of a better way for the kids to understand that what they did was really, really wrong, but I just don't think suing the kid is going to do it.

 

[yssie]

BEG - I edited my post. A lawsuit against the children is useless. A lawsuit against the parents is fully understandable. And if the kids get no allowance and no barbies for the next five years, well, that's just too bad, isn't it?

 

[Brown.Eyed.Girl]

BEG - I edited my post. A lawsuit against the children is useless. A lawsuit against the parents is fully understandable. And if the kids get no allowance and no barbies for the next five years, well, that's just too bad, isn't it?

100% agree

 

[Octavia]

This reminds me of a case we read about in torts class, it dealt with what I think is called the eggshell skull rule. A boy kicked another boy's shin during class, and that kick resulted in the boy losing his leg because he had an unknown degenerative disease, I think it was. The boy who did the kicking was held responsible for the loss of the other boy's leg, even though the kick was very slight.

I know this is a different situation, but I remember thinking "That's crazy! The boy barely touched the other boy and he's being held responsible for the loss of his leg!" It relates in my mind, at least.

ETA: I'll do a quick Google search before I post next time. This is the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vosburg_v._Putney
I know this situation is different, but it elicits the same kind of shock from me, at least.

Haven, it made me think of Vosburg too, but of course that case involved an intentional tort -- the kid meant to kick the other kid, even though he didn't think it would lead to such dire consequences. Here, they're alleging negligence...and I pretty much disagree with the judge. In my state, children under 7 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence, but it seems that the age is younger in NY. Like others have said, the parents are responsible, and if the kids were a little older, then they should be, too, but I don't know any four-year-old who is mature enough to understand the consequences of racing bikes with a friend. They're just starting to grasp abstract concepts at that age.

 

[kelpie]

I think the parents were the ones who were negligent in their lack of supervision of the children.

 

[AGBF]

Has anyone done any research on the judge, New York Supreme Court Judge Paul Wooten? I wonder if he is considered a sane character?

Deb/AGBF

 

[iota15]

I'm just curious - would the answers be different if the four year old on a bike ran your little tike onto the road causing a life-changing injury or death?

If it helps, and I don't know the particulars of this situation, but the estate was probably trying to access the parent's house insurance for money. However, in order for the insurer to pay out, someone has to be found negligent.

Someone died because of that child's actions. It's highly unfortunate and it ain't pretty any way you look at it.

Now, what if I changed the situation and that woman was single, 30 years old and survived? However, she would be disabled for the remainder of her life, unable to work and require expensive medical treatment and medication. She needs either the tyke's family (or insurer if they have one) to pay for some of these expenses, or go without any support except for what she can muster by herself in her condition. Should she "go after" the four year old who caused these injuries and put the child through the court system? Or pay for it herself with no job, heavy expenses and a life-changing disability?

The principles that put the child before a court apply whether an elderly woman dies, or your young child is hurt by another. What principles would you want standing if your child was disabled? Should those who have been injured be compensated? Should we protect the young from the system at all costs? Should we absolve the young because they might not be able to understand that riding recklessly on your bike could cause injury to others on the road? I don't know... These aren't easy questions, nor should they be.

 

[yssie]

I'm just curious - would the answers be different if the four year old on a bike ran your little tike onto the road causing a life-changing injury or death?

If it helps, and I don't know the particulars of this situation, but the estate was probably trying to access the parent's house insurance for money. However, in order for the insurer to pay out, someone has to be found negligent.

Someone died because of that child's actions. It's highly unfortunate and it ain't pretty any way you look at it.

Now, what if I changed the situation and that woman was single, 30 years old and survived? However, she would be disabled for the remainder of her life, unable to work and require expensive medical treatment and medication. She needs either the tyke's family (or insurer if they have one) to pay for some of these expenses, or go without any support except for what she can muster by herself in her condition. Should she "go after" the four year old who caused these injuries and put the child through the court system? Or pay for it herself with no job, heavy expenses and a life-changing disability?

The principles that put the child before a court apply whether an elderly woman dies, or your young child is hurt by another. What principles would you want standing if your child was disabled? Should those who have been injured be compensated? Should we protect the young from the system at all costs? Should we absolve the young because they might not be able to understand that riding recklessly on your bike could cause injury to others on the road? I don't know... These aren't easy questions, nor should they be.

iota, you ask good questions.

For perspective, as you indicate, I refer to the recently updated story of a PSer named cupcake*muffin - it's horrible. It is a similar situation to one of the alternatives you describe above, only the "child" is a reckless teenager, the instrument is a car, and her husband survived and is badly injured. PSers reactions were very universal - and very different to some of those in this thread.

I find it very easy to answer the questions you pose, and I must say that even after I have children, I hope my answers remain the same and as easy to arrive at as now:
Should those who have been injured be compensated? Absolutely. Should we protect the young from the system at all costs? Absolutely not. Should we absolve the young because they might not be able to understand that riding recklessly on your bike could cause injury to others? Absolutely not.

No doubt both these incidents - with these girls, and the teenager in cupcake's story - were accidents. But, the consequences are exactly the same: someone was badly injured. It is not okay that they were accidents, because they were preventable accidents, and it is not "the end of the matter" - how can it be, innocent people's lives have been ruined!


This whole story is just infuriating. I'm imagining how I would feel if I lost my beloved grandmother to underaged idiocy like this... I'd be out for blood and I know it, accident be damned.

 

[AGBF]

Should we protect the young from the system at all costs? Absolutely not.

...

No doubt both these incidents - with these girls, and the teenager in cupcake's story - were accidents. But, the consequences are exactly the same: someone was badly injured. It is not okay that they were accidents,

I have a problem with this statement. Carried to its logical conclusion, it is, in my opinion, absurd. I am certainly not arguing that

parents shouldn't be responsible for the actions of young children. That is another matter entirely and was not up for discussion.

A four year-old with a bicycle is not a teenager with a car. Would you also hold the child accountable if, at age 1 and 1/2 years

old she fell out of a window while playing-perhaps she had even been told not to run in the apartment-and hit a pedestrian (causing the

pedestrian's death) while falling to the sidewalk below?


Deb/AGBF

 

[fieryred33143]

I have a feeling that some of you may not know much about 4 year olds if you are comparing their actions to that of a teenager.

 

[Pandora II]

I'm just curious - would the answers be different if the four year old on a bike ran your little tike onto the road causing a life-changing injury or death?

If it helps, and I don't know the particulars of this situation, but the estate was probably trying to access the parent's house insurance for money. However, in order for the insurer to pay out, someone has to be found negligent.

Someone died because of that child's actions. It's highly unfortunate and it ain't pretty any way you look at it.

Now, what if I changed the situation and that woman was single, 30 years old and survived? However, she would be disabled for the remainder of her life, unable to work and require expensive medical treatment and medication. She needs either the tyke's family (or insurer if they have one) to pay for some of these expenses, or go without any support except for what she can muster by herself in her condition. Should she "go after" the four year old who caused these injuries and put the child through the court system? Or pay for it herself with no job, heavy expenses and a life-changing disability?

The principles that put the child before a court apply whether an elderly woman dies, or your young child is hurt by another. What principles would you want standing if your child was disabled? Should those who have been injured be compensated? Should we protect the young from the system at all costs? Should we absolve the young because they might not be able to understand that riding recklessly on your bike could cause injury to others on the road? I don't know... These aren't easy questions, nor should they be.

iota, you ask good questions.

For perspective, as you indicate, I refer to the recently updated story of a PSer named cupcake*muffin - it's horrible. It is a similar situation to one of the alternatives you describe above, only the "child" is a reckless teenager, the instrument is a car, and her husband survived and is badly injured. PSers reactions were very universal - and very different to some of those in this thread.

I find it very easy to answer the questions you pose, and I must say that even after I have children, I hope my answers remain the same and as easy to arrive at as now:
Should those who have been injured be compensated? Absolutely. Should we protect the young from the system at all costs? Absolutely not. Should we absolve the young because they might not be able to understand that riding recklessly on your bike could cause injury to others? Absolutely not.

No doubt both these incidents - with these girls, and the teenager in cupcake's story - were accidents. But, the consequences are exactly the same: someone was badly injured. It is not okay that they were accidents, because they were preventable accidents, and it is not "the end of the matter" - how can it be, innocent people's lives have been ruined!


This whole story is just infuriating. I'm imagining how I would feel if I lost my beloved grandmother to underaged idiocy like this... I'd be out for blood and I know it, accident be damned.

Sorry but I think this madness...

You cannot compare the actions of a 4 year old with those of a teenager.

Young children should be absolved as they are not capable of understanding the consequences their actions could have. I wouldn't sue the 3 year old that bit Daisy at playgroup - or his mother. These things happen and can't always be controlled.

Learning right from wrong takes a long time to teach and this is a far more complicated scenario. A four year old knows that it is fun to ride their bike, it is fun to play with their friends, to hurt someone is bad, to ride into someone on my bicycle is not right - but is not capable of processing 'if I ride my bike with my friend then I might just hit someone and that would be bad so I shouldn't do it. That is more how and 8 year old might think.

What would the point of being 'out for blood' be? The grandmother has died, money or lawsuits won't change that. Would traumatising a young child really be a good thing to do? She's not going to have any better understanding or learn any lessons from it.

I regret that this kind of litigious culture is starting to appear over here where everything must be someone's fault and someone must pay. Accidents happen - that is life. In some situations there is definite blame and that should be dealt with appropriately, but other times things have to just be seen for what they are.

To answer your question about how I would feel if a 4 year-old on a bike was to knock my daughter into the road and her be killed or severely injured... It would depend on the situation. If it was a complete accident than I would blame myself for not looking after my daughter more carefully. If it was a child who had been continually and deliberately trying to knock her into the road and the child's parents had not intervened then I would blame both them and myself.

To give an example of an incident that I could have pursued:

Last winter I had gone to the local shopping centre taking Daisy in a sling - she was 6 months old at the time. I have a coat designed for wearing with a sling where the child is inside with just their head peeping out. It had been snowing heavily in the days before. As I left the centre to catch the bus I was carrying 4 heavy bags of shopping. There were a group of 6 or 7 teenagers hanging around outside - a minute or so after passing them I heard running behind me and as I turned my head I was hit in the face with a ball of ice and Daisy was covered in bits of it. I was furious - this was no 'snowball' thrown by a 7 year old. I yelled a them, told them they could have hit a small baby and what complete idiots they were and that I could have them charged with assault. They did all apologise and said that they hadn't seen the baby. I let it go at that. I had had a nasty shock and was bruised but hopefully they had had a shock too and learnt a lesson. The area round here is very deprived and landing them in court wouldn't exactly help them make something of their lives and they wouldn't have had any assets to sue for either. As I was a local politician in the area it would have been taken extremely seriously by the police and the newspapers would have reported it all as well which I also felt would not help the situation for anyone.

 

[CNOS128]

The legal system doesn't even ask that this 4-year-old be compared to a teenager. The legal standard here is whether the girl acted in a similar manner as a reasonable person of the same age, intelligence, and experience would in similar circumstances. She will (or should be) compared to other 4-year-olds of her intelligence, with her level of bicycling experience, etc...
I would like to think there is little chance of anyone finding this child liable.

 

[Octavia]

If it helps, and I don't know the particulars of this situation, but the estate was probably trying to access the parent's house insurance for money. However, in order for the insurer to pay out, someone has to be found negligent.

*snip*

The principles that put the child before a court apply whether an elderly woman dies, or your young child is hurt by another. What principles would you want standing if your child was disabled? Should those who have been injured be compensated? Should we protect the young from the system at all costs? Should we absolve the young because they might not be able to understand that riding recklessly on your bike could cause injury to others on the road? I don't know... These aren't easy questions, nor should they be.

True, they need a judgment against someone for insurance purposes. The parents are the proper defendants here, IMO. Not the children.

And legal principles should be applied equally regardless of who the injured party is. If exceptions are made for this and that and the other case, the law doesn't mean a damn thing. The injured people should be compensated when compensation is appropriate. The young shouldn't be "protected at all costs" -- like Pandora said, if a child intentionally harms someone, the child shouldsuffer the consequences. And there is precedent for that in the law. But punishing a young child who caused an accident because he or she is too young to understand societal duty, what it takes to breach that duty, and the causal relationship between the behavior and the damages is not a sign of a properly functioning legal system. I agree with TheBigT; I think and hope that there's a snowball's chance of the kid being held liable. If the parents consented and/or failed to control the kids, that's an entirely different matter.

 

[AGBF]

if a child intentionally harms someone, the child shouldsuffer the consequences.

OK. How young would you go? A two year old smacks another two year old in the face, deliberately, with a shovel because the second child took her pail. Intentional. Should the child be sued? What if the child is not yet two. We have a ten month old who can sit up and swing a shovel. She is angry her bottle was just taken out of her mouth by her mother who wants her to eat lunch. She hits out at her friend in anger over the loss of her bottle. Lawsuit?

Deb/AGBF