Posted on 10/29/2010 10:06:49 AM PDT by markomalley
NEW YORK, Oct. 29 (UPI) -- Cycling back to cases settled in 1928, a New York judge determined a 4-year-old girl accused of running down an older woman while racing a bike can be sued.
Justice Paul Wooten's ruling earlier this month did not find that the girl was liable in the incident; it only allowed a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to proceed, The New York Times reported Friday.
The suit claims that, in April 2009, Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, both 4 at the time, were racing their training wheel-equipped bicycles along a sidewalk, while mothers Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn supervised. During their race, the children hit Claire Menagh, 87, as she was walking, causing injuries that required surgery, the complaint said. Menagh died three weeks later.
The woman's estate sued the children and their mothers, claiming they acted negligently. The girl's lawyer argued his client was too young to be held liable for negligence, the Times said. The boy and his mother didn't contest the suit.
In his opinion issued Oct. 1, Wooten said the girl was old enough to be sued, among other things.
A four year old child I understand has not reached the age of reason, but a fully grown judge? Just insane. Too damn many lawyers. Old Bill Shakespeare had it right about what to do with the lawyers. We need a 20 year moratorium on law schools. Enough already.
The woman died. The mothers were supposed to be supervising the kids. The judge could have ruled that parents have no responsibility for the actions of their children while under their direct supervision. I think that would have been much more disturbing.
so the estate gets the girl’s bike?
how lamebrain. I bet the estate’s lawyer is a democrat.
Bump!
No. This is a tough one. If a child does something that injures or kills someone, then someone should be held responsible. Its not fair that associated cost falls on the victim’s family. Here we have an 87 year old so I can’t imagine there are too many consequential damages, like loss of income to a family. I can see good arguments on both sides:
On the one hand, the old woman’s family is putting the child and her family through a traumatic experience where there aren’t any tangible losses.
On the other hand, the child did something that resulted in a death and you can’t just tell the woman’s family to get over it.
Then keep your four year old under proper supervision.
I agree with you. The parents should be teaching the children that they need to be careful of other people when on their bikes. I’m sure that 87 year old woman didn’t appear out of nowhere. The mothers should have anticipated and warned their children to be careful.
As an aside, cyclists in general tend to ignore the rules - and apparently it starts while they are still in “training wheels”.
Obviously you didn't read the article. The mother is also named in the suit.
The girl’s parents should refuse to get an attorney and have the little girl defend herself in order to mock the stupidity of the judge.
BTW a search of the mother's name suggests the girl's mother is a lawyer.
And I would be amazed if she is not a Democrat.
The line about killing lawyers was said by the villains as a necessary first step to stage a coup against the legitimate government. Food for thought.
Not Judges gone wild.
Judge did the right thing. The Judge’s ruling is based on whether the girl(and by law those responsible for her), could be sued.
Where the LIABILITY will be assessed, is usually with the RESPONSIBLE PARTIES (i.e. the parents).
This was a DODGE by the lawyers for the girl’s family, trying to avoid the lawsuit. It didn’t work.
Obviously you didn't read the article. The mothers are named in the suit also.
Because mocking a judge always works out well. (/s)
The 4 year old is the BASIS of the suit, and not the eventual RESPONSIBLE PARTY. That will be the parents. If the judge didn't allow the SUIT to go against the girl, then the parents can't be held responsible.
See how that works?
“I’m sure that 87 year old woman didn’t appear out of nowhere. The mothers should have anticipated and warned their children to be careful.”
Are you a witness, because the article does not say if the elderly woman appeared out of nowhere or not. The point is that we live in a law-suit happy world. If these kids were racing their bikes down the sidewalk and the elderly woman stepped onto the sidewalk from a place were she could not be seen, then it might not be the kids’ faults.
This is insane.
I don’t know how it works in NY but out here the sidewalks are for people walking. However, we have bikers who ride on the sidewalks and ride up behind walkers and expect us to simply get out of their way. I’m a little hard of hearing and don’t always hear them. I expect to get run down at some point.
I realize these were small children, however they should have been under the supervision of their parents. I feel bad for the kids but sheesh, the woman died.
Wht “should” some one be sued?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.