BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..

Subject: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Lox
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 07:42 AM

.



      Prepare yourselves for this kids ...

      ... my Jaw is on the floor and I don't see myself lifting it off at any time in the forseeable future ...

      A judge has given the go ahead for a 4 year old to be sued for crashing her bike into an old lady.

             Utter Insanity!!



.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: goatfell
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 08:11 AM

There is a 'lady' called Rachael Brown and she too would sue someone for crashing their bike into her.
I agree Utter Insanty

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 09:01 AM

"According to court filings, in April 2009, Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn were accompanied by their mothers, Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, as they raced their bicycles along the pavement near the East River in New York's Manhattan borough.
'No bright line'

The children struck Ms Menagh, knocking her to the ground. She underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died three months later."

Well, someone ought to be sued. Who do you suggest?

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: C-flat
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 09:03 AM

A broken hip at aged 87 can often have complications and lead to death. One could argue that the next "event" in this womans life would be the cause of her death, a sudden shock, a fall, who knows?
I don't know whether she was in good health at the time, so it's hard to judge, but nevertheless, this was a simple accident. A sad one, especially for the family and for those involved, but, all the same, an accident!
More than that, it was an accident caused by an infant!!!
How a judge can rule that an infant is mature enough to be considered culpable beggars belief!

I'm currently awaiting heart surgery and, as such, not in the best shape at the moment. In fact you could say I was pretty vunerable.
Imagine the scene:
It's Halloween and some local kids come "trick-or-treating" and decide to give me a scare by jumping out from behind a parked car dressed as vampires or whatever.
If a sudden big adrenalin rush pushes my blood-starved heart into overdrive and I go into arrest and die, is it the kids fault?
Or is it the fault of the guy who parked the car there that the kids hid behind?
Maybe it's the costume makers fault? Those outfits can be pretty authentic looking!
Could it actually have been my fault? Eating too much fried food? Smoking? Wait!, No! Better to sue the cigarette companies and fast-food outlets than accept that we have any responsibility for our own person.
There's an argument that I'm genetically predisposed to having a heart condition, so it could be my fathers fault?
My family could have a field day filing claims against society in general for my ill health.

I'm sorry for the old lady and her family and I feel sorry for the little kid.
Maybe the kid can sue the old ladies' family for mental and emotional damages on the basis that she was too old or infirm to be out walking, thereby putting her at risk of an accident she couldn't withstand?

Maybe we can all sue the judge who made this ruling on the grounds that he's made us fearful of letting our children out to play in case they bump into someone and we all end up in court. Our children will be fat and unhealthy due to lack of exercise and fresh-air and future generations will die young.
I feel a Class-Action coming on!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: GUEST,PeterC
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 09:14 AM

According to the BBC news report

According to court filings, in April 2009, Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn were accompanied by their mothers, Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, as they raced their bicycles along the pavement near the East River in New York's Manhattan borough.


Under parental supervision so in my view the mother was liable. Of course the local legal system may require the action to be brought in the child's name, we need a New York lawyer to confirm or deny that.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 10:01 AM

It's quite right she should be able to sue the mothers for this. But it sounds a daft legal system if the child has to be sued.

I suppose if a dog bit someone they have to sue the dog rather than the owner.

A bit like suing a car instead of the driver, after an accident.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 10:09 AM

The mothers are obviously to blame. Not being a US lawyer, I couldn't say what the legal situation is. You could certainly sue the mothers in England, and win. Racing bikes along the pavement acompanied by children is not encouraged.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 10:25 AM

Just how fast can the little bikes (probably with stabiliser / training wheels) actually go?

What are the other facts? Did the deceased suddenly step into the path of bikes?

It was just an unfortunate accident. The son of the deceased clearly has no concept of a child's ability to judge and avoid such a situation.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 10:36 AM

Just an unfortunate accident?

Would you say that, Virginia, if the mother allowed the child to race into the street and the child was killed?

I'm sure you wouldn't, and neither would I. We would expect the mother to control the child for its own safety. If the mother can do that, she can also control the child for the safety of those around her.

As for anybody suing a 4-year-old, that's just baloney calculated to get us upset. It's the child's parent (and possibly the parent's homewner's insurance co) who will be sued.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 11:13 AM

It would be enlightening to know whether 'pavement' is being used in the American sense (on the roadway where vehicles travel) or in the UK sense (what the Americans call 'sidewalk').

If on the roadway one would imagine the mothers were watching for any vehicles and that the elderly woman stepped onto the street.

If on the sidewalk (which I am assuming since Lox is not American), it is illegal, dangerous and simply not allowed. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

I agree: sue the parents.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 11:18 AM

Since the BBC report quoted said "pavement" I assume they meant what the Americans call "sidewalk" - in which case "Did the deceased suddenly step into the path of bikes?" is absurd. You aren't expected to keep an eye out for racing vehicles when you are walking around the pavement/sidewalk, any more than you would in a house.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 11:21 AM

Exactly. And the mothers, being adults, knew that.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: jacqui.c
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 11:35 AM

Being in Manhattan, probably was the sidewalk - this looks like a scattergun approach - sue every possible person involved - the shot will surely pick someone off.

I used to work for an insurance company dealing with liability cases - in this one the parent should have been exercising strict supervision over the child and not allow her to go racing off on her bike, both for the safety of the child and for other users of the sidewalk.

There is a duty of care to ensure that the actions of any individual do not cause a problem for any other user of a particular area. It's pretty clear that that did not happen here - any reasonable person should have been aware of the possibility of the child colliding with a pedestrian and kept the child in check.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Charley Noble
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 11:52 AM

I think that if there is a trial the children's parents will likely be found negligent. Permitting or encouraging their children to race their bikes down a sidewalk at any age is extremely foolish.

Is anyone suggesting that the elderly lady was negligent to be walking down a sidewalk?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: gnu
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 12:42 PM

I read recently that a significant majority of eldery persons who suffer a broken hip die within a year.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: C-flat
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 01:05 PM

Just an unfortunate accident?

Would you say that, Virginia, if the mother allowed the child to race into the street and the child was killed?

Children are knocked down and killed evey day while playing on their bicycles. They weren't necessarily allowed by their parents to cause this to happen, but, like all parents, occassionally your eyes are off them for a few moments.....

Yes, I would still call that an unfortunate accident. What else? Deliberate homicide on the part of the parents?

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 01:09 PM

Sufferin` Jesus.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 01:17 PM

Why should there be any need to sue? Any parent in this situation should accept responsibility for not looking after their child properly. In fact any parent who was unwilling to accept responsibility would be a pretty dodgy person to be in charge of raising a child.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 01:24 PM

They may have a problem proving that the woman`s death was due to the broken pelvis.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM

In the USA I understand there to be a concept of a "wrongful death" lawsuit with substantial damages being available. Here, by statute first similar damages are limited to economic loss, excluding grief, and are moreover capped at £10,000. I had to check this quite recently when Medway Maritime Hospital killed Jacqui in 2005. However, the son suing on behalf of the deceased 87 year old could recover for her pain and suffering due to the broken hip (assuming liability was established). As I recollect when my late mother broke her hip (she actually managed to do so twice) she was very pissed off about the suffering bit and screamed quite a lot, and even more pissed off with being in traction for nearly 6 weeks the second time (as it was a fracture not a clean break).

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Lox
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:04 PM

1. Why "ought" someone to be sued?

2. Sometimes children run into the road and get run over, and it is an accident and its breaks their parents hearts.

3. Who was caring for the old lady?

4. Why are we even discussin this?

5. Thank you Cflat for your excellent post highlighting the utter absurdity of this legal action.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: SINSULL
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:27 PM

I am more amazed at the guy who gained 65 lbs while working at McD's and sued for his health problems. He won $17,5000. He had to taste the food to see it up to snuff and eat a McD's lunch. Last I saw they offer salads and have for years. Ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:36 PM

The only decision made thus far by the judge was that "the case may proceed." There was NO DECISION that the child is "liable" for anything at this point.

A trial will be necessary before the court can determine whether this was "just an accident," whether the child was doing something not appropriate to its age, or whether the parent failed to control what the child was doing and should have known that the kid might hurt someone.

The defense attorney argued that the parent was "present," but apparently emphasised that the parent was NOT SUPERVISING THE CHILD, so it was effectively the defense attorney's attempt to say it was "the kid's fault and nobody else's, and the kid is too young to have any manners at all."

Although the headlines say "four year old," this child was two weeks from a fifth birthday, which would, under existing precedent, have allowed the case to proceed without question.

The ruling was only on a pre-trial motion by the defense, and had no effect other than to accept the case for hearing. It takes little speculation on how the case is likely to proceed to say that the judge ruled only that a hearing is needed to determine whether parents are immune from being responsible for supervising their children in a situation where harm to others may be reasonably expected.

The defense attorney's pretrial motion was an attempt to say that the child was too young for anybody to be in control. The judge just said there are other issues, and the case may proceed.

The headline might have said "judge rules that child under five still needs parental supervision," and we'd all not be so offended.(?)

John

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:48 PM

An almost-five year old has known for approximately two years not to run into people. In that sense, the child is also culpable. The child, of course, may not have recoverable assets. And I would probably object to a prison term for said child. :)

However, in the case of children who are allowed to race each other on a public sidewalk in plain view of their parents and the parents have not ensured the safety of other people before granting such permission, the only possible liability adheres to the parents.

Logically speaking, I should think the only damages sought or granted would be of holding the parents liable for medical costs- NOT up to and including death and burial; as was mentioned above, at 87 a person could die of any trauma at all. Nor do I think pain and suffering of the offspring and other family of the deceased would enter into the equation- it WAS an accident, after all.

The borken hip, however, was clearly due to the child's action.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:56 PM

To my utter amazement, this forum seems to be getting less "liberal"

Next thing we'll be expecting folks to be responsible for their own safety.

Well done you lot!

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 03:05 PM

Lox asks slightly strangely "Why are we even discussin this?".
Well, at a guess, because you started a thread on the subject. Wasn't this your aim? If not, why open a thread?

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 03:07 PM

As they say in the legal field, NEVER ask a question to which you don't know the answer. :)

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 03:08 PM

Justice Paul Wooten merely ruled that a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward.
"The suit..... claims that in April 2009, Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, who were both four, were racing their bicycles, under the supervision of their mothers, Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, on the sidewalk of a building on East 52nd Street. .........
Her estate sued the children and their mothers, claiming they had acted negligently during the accident........
"Justice Wooten wrote in his decision, referring to the 1928 case, "Juliet Breitman, however, was over the age of four at the time of the subject incident. For infants above the age of 4, there is no bright-line rule......

"Rachel and Jacob Kohn did not seek to didmiss the suit against them."

Obviously the suit should proceed.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 03:12 PM

The above from an article in the New York Times, Alan Feuer, October 28, 2010, "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case."
The English Press seems to have garbled the story.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: gnu
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 03:44 PM

Garble, garble... makes good press... sells papers.

In law, in logic, there are tautaulogies. The lady did not fall down on her own. As for who is responsible for her fall... that will be determined by the courts.

Oh... I doubt she "darted out" in front of anyone. If so, good on her for being that agile at that age.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 03:58 PM

People who are blind, on crutches, elderly or whatever shouldn't need someone there to take care of them on a pavement because pavements are for pedestrians and no-one should expect to be hit by a bicycle on a pavement. If parents want to teach their kids to cycle on the pavement in order to protect them from the dangers of the road, they aught to also teach them to do so responsibly so as not to endanger pedestrians.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 04:10 PM

Sidewalk vs. pavement- I wonder, would paved path be a neutral term understood on both sides of the water?
Such schisms can lead to conflict-

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 04:49 PM

VTam raised a few points:

Just how fast can the little bikes (probably with stabiliser / training wheels) actually go?

What are the other facts? Did the deceased suddenly step into the path of bikes?

It was just an unfortunate accident. The son of the deceased clearly has no concept of a child's ability to judge and avoid such a situation.

Those are defense matters which will undoubtedly be brought up at the trial. The judge's ruling doesn't dispose of them. The judge's ruling only deals with whether the case may legally go forward to a trier of the facts, almost surely a jury.

The concept of "just an accident" has been thrown around by several posters. Yes, it was an accident, in that it was a mishap that almost surely was not an intentional striking of the old lady, but this is a suit for a negligent wrong, not for an intentional wrong.

As I read the linked article, I take it that the real target(s) of the suit is/are the mothers, with the claim that they were negligent in failure to control the child on the cycle, and that their carelessness caused the event and injury. The child seems to be merely a necessary party in order to get at mama.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Lox
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 04:53 PM

Greg - I wondered who would be the first to spot that little error :-)

Ake - still banging that drum eh? ... and trying to draw a comparison between a bike accident andf rape ...

... I think that parallel is about as "liberal" as they come ...

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: gnu
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 05:26 PM

"Yes, it was an accident, in that it was a mishap that almost surely was not an intentional striking of the old lady, but this is a suit for a negligent wrong, not for an intentional wrong."

Conjecture at this point. And that is a tautaulogy.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 06:24 PM

In legal parlance, negligent wrong and intentional wrong are not the same.
The suit is based on negligence; intent does not enter into the action; hence not tautological.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 07:11 PM

If the incident was thought to be intentional, the charge might be criminal if the acting party were adult, but I'm sure it wouldn't lie against a four year old.

Just what charge (if any) might be brought against mama because of the intentional wrong of her kid, I don't know.

Dave Oesterreich


Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Slag
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 08:39 PM

I see grounds for a counter suit. Anyone at the age of 87 trying to negotiate the streets alone is asking for it. Any responsible pedestrian ought to have the wherewithall to avoid small children on bicycles, running children which could have percipitated a incident with the same outcome or a whole host of other incident which could have cause an identical outcome. She needed accompaniment, a guardian.

This case is simply a "kid-will-be-kids" situation and to find in favor of the old woman's estate is a further erosion of our freedoms and the right for a kid to do kid things. I might question the responsiblity of a parent who let's a child roam free on a bicycle at age four but I certainly do not question the kids.

PS I remember smashing my bicycle into a telephone pole at age six because I had just learned to ride and hadn't got around to the turning part yet.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 08:55 PM

Uncle Dave, it is one suit, all parties named, the estate of the dead woman claiming negligence.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: gnu
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 09:05 PM

Slag...a person has rights regardless of age or mental/physical capacity. The fact is that the child HIT THE OLD LADY... SHE DID NOT HIT THE CHILD.

As for a further erosion of your freedoms... don't ever get old.

Good luck with that.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Slag
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 09:10 PM

Come on gnu, you ought to know by now that SOMEBODY has to take the opposing point of view! ; ]

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 10:25 PM

"Anyone at the age of 87 trying to negotiate the streets alone is asking for it. Any responsible pedestrian ought to have the wherewithall to avoid small children on bicycles, running children which could have percipitated a incident with the same outcome or a whole host of other incident which could have cause an identical outcome. She needed accompaniment, a guardian." Slag

Sheesh. What are YOU, 15? That argument is an absurdity. In Juneau we have 90 year olds who are still hiking and downhill skiing.

I just now read gnu's last post and the response. Glad to hear that Slag is not as juvenile as I'd feared. :)

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 11:09 PM

Be careful, Slag, you'll be charged with sexism (whatever that means nowadays) as well as anti-octogenerism (sp.?).

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:02 AM

Obviously the lady needed a dog to protect her......one of those dogs I read about here on Mudcat.......you know, the ones who are genetically predisposed to attack children in the face. Then they could have had the kids sue the dog!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:43 AM

One would assume the defence may delve into the condition of her bones. If she had osteoporosis...the kid would've had to barely tap her to cause a fracture of some sort and hips are a notorious injury for elderly women. NOT that that would excuse negligence on the part of the mother, but it could still be a factor for the defence, I would think.

I've thought about this in relation to my grandson...it took him a while to understand just how strong he was at 4-5 years old and how much it could actually hurt if he threw the ball too hard or batted too hard with foam swords. By 5.5-6, he had a better understanding and now, two weeks from 7, he fully understands. We've never let him race his bike anywhere, anyway. When I was growing up we didn't get a bike until we were 8 years old. I was kind of appalled when my grandsons all had them so young. I still am not thrilled about it. Maybe those kids in NYC shouldn't have had bikes so soon.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Slag
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 01:09 AM

Well I'm certainly glad she didn't kidnap the four year old and feed her to her viscious dog! Where the heck are the parents these day?! Maybe they had her insured to the hilt. That's not as bad as the old lady's brats trying to pump up her estate to the max. Anyway you look at it there are going to be some happy lawyers!

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 01:39 AM

Boy. You are a doll.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 02:40 AM

Of course someone should be sued - lawyers have to make a living, and I've never met a hard-up lawyer.

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 03:29 AM

...only in New York................







.....or maybe L.A....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: A 4 year old is sued? is it April 1st ..
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 08:03 AM

Thank you Cflat... Precisely what I was thinking. We don't know that those 2 mothers may be very conscientious (it only takes a moment of distraction) And that little girl may normally be cautious. The elderly lady, may have stepped into the path of the children when coming out of her home at just the wrong moment. The children may have tried to slow down and stop, but been unable to.

There is no way of knowing all the particulars of that moment in time.   Anyone who sues after such an accident, especially when it involves such a young child, is merely grasping, possibly for some consolation for his grief. But I am inclined to think he is grasping for money.