4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case

[yosande]

Without doubt, imo there are laws about riding bikes on sidewalks.
The children were not allowed under the law to be out and about without adult supervision, being too young to take care of themselves, or ask for help with enough information to get them home, etc, and therefore the adults who were supervising the children are responsible for whatever happened.

But holding a 4 year old liable, even if they are 3 months short of being 5, is just completely lacking any common sense.
That's just my opinion of course.

The adults who were supervising the 4 year olds, are responsible for the damages done, just like if a 4 year old broke a vase in a store. The adult who was responsible for the child would have to pay for it.

The judge has lost sight of reality, in my opinion.

 

[legalmania]

Breaking a vase in a store is just a matter of property damage, and happens all the time. This is a personal injury case. If we let this four year old get away with it then what is to stop the child from gathering her friends and saying hey lets go for a ride down this road?

This behavior has to be stopped at a young age or it will continue. One of her friends could say well, I saw Juilte riding down the street and she was with her mom so I guess it's o.k. IMO it's not punishing the child it's stopping the behavior. Even though it sounds innocent a death came out of it and that is the lesson these kids need to learn. This is just my opinion and I'm open to all rebuttals.

 

[Soulmagent]

Breaking a vase in a store is just a matter of property damage, and happens all the time. This is a personal injury case. If we let this four year old get away with it then what is to stop the child from gathering her friends and saying hey lets go for a ride down this road?

This behavior has to be stopped at a young age or it will continue. One of her friends could say well, I saw Juilte riding down the street and she was with her mom so I guess it's o.k. IMO it's not punishing the child it's stopping the behavior. Even though it sounds innocent a death came out of it and that is the lesson these kids need to learn. This is just my opinion and I'm open to all rebuttals.

Your really good with crazy angles.

I would have to suggest with childhood obesity being the problem as such that riding her bike was mandated for her life long health. What if she was running? Would we be then asking for children to stop running?

I see your point though . I have always believed when groups of children play and school together it only encourages them to become gang members due to the pack training thoughout formative years of development.

 

[Pandora]

A cousin accidentally shot another cousin in the first cousin's home several years ago, killing him. His parents had to sue the parents' (home owners) in order to have hospital & funeral expenses paid. There was no health insurance and the father had brain cancer. Many people said HORRIBLE things about them, but the fact was there was no way around it. The families were close before, during, and after. It's the only way one familly could survive financially. (They won the suit and were able to pay their bills with the money from the home owners' insurance.)

Not knowing the financial state of the people suing, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Three months worth of care would have been very expensive and the 87-year-old may not have had long-term care insurance. It is quite pricey.

 

[fmw63]

...and what will happen to her when she tries to get her driver's license? :waitasec:

 

[believe09]

What bothers me about this case is the fragility of the woman who died. She might have had the same result had she slipped on the curb, fallen at home, been in a car accident.

Now, if this 4 year old had run into my 70 year old mother, deliberately or otherwise, she might have been bruised but likely wouldnt have died. I mean really. This judge has a beef against children. And young ones at that.

 

[kgeaux]

I have an 87 year old relative and a 4 year old relative. While I can acknowledge that the accident was caused by a four year old, I cannot go so far as to admit that the four year old is a separate legal entity from her parents,.......I think this case would have been OK if the parents were sued, however, I am sure that a four year old is NOT capable of knowing that her actions will cause injury, much less death.

I guess the bottom line for me is that yes, the four year old caused the injury, NO the four year old should not be considered a separate legal entity from her parents.

 

[T-Rex]

It's illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk in NYC, for VERY good reason. The mothers are idiots. If suing the kids is the way to get to the irresponsible parents, so be it.

 

[southcitymom]

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1107

No idea if this site is reputable or not, and IANAL, but

"last clear chance -
n. a rule of law in determining responsibility for damages caused by negligence, which provides that if the plaintiff...is negligent, that will not matter if the defendant...could have still avoided the accident by reasonable care in the final moments (no matter how slight) before the accident..."

This is a real law. In GA, it is charged regularly at the end of auto accident trial - if you have an opportunity to get out of the way of impending "tort", you are legally required to take it!!

 

[Soulmagent]

What bothers me about this case is the fragility of the woman who died. She might have had the same result had she slipped on the curb, fallen at home, been in a car accident.

Now, if this 4 year old had run into my 70 year old mother, deliberately or otherwise, she might have been bruised but likely wouldnt have died. I mean really. This judge has a beef against children. And young ones at that.

All Judges do ! They dont even let them in courts! It is age discrimination and this toddler is being unfairly targeted !
:crazy:
I am kidding of course. I do understand all the grown up points to the case.

It is the immature attitude of the case I am having problems with.

 

[nyc]

It is NOT illegal for children 12 and under to ride bicycles on sidewalks in NYC:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/biketips.shtml

I think this is a tragic accident, but the NYTimes article I read about this case said that it was the *estate* of the 87 year old woman that was suing the children, which makes me think that this is ultimately about the money involved (and likely driven by insurance companies trying to not have to spend any of "their" money).

 

[T-Rex]

NYC--I stand corrected! (I got my info on the bike web site for adults.) Living in Hells Kitchen, though, I can't even imagine it!

 

[drip~drop]

It is NOT illegal for children 12 and under to ride bicycles on sidewalks in NYC:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/biketips.shtml

I think this is a tragic accident, but the NYTimes article I read about this case said that it was the *estate* of the 87 year old woman that was suing the children, which makes me think that this is ultimately about the money involved (and likely driven by insurance companies trying to not have to spend any of "their" money).

What would the estate expect from a 4yo? Her favorite dolly? Are they going to wait approx. 20 years until she is done with school and has a job?
(if there are any jobs in 20 years in the USA):snooty:
moo

 

[Tuffy]

What would the estate expect from a 4yo? Her favorite dolly? Are they going to wait approx. 20 years until she is done with school and has a job?
(if there are any jobs in 20 years in the USA):snooty:
moo

I agree drip~drop. That is what gets me about this case: the greed shown by the old woman's relatives. I'm disgusted that they feel it is okay to drag this girl through the system, and get some money out of it.

It was an accident, grieve your loss and move on. Sometimes things happen that aren't anyone's fault.

 

[BuzzieCat]

The woman started the case before she died. It's not the same as if she slipped off the curb. In that case, it wouldn't have been caused by anyone else other than the woman herself. In this case, I really doubt she threw herself into the path of the bike. There are lots of things about this case that haven't been publicized. I'd really like to know the exact circumstances. If the woman and her family don't have the money to pay off her medical bills and insurance is refusing to pay, I wouldn't be so inclined to chalk it up to "greed."

 

[Tuffy]

The woman started the case before she died. It's not the same as if she slipped off the curb. In that case, it wouldn't have been caused by anyone else other than the woman herself. In this case, I really doubt she threw herself into the path of the bike. There are lots of things about this case that haven't been publicized. I'd really like to know the exact circumstances. If the woman and her family don't have the money to pay off her medical bills and insurance is refusing to pay, I wouldn't be so inclined to chalk it up to "greed."

I don't think the woman caused it. I think it was an accident, no one is at fault.

Then why not fight the insurance company, instead of a 4 year old? Just because the family can't pay their medical bills, they want to blame a kid?

 

[BuzzieCat]

I don't know, the kid is not going to pay. The parents are probably not going to pay, either. The woman's estate may not get a judgment in their favor, anyway. This just allows the case to continue. The family of the little boy involved has not made an appeal. This whole ruling came about because the little girl's family appealed and argued that she could not be found negligent because she is only 4.

We don't know that the insurance company isn't being fought. Maybe if the girl is found not negligent, the woman's insurance will have to pay. I find it hard to believe the girl will be found negligent and don't know what the legalities are of finding her parents at fault.

 

[legalmania]

Your really good with crazy angles.

I would have to suggest with childhood obesity being the problem as such that riding her bike was mandated for her life long health. What if she was running? Would we be then asking for children to stop running?

I see your point though . I have always believed when groups of children play and school together it only encourages them to become gang members due to the pack training thoughout formative years of development.

I was basically trying to find a defense for this small child, working for the D.A. for a couple of years you hear a lot of defenses. In Florida one way the mother could be held liable was if the child was negligent. The judge is not holding the child liable, but is letting a jury decide if the little girl could be held legally responsible, and was the child negligent. By letting these two children (infants) race down the road could this be considered negligent on the daughters part therefore making the mother negligent also. A child is legally called an infant until 18. I have so many questions, were there any warning signs, not to ride bicycles even with training wheels or skateboards on this walkway? Is this a heavily traveled walkway? Even though it may be legal for children under 12 to ride on certain walkways if there are signs, then they cannot. There are schools, parks and designated places for children to run, ride bikes,and exercise if they feel they need to lose weight, but IMO allowing children to run or ride bikes where the elderly or for that matter anyone who may be disabled in some fashion, should be forbidden, to avoid an accident, as in this case, which unfortunately lead to a death. This is jmo and certain laws may not apply to NY.

 

[Nova]

This is a real law. In GA, it is charged regularly at the end of auto accident trial - if you have an opportunity to get out of the way of impending "tort", you are legally required to take it!!

Were I on the jury, I would conclude that if the 87-year-old could have avoided the accident, she would have. How would one reasonably conclude otherwise? Is there evidence the old lady decided to use a 4-year-old cyclist to commit suicide?

SCM, I'm sure this law has some purpose. But I'm having trouble imaging the facts that would justify concluding that the victim failed to avoid the tort. Can you think of any examples? (I can think of cases that involve fraud, scams where people deliberately slam their brakes in front of cars so they can sue after the collision. But I assume there are other laws (fraud, etc.) that apply in such cases.)

 

[legalmania]

I would think it's a human response to get out of the way if you can. I've seen people do it on a dare or on the show Jackass, but most of the time people get out of the way if they can.