Can Somebody Please Tell Me What the Hell?

[raeschae]

So I'm looking around at headlines and whatnot - trying to make myself more knowledgeable about the world around me - when I run into this:

NY Judge: 4-Year-Old Can Be Sued for Bike Accident



(Oct. 29) -- A little girl who allegedly drove her bicycle into an elderly woman when she was 4 can be sued for negligence, a New York judge has ruled.

Juliet Breitman was 4 years old in April 2009 when she allegedly raced her bicycle -- still fitted with training wheels -- into 87-year-old Claire Menagh in Manhattan. The woman suffered a hip fracture that required surgery; she died a few weeks later, according to The New York Times.

Courts have ruled that children under the age of 4 cannot be held legally liable. But Justice Paul Wooten of the State Supreme Court in Manhattan said that Juliet can be sued because she was almost 5 years old at the time of the incident in question.

A lawyer for Juliet and her mother, Dana Breitman, had argued that taking such legal action against a pre-kindergartner at play was illogical. "Juliet was not engaged in an adult activity; she was riding her bicycle with her training wheels under the supervision of her mother," attorney James Tyrie wrote in court papers, according to The Wall Street Journal.

But Wooten said supervision didn't excuse the behavior. "A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street," he wrote.

Wooten also said Breitman was old enough at the time of the alleged accident to know that hitting an elderly woman was wrong. He said there were no "mitigating factors apparent in the record that would indicate 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."

Tyrie and Breitman did not immediately return calls for comment this morning.



Seriously, just...am I missing something? Can someone please point out the logic that I'm not seeing? I DON'T GET IT!!!

Comments

[sd-singer.livejournal.com]

the fuck?? I...I... I got nuthin'. that shits ridiculous!

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

Right? People make me crazy!

[rozabellalove.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I work in car insurance, dealing with negligence and liability every day. In the UK this wouldn't happen, maybe if the child was around 7-8 years old they could be held to understand the consequences of their actions but 4? And also you'd have to prove that the child understood just how seriously they could hurt the woman - that surely could not be possible at 4 years old. I don't think I even knew that people could break their bones at 4 years old, let alone how much it would hurt or that an old woman could need surgery or die from it!

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

Man, I could barely walk without tripping over my own feet at four. I just don't even know.

[rozabellalove.livejournal.com]

yep, exactly.

Also - who's to say it wasn't an accident??

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure, just from reading the comments on the actual article, that it totally was. Which makes it even more insane because I'm pretty sure that little girl was probably just as terrified as that lady was. Unless she was, like, Lilith or something.

[imaginethehappy.livejournal.com]

I saw this earlier! The part I love: ...does not give a reasonable child carte blanche...

I'm sorry, I didn't realize children could be reasonable.. What does that even meeeeean? I could see the parents maaaaybe for not paying attention or following up with the lady but the ALMOST 5 year old can be held accountable???

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

Well, obviously a reasonable child would know better than to be clumsy and would have perfect reflexes.

I feel like saying a reasonable adult would know better than to sue a freaking 4 year old for wrongful death.

[imaginethehappy.livejournal.com]

I mean, I was an ace at 4. *nods*

*shakes head*

and yeah. I get that they're sad but what exactly do you want to sue the four year old for? What asset does she have to give you???

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

Well, technically, her parents would have to pay. They're not going to assume to get anything from a child. Still. Sheesh.

[imaginethehappy.livejournal.com]

well, yes. I'm just sayin.

although, I can just imagine a five year old in a court room, in a booster seat so she could see over the table... traumatized for life from riding a bike EVER again...

*goes back to hiding under the couch*

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

I know I'm not supposed to laugh but I'm just imagining a kid who cries every time she walks into the garage and sees her little pink bike with the handle bar streamers and the Barbie basket.

[imaginethehappy.livejournal.com]

YES. SEE? It's... XD

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

It is. Now I'm pouting.

[imaginethehappy.livejournal.com]

AWE no pouting :( *snuggles*

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

I'm all for snuggles!

[mementis.livejournal.com]

I suspect this has to do with the fact that "sued" is a civil action, rather than a criminal one. This way the family/estate/insurance/whatever can obtain some remuneration for the (no doubt astronomical) bills associated with the accident and death. As per usual, since the child is too young to enter into legal agreements, that means passing the judgment off to the parents.

There's been no judgment though, right? I mean, this was just addressing whether the suit can take place, not actual liability.

Mind you, I'm only grasping at straws to try to explain it! I think it's patently ridiculous too, and I would be surprised if any suit actually survived in court.

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

I appreciate the effort. And I think you're right - no judgment has been rendered yet, as far as I can tell. I'm just baffled that this is apparently following the letter of the law.

It does make sense from a money standpoint but not from a, ya know, logical, decent human being standpoint.

[nightporters.livejournal.com]

Your icon sums up exactly how I feel about this article. Do these people even know what a four year old is like? It was a tragic accident, nothing more. Not an excuse to make money.

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

I agree with you.

As someone else pointed out to me, the family of the elderly woman is mourning the loss of their family member and I don't deny or begrudge them that. I love the part that points out that she was almost 5 at the time. Oh, well that makes it all better then.

[nightporters.livejournal.com]

I suppose I'm prejudiced because my nephew died after being hit by a car. His death was put at £650. It was still an error of driving, not premeditated.

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

I totally understand that. And I think that you're absolutely right - pointing fingers doesn't make a person any more at fault than they would have been otherwise. And it's not much of an excuse for changing this little girl's life forever.

I can't help but wonder if her parents have even told her what's going on with all of this. She may not even know.

[nightporters.livejournal.com]

I really hope she doesn't, and that it is settled with a minimum of publicity. The kid needs to be a five year old, not a criminal.

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

YES. This. So much this!

[velvetsun.livejournal.com]

I...what? I just...I mean really? I'm sorry I can't come up with anything for that. That's just an all time low for me.

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

That was my first reaction, too! Almost exactly!!

[velvetsun.livejournal.com]

The lengths to which people will go just astounds me. I mean whatever happened to being a kid?

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

Apparently, it's not as easy as it used to be.

And I am the old lady who says shit like that now. FML.

[velvetsun.livejournal.com]

don't feel too bad, i think you're younger than me. so, there's that.

btw, i just lost like 5 minutes staring at your icon. thanks for that.

[jmystic.livejournal.com]

:| As long as mom can sue them for threatening her child. Jeez, and that she's closer to 5? WTH .. she's 4, I don't care how close she is to 5 in age. She's still 4. This is just too irritating to wrap your mind around.

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

Right? I'm right there with ya.

[jesseofthenorth.livejournal.com]

You know what makes me sad about this whole thing? That old woman died and I'm pretty sure that the girl Juliet knows it. Cuz hello big fucking court room drama. Do you think she blames herself? Fuck I hope not. Seriously who's idea was it to sue this little kid ? Couldn't they just file it under "Shit Happens" were it belongs? They had to try and destroy a fur year olds life. Shame on the court and that judge.

[raeschae.livejournal.com]

I really hope that maybe her parents are trying to shield her from as much of this as they possibly can. I don't know - it just all seems so damn ridiculous to me.

[jesseofthenorth.livejournal.com]

It is completely ridiculous !I'm sure they are trying to shield her from it but this cluster-fuck made it into the New York Times the chances of this kid not knowing some of it are damned low.
This shit leaves me a bit breathless it's so ... insane! Like, reallY? WTF ?
I am truely astounded at the stupidity of out society.

[keyweegirlie.livejournal.com]

OMG right!? I read that earlier today and was just completely dumbfounded! I have a 7 year old and if was to accidentally run in to someone on his bike it would be just that an ACCIDENT, to sue a 4 year old for doing the same thing is absolutely ridiculous!!

Then it opens up the can of worms that is a civil suit for wrongful death because they can say that the old lady never recovered from her hip surgery and that's why she dies and just...OMG that poor little girl and that stupid stupid judge.

*shakes head*

[norahy.livejournal.com]

Possibly, well surely, unpopular opinion here, sidewalk is not a place to race bicycles, especially in Manhattan, where it is pretty not wide and quite crowded. There are playgrounds for that purpose.

Do I think a 4-almost-5 year old understands the consequence of her play? no, of course not. But I do think the parents should be more considerate and, you know, find a more suitable place for the kids to be kids than sidewalk.

[plasticine-star.livejournal.com]

Don't hate me! but this kind of case is what makes most people think lawyers are heartless. I went over to the The New York Law Journal to read their report.

First, let me say that personally I think suing both kids and their mothers for negligence (as is this case) is a little over the top, especially since the accident didn't immediately cause the woman's death (she died 3 months later of unrelated causes) so yea, for me personally it's incredibly greedy of the woman's estate to do this. Although, there could be bills for the woman's surgery and other expenses related to the incident to account for.

As strange as it sounds, the judge made the legally correct decision. The judge only allowed the lawsuit to proceed, he didn't judge or decide it. It's consistent with 80 years of jurisprudence in the State of New York. From a legal stand point the judge pointing out that Juliet was almost five only highlights the fact that she's Legally old enough to be held accountable for negligence (intentional behavior that puts others at risk for injury). The child's defense filing a motion to dismiss on the grounds of the legal action being "illogical" is pretty smart even though the lawyers probably knew the odds of actually getting away with it where slim. They went for media exposure and outrage it would bring. Since the other child didn't follow this same course I wonder if they settled...

The ruling only states that the girl's age, alone, isn't enough to throw the case out of court. He's talking about mitigating factors and behavior by children of a similar age as a way to over clarify that she's a normal child for her age with no disabilities to be considered. The fact is that there doesn't appear to be any intervening precedent challenging the decision that you have to be UNDER 4 years old to be presumed to be incapable of negligence so really, it was going to be a tough sell to go against 80 years of jurisprudence.

If this goes to trial the woman's estate still hast to prove their case to a jury or most likely they are going to go for an out of court settlement. Negligence can't be litigated under tort law so this was the only way for the estate to bind the children to their parents and be able to go after the parents financially (IMO either insurance or these people have money).

Yea, as news it sounds insane but it's actually legally sound and honestly? not really surprising.

[04dreamer04.livejournal.com]

What. The. Fucking. Fuck.

It's not like the kid ran into her on purpose. She has training wheels on for Christs sake, obviously she hasn't quite figured out how to properly ride the damn thing. Kids MY age still can't properly ride a bicycle.

And way to fail on the judge's part: ...said that Juliet can be sued because she was almost 5 years old at the time of the incident in question. Uh, excuse me dumbass. I didn't realize being almost 21 means that I'm technically old enough to drink alcohol legally. *headdesk*

[spilled-coffee.livejournal.com]

4? Seriously? I think you can't be sued here until you're 14.

On the other hand neighbors called the police a few months ago when a three year old peed behind a bush on the playground not far from us. And the police came and filed everything. They obviously had to let it slide, but it wasn't such a sure thing at first.

The world hates children.

[sothcweden.livejournal.com]

That doesn't make sense to me. I always thought that parents were responsible for their childrens' actions until the child is found mature enough to be tried as an adult or reaches 16 or 18. A case against the parents for being negligent about supervision I can see being allowed, but suing a four year old?