Reply #7: That would seem to be a somewhat substantial correction

[petronius]

Seems like an interesting case, I wonder where the preexisting assumption about 4 y.o. being the negligence cutoff came from. There must have been some earlier cases that drew that line. I'm also wondering what the judge really thinks of it - all he really did was make the technical ruling that there is nothing currently in the law that precludes suing a 4 y.o. Most of us would automatically conclude that was a ludicrous idea, but apparently the victim's estate's lawyer didn't...