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

[cynatnite]

snip:
The suit that Justice Wooten allowed to proceed claims that in April 2009, Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, who were both 4, 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. At some point in the race, they struck an 87-year-old woman named Claire Menagh, who was walking in front of the building and, according to the complaint, was “seriously and severely injured,” suffering a hip fracture that required surgery. She died three weeks later.

Her estate sued the children and their mothers, claiming they had acted negligently during the accident. In a response, Juliet’s lawyer, James P. Tyrie, argued that the girl was not “engaged in an adult activity” at the time of the accident — “She was riding her bicycle with training wheels under the supervision of her mother” — and was too young to be held liable for negligence.

snip:
“A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street,” the judge wrote. He added that any “reasonably prudent child,” who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there. The crucial factor is whether the parent encourages the risky behavior; if so, the child should not be held accountable.

In Ms. Menagh’s case, however, there was nothing to indicate that Juliet’s mother “had any active role in the alleged incident, only that the mother was ‘supervising,’ a term that is too vague to hold meaning here,” he wrote. He concluded that there was no evidence of Juliet’s “lack of intelligence or maturity” or anything to “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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=1

[Quantess]

1. Interesting.

I don't understand why they didn't just sue the mother. She was supervising, but obviously not supervising well enough.

[the redcoat]

5. ...Do you have any idea of the timeframe of the whole ordeal?

The best "supervisor" in the world probably wouldn't have had the superhuman reaction time necessary to leap 20 feet to stop a 4 year old from accidentally turning into an old woman. It only takes a second for something like this to happen. Average human reaction time is .25 seconds. That's just for the mom to recognize the danger. Then add the time to yell to her daughter (and by extension a 4-year old's reaction time), and the time it would take to get up and leap in front of the woman (without, of course, knocking the woman over herself). It's absolutely ridiculous to place blame on the mother and say she was not supervising well enough.

[TorchTheWitch]

6. sorry, but the supervision was negligent

It doesn't matter about the reaction time of the mothers in preventing the incident what matters is that they allowed their children to race their bikes on the sidewalk of a residential street as any normal thinking adult would find such a thing dangerous both to the children on the bikes and anyone who may be on the sidewalk in the path of the racing children.

This is why we teach children not to run into the street... not because when supervising them we may not have sufficient reaction time to prevent an accident at the last moment but because we already KNOW reaction time will probably be too late, therefore we teach kids not to run out into the street AT ALL instead of allowing them to do it while supervising them and hope that we have amazing reaction time to prevent an accident at the last moment.

The mothers in this case were negligent in allowing their children to engage in an activity dangerous to both the children and anyone on the sidewalk in the first place.

[the redcoat]

7. You've got to be kidding me

This is not the movie "I, Robot." Yes, you have to teach children not to run out into the street but you cannot follow it up by never letting them outside.

It is a shame that this woman died but you cannot fault this mother. If an elderly person died every time a child rode their bike on the sidewalk, then go ahead and sue the mother, but I'm willing to bet the parents were able to let their children ride bikes on the sidewalk UNDER SUPERVISION many times before this without any incidents occurring.

There is absolutely no reasonable basis in this universe or any other for the mothers to assume someone would DIE because a 4 year old was biking on a city sidewalk.

[REP]

9. Letting children race bicycles on sidewalks is negligent, not go mention inconsiderate, behavior

The elderly, disabled and everyone else should not have to give up use of sidewalks because Mommy is too fucking lazy to take precious to the park.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

10. I think your logic is a little faulty.

Just because the parents provided proper supervision and no incidents happened prior to the injury, that doesn't mean the parents provided proper supervision in THIS instance.

It's true elderly people don't die every time a child rides a bike on a sidewalk BUT it's also true an elderly person isn't knocked down every time a child rides a bike on a sidewalk.

It's not unreasonable to assume an improperly supervised child, or in this case two children, riding bicycles on the sidewalk could cause injury to a pedestrian.

[the redcoat]

11. But then you could also argue

That it's not unreasonable to assume children doing the same thing in a park might occasionally bump into a person. There is a small chance of ANYTHING happening, but we cannot let it dictate every action.

This is my gripe with the situation. There is no guarantee anywhere in a city like NYC that you might not get bumped.

Of course this is just speculation, but I would bet good money that these children/parents would still be sued for negligence if this happened in a city park, perhaps even MORE so because a park is a place where people are more likely to gather. Again, I argue that there is no amount of supervision that reduces risk of bumping into someone to 0%, unless you're not going to let your child outside.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. That's all for the court to decide. That's the point.

The case doesn't get dismissed on the non-existent "kids will be kids" doctrine.

This case could pan out to anything between: The old lady was a neighborhood menace with a death-wish who liked to play chicken with kids on bikes....

To: The kids were Damien-like menaces who rode around on their trikes whistling the sound-track to The Omen while knocking old ladies over...

Or somewhere in between.


You may be correct in assuming the estate would still sue if this happened in a city park. The hurdle to cross for the plaintiff to prove "unreasonable" actions by the defendant, I assume, becomes more difficult in a park type setting.

That said, just because it's a park, that doesn't give the parents and children unlimited license to act negligently. While it's true you can never reduce risk to zero, you can almost never reduce LIABILITY to zero.

I often bring my dog to an off-leash city park. While it's reasonable to assume dogs will play rough and perhaps bite each other, there is a large sign at the entrance warning users of their liability for any injury caused by their pets.

[redirish28]

2. This is a 4 year old. My niece who is 4 has to be reminded to

bush her teeth every night before going to bed. A 4 year old who as to be reminded to close the door when she come into the house from the back yard.

Yet a child at the age of 4 should know the dangers of dashing out in the street?!? If following that logic than a parent should be able to leave a 4 year old in the car while they run in for milk at the store because they know the danger of being in a running car and not playing with the steering wheel...


This country has lost its mind.

[Orrex]

3. Duplicate thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4592436

[ThePhilosopher04]

4. Sure this isn't The Onion???

Sounds like this judge needs to hang around people with young kids...no way this decision stands.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

8. What decision? He didn't find any guilt or liability.

He merely refused to dismiss the case based on ESTABLISHED precedent that a 4-5 year old child isn't AUTOMATICALLY shielded from a negligence tort claim.

The case still has to go to trial and the plaintiff has to show the child acted unreasonably for a 4-5 year old child.

The plaintiff also has to prove the parent's negligence. I assume this is the real goal.

Including ALL parties in the suit is standard practice. As someone pointed out in the other thread, NOT including all claimants could be malpractice. Ever hear of the "deep pockets" theory? Sure you go after the deep pockets, but you have to include the little pockets as well - especially since their actions were directly the cause of the injury. This covers your bases.

My guess is the plaintiffs are going after the parents home-owner's policy. I'm not an attorney or an insurance agent but I THINK there is some precedence for collecting on a policy for a child's negligence but NOT for a parent's negligence.

It's also not unreasonable to assume there is a whopper of a hospital bill being claimed against the estate. It appears the lady spent some time in the hospital prior to death. We all know how expensive THAT can be. Hence the lawsuit.