New York 6 year old child sued for woman's death after bike crash

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Gwar!**

A New York child can be sued for crashing a bicycle into an elderly pedestrian and causing injuries that led to her death, a judge has ruled.

Juliet Breitman and another child were four years old when they raced their small bicycles on a Manhattan street and ran into Claire Menagh, 87.

Juliet's lawyer had argued Juliet was too young to be held negligent.

The judge disagreed, ruling Juliet's lawyer had presented no evidence she lacked intelligence or maturity.

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.

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

Ms Menagh - and later her son, acting as executor of her estate - sued the children, arguing they were "negligent in their operation and control of their bicycles". The estate also sued Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, saying they had consented to the race.

Juliet's lawyer sought to have the case dismissed, filing with the court a copy of Juliet's birth certificate showing she was four years and nine months old at the time of the accident.

Citing several cases involving young children who had been in accidents, New York Supreme Court Judge Paul Wooten ruled that Juliet, now six years old, could be sued.

While he noted that the law presumes children under age four are incapable of negligence, "for infants above the age of four, there is no bright line rule", he wrote in the decision.

He also wrote that the Juliet's lawyer had presented no evidence as to the child's lack of intelligence or maturity, nor that "a child of similar age and capacity" would not have understood the danger of riding a bicycle into an old woman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376
Only in the U.S. eh?

**Asherian Command**

WTF?~?!??!?!?!?!?!?#@!$?#$?@!%?@#?%^@#^!@%!@#$!%!

WHAT IS THIS!

Seriously! What dumbass sues 4 year olds.
People sue sue sue sue sue that is it.

I hate people so much.

**Monster Rain**

Gwar, did you edit that? There's some key words that didn't make it from the actual NYT story to your post.

**Gwar!**

Monster Rain wrote:Gwar, did you edit that? There's some key words that didn't make it from the actual story to your post.

No, I just copied and pasted. All I removed was the "No Bright Line" subheader thing. Has the story changed?

I just checked, they look the same to me...

**Monster Rain**

Gwar! wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Gwar, did you edit that? There's some key words that didn't make it from the actual story to your post.
No, I just copied and pasted. All I removed was the "No Bright Line" subheader thing. Has the story changed?

Yeah in the NYT story, which seems to have become a paysite in the last 24 hours, the judge didn't find that the kid was liable just that the family could be sued and that the emphasis would be on the parents for not watching their children. Also, breaking one's hip at 80-whatever that lady's age was is pretty damned serious. I imagine I'd be pretty pissed off if I got crashed into by some kids on bikes that weren't being properly supervised...

The BBC edited that story pretty heavily, which is unfortunate.

**Connor McKane**

Oh dear lord... why must every accident turn into a payday for someone?

Those suing are mercenary in the extreme.

**Battle Brother Lucifer**

If your grandma/ parent got plowed into by a 4 year old kid on a bike, what you you do?
I would sue the parents, but thats just me.

**Connor McKane**

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:If your grandma/ parent got plowed into by a 4 year old kid on a bike, what you you do?
I would sue the parents, but thats just me.

Put yourself into the shoes of that kids family.

If you were playing Baseball at a Ballpark and you hit a foul ball and it struck a child and killed him in clearly an accident. You think the parent sof that child would be right to take everything you and your parents had?

Only if there is gross negligence should anyone be allowed to sue.

Our judicial system is broken if this goes down as anything other than an accident, a terrible accdident.

**Mr. Burning**

Bit of a misleading article from the BBC there.

I will be more interested if the family of the deceased win a payout in court.

**Ifalna**

Whatever way you want to look at this, some kids killed an old lady. If the parents were encouraging this race, then I can't blame the judge for saying they can be held responsable.

When it comes to the kids, it really depends on the details. My sister is 4, she would know perfectly well not to speed a bike into an old lady, any kid would. If the old lady was around a corner and she did not see her till she turned? Not the same thing.

**Monster Rain**

Ifalna wrote:Whatever way you want to look at this, some kids killed an old lady.

Another discrepancy in the BBC's coverage, actually.

NYT article stated that her death was unrelated to the accident. Ah well. http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26no_interstitial&OP=cab7436Q2FkKXgkQ3E,Q5CiQ25,,NPkP2.2k.2kPWkZcQ25X04,ZkPWc,bZ0UQ23N9Y

You can see for yourself if you want to register. I can't be arsed.

Still, I agree with the sentiment of your post. If your child, who can't ride their bike very well, is being so loosely supervised that she plows into someone you may well run into these kinds of problems.

**Connor McKane**

I give up. Can no one see this was just an accident? Why must every accident be a windfall?

**Monster Rain**

Connor McKane wrote:I give up. Can no one see this was just an accident? Why must every accident be a windfall?

Oh, it shouldn't. I'm not saying that.

What I am saying, and I have two young children, is that when they are riding their bikes on a public sidewalk I'm close enough to them to ensure that no one gets crashed into.

Maybe I'm projecting my hatred of people that don't supervise their abominably-behaved spawn in public onto the parents in question?

I'm willing to consider that.

**Ifalna**

I don't think anyone is saying it was anything but an accident, but that doesnt change that it may have had a serious repercussion on a person and their family :(

A child getting into a running car and pretending to drive it then accidentally rolling over their sibling is an innocent mistake, but someone still has to be responsable, the parents in this case. It does seem the entire link is misleading though, makes no sense that they would be sueing the kids, just the parents, and if the old woman did not die due to it, then the whole story collapses on itself ><

**Iur_tae_mont**

Spoiled kids fight and throw fits.

Spoiled Adults sue.

**metallifan**

Ahh, New York City. When people aren't standing around watching a homeless man bleed to death on the sidewalk (http://badgoneblog.com/2010/04/27/homeless-man-stabbed-to-death-while-bystanders-walk-by/), or complaining about a Mosque, they're suing kids for being kids.

I think this is an accurate portrayal of the way the law is handling this: