Toddlers Racing Bikes On Sidewalk Struck An Old Woman, Who Later Died, And Now May Be Held Accountable For Their Negligence
Quote(CBS) A "bright line" has been drawn for future negligence cases by New York State Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten, who ruled this week that 4-year-olds approaching their fifth birthday are not "presumed incapable of negligence," The New York Times reports. (http://"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=1)
Justice Wooten was referring in this case to Juliet Breitman, who had been racing her training-wheel-laden bike against fellow toddler Jacob Kohn on East 52nd Street in Manhattan two years ago when they struck 87-year-old Claire Menagh. The elderly woman suffered a hip fracture and died three weeks later.
Ms. Menagh's estate sued the children and their parents, who had been supervising the kids at the time of the accident, claiming negligence on everyone's behalf. Breitman and her mother's lawyer, James P. Tyrie, sought to dismiss the suit against the toddler by arguing 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, the Times reports. Kohn and his mother did not seek to dismiss the suit.
Tyrie argued that the precedent had been set by previous courts who have held that "an infant under the age of 4 is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence."
Justice Wooten, however, ultimately disagreed with Tyrie's arguments, noting that Breitman was three months shy of her fifth birthday at the time of the accident. The Gothamist reports that Justice Wooten's ruling stated: "A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across the street. A reasonably prudent child, whom we may presume has been told repeatedly by the age of four to look both ways before crossing a street, knows that running across a street is dangerous even if there is a parent nearby." And furthermore, the defense failed to prove any "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.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/29/national/main7003546.shtml
So, what do you win once you've successfully sued a 4 year old?
Quote from: Risus on October 30, 2010, 02:52:32 AM
So, what do you win once you've successfully sued a 4 year old?
You get to take all their cookies and toys.
Quote from: Risus on October 30, 2010, 02:52:32 AM
So, what do you win once you've successfully sued a 4 year old?
Everything that the parents own. This is bullshit, btw. If a kid can't legally sign a contract (let alone her own name) then they should not be held liable for negligence.
I agree. You have to prove negligence on the part of the parent. WTF is wrong with our legal system.
They're gonna repossess his trike.
Quote from: Risus on October 30, 2010, 02:52:32 AM
So, what do you win once you've successfully sued a 4 year old?
A retarded, litigious society.
:lulz:
This is the stupidest thing I have heard today, and considering it's almost 8pm, that's a lot of day where I could have heard something stupider. Impressive!
4 years. The time it takes for a newborn to kill a senior citizen. Guinness experts and legal system baffled.
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 30, 2010, 04:20:44 AM
4 years. The time it takes for a newborn to kill a senior citizen. Guinness experts and legal system baffled.
Well, in the spirit of this election season, I hope the old lady apologized before she died.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 30, 2010, 05:07:52 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 30, 2010, 04:20:44 AM
4 years. The time it takes for a newborn to kill a senior citizen. Guinness experts and legal system baffled.
Well, in the spirit of this election season, I hope the old lady apologized before she died.
:x
That old lady was probably claiming social security. The unproductive leech had it coming.
So, does this suddenly make pedophilia okay? Because if children don't have any "lack of intelligence or maturity" then they might as well be adults. :x :x :x :x :x
I just can't wait to be sued by a 4-year old
Quote from: Cramulus on November 01, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
I just can't wait to be sued by a 4-year old
I hear it's as easy as taking candy from a baby!
Quote from: Liam on November 02, 2010, 03:58:33 AM
QuoteSo, does this suddenly make pedophilia okay? Because if children don't have any "lack of intelligence or maturity" then they might as well be adults.
I would say, on paper, yes, yes it does. this ruling implies that kds can make their own decisions and are legaly responsible for them, so, it opens up a whole can of 'yes that 6 year old agreed to the violent raping yer honour' type defences, as you know, that some scumbag legal eagle WILL try for a defense based on this case. :x :x :x :x
Still, in fun related news, I'm going to threaten litigation on the neigbor kids if they get into next years melon patch.
I'm telling you, Liam, we do shit like this on purpose.
Quote from: Liam on November 02, 2010, 07:42:25 PM
QuoteI'm telling you, Liam, we do shit like this on purpose.
Mate, I'm starting to believe that. There is no way someone sat down, thought this through and went, 'fuck yeah, that seems perfectly reasonable to me!'. Looks more like they sat down, and carefully worked out, possibly with a slide rule and a pencil, and went 'ohoho this shall cause maximum clusterfuckage! neato!'
:eek:
We choose our judges based on rabidity, not brains.
Well, obviously the judge realized that this kid (http://www.break.com/index/two-year-old-toddler-smokes-cigarettes.html) was responsible enough to weight the health hazards of smoking and he's only two...
Quote from: Liam on November 02, 2010, 07:42:25 PM
QuoteI'm telling you, Liam, we do shit like this on purpose.
Mate, I'm starting to believe that. There is no way someone sat down, thought this through and went, 'fuck yeah, that seems perfectly reasonable to me!'. Looks more like they sat down, and carefully worked out, possibly with a slide rule and a pencil, and went 'ohoho this shall cause maximum clusterfuckage! neato!'
:eek:
Did you watch "Burn After Reading" ? :lol:
Definitely. It's by the Coen Brothers (of Lebowski fame). Very unlikely role in it for Brad Pitt, too :) It's just that movie comes to mind when I hear the term "maximum clusterfuckage" :lol:
Though it was only the writers who sat down and neatly worked out maximum clusterfuckage with slide rule and pencil.
It's good fun, that movie. And the ending credits song "CIA Man" by the Fugs is pretty awesome too :D