4-year old child sued

[Giliell]

4-year old can be sued over bicicle accident

Being from a country where the law says that children under 6 cannot be held responsible anyway (but parents can), and knowing about the cognitive abilities of 4 year olds (science tells us a lot, for example about their disability to judge such risks correctly), I find it frankly abhorrent.

 

[lrkun]

4-year old can be sued over bicicle accident

Being from a country where the law says that children under 6 cannot be held responsible anyway (but parents can), and knowing about the cognitive abilities of 4 year olds (science tells us a lot, for example about their disability to judge such risks correctly), I find it frankly abhorrent.

The ruling by the judge, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, did not find that the girl was liable, but merely permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward.

"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."

Well, the child wasn't held liable. The judge only allowed the suit which is proper in this case.

 

[australopithecus]

Is it wrong I'm not surprised this is happening in America?

 

[DepricatedZero]

Is it wrong I'm not surprised this is happening in America?

Is it wrong that I was surprised that it wasn't by the RIAA?

 

[Andiferous]

Incredible. Lawsuit, anyone?

 

[lrkun]

It's just a spinoff done by a journalist who isn't familiar with the law. The judge didn't hold the child liable, he just allowed the lawsuit. Eventually, the child's parents will pay the damages, however the girl and the other four year old will not be penalized. Moreover, if the judge will hold the children liable, it'd be a case where he is grossly ignorant of the law. So don't jump to conclusions guys. There is nothing illegal with this case.

 

[MRaverz]

In the UK you need to be 10 before you are responsible for a crime, no 4 year olds getting sued over here.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'll bet that there are legal issues involved that require the children be named defendants in the case even though there's no real action that can be done against a child of that age, in order for the case to move forward in a certain direction.

 

[Giliell]

Sorry for not replying earlier, life hit hard, again :roll:

@Irkun
Well, the judge didn't hold her responsible, but if the lawsuit is allowed, what says that she won't be held liable in the lawsuit?
And I'm not familiar wuth the US system here, but if she personally were held liable, would her parents have to pay or would she be in debt already?

And, well, the judge frankly hasn't got a clue about kids:

"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.

This isn't about pampering kids, it's about scientific facts about child development. We know that kids have a smaller field of vision, cannot judge the speed of vehicles or people and we know that they're just not able to make correct decissions in the blink of an eye. That's why they run after balls in front of cars, or forget whatever you told them about stopping and watching if they see somebody else on the other side of the street.
It's not about parents not teaching them to look both ways, or worse encouraging, it's about them plainly not having the mental capacity to forsee the consequences of their actions. that's why we don't let them drive cars. It's not because they're too small to reach the pedals.

I agree with bringing a lawsuit against the parents. An innercity pavement isn't a place to run a bicicle race. I don't agree with every detail of the law here (it's just fucked up in some areas where the "victim" of such accidents are left without any protection), but I agree with the general idea of judging kids only according to their abilities at that time.

 

[lrkun]

Sorry for not replying earlier, life hit hard, again :roll:

@Irkun
Well, the judge didn't hold her responsible, but if the lawsuit is allowed, what says that she won't be held liable in the lawsuit?
And I'm not familiar wuth the US system here, but if she personally were held liable, would her parents have to pay or would she be in debt already?

And, well, the judge frankly hasn't got a clue about kids:

"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.

This isn't about pampering kids, it's about scientific facts about child development. We know that kids have a smaller field of vision, cannot judge the speed of vehicles or people and we know that they're just not able to make correct decissions in the blink of an eye. That's why they run after balls in front of cars, or forget whatever you told them about stopping and watching if they see somebody else on the other side of the street.
It's not about parents not teaching them to look both ways, or worse encouraging, it's about them plainly not having the mental capacity to forsee the consequences of their actions. that's why we don't let them drive cars. It's not because they're too small to reach the pedals.

I agree with bringing a lawsuit against the parents. An innercity pavement isn't a place to run a bicicle race. I don't agree with every detail of the law here (it's just fucked up in some areas where the "victim" of such accidents are left without any protection), but I agree with the general idea of judging kids only according to their abilities at that time.

The parents will pay damages. The children won't be held liable. Assuming they would be, their sentence will be suspended and the parents will still pay for damages.

However, if you really want to be certain, ask a US lawyer.

 

[Lallapalalable]

I agree with the judge. The parents are being held liable, but over actions performed by small children under their supervision. Therefore, the parents should have done something along the lines of making sure the kids knew not to run into people, or just not racing bikes on manhattan sidewalks.