http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376

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.
‘No bright line’

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.

New York Supreme Court Judge Paul Wooten is clearly demonstarting that there isn’t a relationship between age, intelligence and maturity. If he can demonstrate a lack of the aforementioned intelligence and maturity in his ruling, is it beyond comprehension that a child if 4yrs and 9 months can have intelligence and maturity?

Recognising that a child under 4 is incapable of negligence again New York Supreme Court Judge Paul Wooten appears to want to demonstrate that age is not a boudary when considering negligence.

Form that, seems that the defendant’s lawyer didn’t give a robust defence to back up their claim of being too immature to take responsibility for their actions.

While I can understand that a 4 year may understand that riding a bike might hurt someone – the fact that it may injure someone and in this case be a cause of their death – is beyond their comprehension. I don’t think that the child’s lawyer was wrong, just amazed that the judge did not require the claimant to demonstrate that the child was capable of understanding this.

Someone is looking for a meal ticket off the child’s parents!

It’s shocking that people try to profit in this way from the accidental death of a loved one.

A child of four cannot be in any way held responsible for what happened!

Sick lawyers!

Sick lawyers? I am inclined to suggest that the issue lies with their client making the claim. This is utter madness and I wonder whether the hospital who carried out the operation is also being sued. Maybe sue God for making the elderly frail and prone to injury and death.

What’s the point in suing the kid? What are they going to do, take her pocket money?

Won’t somebody think of the children?

No, seriously; do none of these vultures stop to consider the potential psychological damage to this poor child, who isn’t even old enough to fully appreciate what’s going on? Sad enough that they must realise a poor old lady died as a result of them crashing their bike into her, but to then grow up having been labelled a killer?? You can’t bring the dead back, but you can **** the rest of someone’s life. Just because of greed. Just sick.

Ah, gotta love the USA, eh? Bang on about ‘Freedom and Justice’. Yeah, right. I don’t think even Iran and North Korea would even contemplate allowing a small child to be sued over an accident. FFS.

She had a lot of medical treatment before dying. Chances are, it is her insurer making them take the case (or pay for the treatment if they don’t ). Most nasty sounding litigation in the usa relating to personal injury is because if the insurer thinks that injuries were not purely an accident or health condition, they take a case for you to recover the costs of treatment. If you don’t let them take the case, you pay for the treatment yourself (probably tens of thousands of dollars for an ambulance plus three months care.

It’s her son and heir taking the case forward which she initially started before she died. I think the parents are also being sued, two womens names appeared in the article. Personally I think it’s ridiculous to sue a child of this age, the ‘responsible’ adults may have a case to answer but from the details given it’s very hard to make that judgement.

Absolute class Elfin, make half of it up to make your point why don’t you.

JM I’d imagine Insurers don’t need the insured’s permission to raise the claim.

Absolute class Elfin, make half of it up to make your point why don’t you.

What have I ‘made up’ then?

Oh, sorry, forgot you’re an ambulance chaser yourself… 😉

Get over yourself mate; this kind of crap exists because a) The USA has no NHS, which would mean the family weren’t left with massive medical bills, and b) people are greedy.

Yeah, screw up a child’s life, because that’s a great idea. As long as people get their money, eh?

FFS, it was purely an ACCIDENT. There was no intent, no negligence, no ‘responsibility’. It was a 4 year old child. Sometimes, shit happens in life. People need to learn to understand that again, and not look to blame others and get others to pay disproportionately for mistakes.

She had a lot of medical treatment before dying. Chances are, it is her insurer making them take the case (or pay for the treatment if they don’t ). Most nasty sounding litigation in the usa relating to personal injury is because if the insurer thinks that injuries were not purely an accident or health condition, they take a case for you to recover the costs of treatment. If you don’t let them take the case, you pay for the treatment yourself (probably tens of thousands of dollars for an ambulance plus three months care.

So shoot all Americans, end of problem?

Would probbly solve a lot of problems actually…

But Genocide surely isn’t the answer?

I blame the lawyers fair and square for the litigious society they have created in the US!

If they weren’t trying to cash in on the sitution, they would tell their client to get real and go away!

No, seriously; do none of these vultures stop to consider the potential psychological damage to this poor child, who isn’t even old enough to fully appreciate what’s going on? Sad enough that they must realise a poor old lady died as a result of them crashing their bike into her,…

[/b]

First assumption/made-up-bit

…but to then grow up having been labelled a killer?? /[/quote]

Second assumption/made-up-bit

You can’t bring the dead back, but you can **** the rest of someone’s life.

Third assumption/made-up-bit

Just because of greed. Just sick.

No because of hoe health care is paid in by the US – on a commercial basis.

Oh go and have a little lie down Al, and come back when you can make some sense.

Go on, before you do yourself a mischief.

Spongebob – Member
I blame the lawyers fair and square for the litigious society they have created in the US!

If they their clients weren’t trying to cash in on the sitution, they would tell their client to get real and go away!

FTFY