Few things shock me these days. But I was genuinely shock to hear about this ruling in New York that a 4 year old can be held legally liable for negligence.
Does anybody agree with this? I didn’t even know how to tie my shoes when I was 4 years old. It seems patently absurd to hold a child this age to the same legal standards as an adult.
So she’s going to be tried as a kindergartner?
Well, to be fair it’s not just the 4 year old being sued.
And it sounds like there are precedents:
Not that I totally agree with litigation in this case, but common law is presumably the legal system in use.
Maybe a jury could sentence the kid to time out.
It only sounds absurd to the layman’s ears. People are held responsible for the actions under the law, defined by the ‘reasonable person’ standard. Youth (other than drooling newborns, it appears) is no absolute defense.
They will be judged based on what a reasonable child of their age would have done. Of course, the very old woman will be judged on her own reasonable standard, (perhaps as to whether putting 87-year old hip bones in the way of hyperactive children having a bicycle race was the best idea).
*Minors are typically held to a different standard of care than adults. For example, a minor’s negligence may be evaluated against what reasonably careful person of the same age, mental capacity and experience would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. Very young minors (e.g., minors under the age of seven) are typically presumed to be incapable of negligence.
Most jurisdictions also consider the fact that minors act upon childish instincts and impulses when considering injuries to minors. As a consequence, a defendant knew or should have known that a child (or children) were present, or were likely to be present, in the vicinity, the defendant may required to exercise greater vigilance. By way of example, a person driving by an unfenced playground where children often play baseball should be on alert that a child may impulsively chase a ball into the street.*
I agree with the judge that, because of the way our legal system works, 4-almost-5 is old enough to be sued. I certainly hope she’s found not guilty, and that the case will then change the “bright line” so that other 4-almost-5 year old can’t be sued for negligence in the future.
I only agree that the suit should be allowed to progress, I wouldn’t agree with a guilty verdict, unless some truly damning evidence was brought forth (like, I don’t know, that she attended a bicycle training class with an A and was explaining to bystanders how wrong it was to crash into little old ladies with your bike while she intentionally crashed into the little old lady with her bike.)
I can certainly see a case that the mother was negligent in allowing the kid to hit the old woman. Whether I agree with that case, I don’t know, since I’d have to have the full facts of the case, but I can see it. The child, though? That’s just absurd. It’s also a bad tactical error for the prosecution: If the jury sees that they’re trying to sue a pre-schooler, they’re likely to come to the conclusion that the entire case is frivolous.
Meh. The judge did not make any ruling regarding the particulars of the case, he merely allowed it to proceed.
If the suit wins, the estate will be awarded triple damages: six gumballs and three Happy Meal toys. That’s exorbitant.
Incomprehensible.
So… if these children had run into the street, under the “supervision” of their parents, and been killed themselves–but had previously been told to look both ways–this judge would not think the parents responsible?
Young children are not reasonable. If the parents are doing a good job of it, the children are learning reason. That’s a process that takes a number of years under the very best of circumstances. Four or five years old is early days in that process.
Four or five is really little, though. I’m not sure kids really have the comprehension of their actions having consequences. I think they’d be able to process, “I might hit someone who would fall down” but I don’t think they’d take into account how fragile some people are.
I think the parents are at fault because it’s a really bad idea to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. Whenever I see someone on roller skates or a bike on sidewalk, I kind of cringe because it really hurts to be hit by one and it’s easy to do (I got run over by a bike a few years ago).
While the estate may be in their legal rights to sue, what honest good will come of it? The plaintiffs may derive some satisfaction and cash if they win. Yet, has anyone considered the children? Seriously, is there any consideration the kids might have issues of their own down the road because of the suit. So who really “wins” here, 'cuz I can see only losers.
At four years old I knew how to lift wallets and that ramming a bicycle into someone (or racing dangerously on the sidewalk) was wrong. Yes, the parents are ultimately the main problems here and they should be sued until they bleed in every orifice (if not sentenced to actual jail time) for wrongful death, but if going through the kid is necessary for justice, I say do it.
Nice of you to attempt to blame the victim? I mean, how dare she walk on the sidewalk when there are children there racing their bicycles! :rolleyes:
To me the point is that the parents should have exercised due diligence over their children to prevent them from racing bicycles on a sidewalk. If the child and parent get sued, it’s the parent that will be held financially liable, presumably. It makes more sense to me to sue the parent directly, but perhaps there is some reason why it’s better for the plaintiff to do it this way.
Oh boo hoo. The big bad trial is going to traumatize the 5-year-olds! Maybe it will teach them something about being responsible for their actions, especially on a crowded New York sidewalk.
Roddy
The question is not one of guilt or innocence but liability of the child (and, my guess would be, as then imputed to the parents). Likewise, there is no “prosecutor.” There is a plaintiff and a defendant. The reality is that the survivors of the deceased want at the four-year old’s parent’s liability and perhaps homeowner’s insurance policies.
I believe it’s necessary to establish the child’s negligence so that it might be imputed to the parents. And the word you’re looking for is “plaintiff.” There is no prosecutor (in the criiminal sense) here.
I’m not sure there’s necessarily anything wrong with suing a 4yo, but I think they’ll have an awfully hard time making a case, as it’s hard to say what negligence is to a kid that age. Sure, the idea of a kid running out in traffic could be, since chances are that the parents emphasized that, but racing bikes on the sidewalk doesn’t seem different from anything any other “reasonable” 4yo would do. Hell, I was racing my bike on the sidewalks at a much older age than that, though I never hit anyone.
The facts of the case aren’t all that clear anyway. The kids were on the sidewalk in Manhattan, were they there because it was dangerous to be riding them in the road? Were the sidewalks packed and so hitting someone was all but inevitable? Maybe she stepped out and the kids didn’t see her in time. It’s hard to say how a “reasonable” 4yo would react without knowing some of these basic things.
The parents are another story, of course, and they probably deserve to get sued, but if it were just against them, we wouldn’t have heard about this case.
That’s what I don’t understand here. The judge’s logic in allowing a suit against the children to go forward seems to be that the parents are not responsible–the children are. I would think it would in the plaintiff’s interest to argue that liability rests with the adults.
In most jurisdictions, a 4 - almost -5 year-old is simply too young to be presumptively capable of the tort of negligence.
Establishing negligence requires that the person be in breach of some duty they owe, to the standard reasonable for them. There is simply no way a child that young can be in breach of a such a duty, as we do not expect reasoned behavior from a 4-year old - they absolutely do stuff like running out into the street after a ball, and we expect they are capable of that.
Hold the person supervising the kid liable (if it warranted on the facts); otherwise, let it lie. Some things in life are simply accidents, with no fault to be attributed. Attribulting legal ‘fault’ to a child that young is simply an absurdity.
I am no expert in New York civil law but my guess is that the plaintff is trying to impute the child’s liability to his parents. In order to impute liability, liability must be established.
The parents might also be solely liable for failure to supervise, but the plaintiff will want to provide a jury with as many hooks as possible upon which to hang a hat. Let’s say supervision was reaopnable but the child acted in a
It’s a tactical error, if it is to be tried by a jury. It is inviting the jury to think the plaintiffs are unreasonable.