# Judge rules that 4 years old is old enough to be sued **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786 "2010-10-29T17:01:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/21 "2010-10-29T19:41:13Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > 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. These are all reasons to absolve the defendant of liability. They are not reasons to dismiss a case. Folks here might be hung up on a bit of procedure. Dismissing an action is difficult, and when considering whether to do so, a court takes all facts in dispute and views them in a light most favorable to the plaintff. In other words, when considerng this motion to dismiss, unless the plaintiff concedes that the kids didn’t have enough time to see her, the court won’t consider that. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/22 "2010-10-29T19:42:35Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > 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. It may very well be the only way to reach the parents on imputed liability. I would also wager that settlement discussion got a little more robust after the decision on the motion to dismiss. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/23 "2010-10-29T19:49:03Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > It may very well be the only way to reach the parents on imputed liability. I would also wager that settlement discussion got a little more robust after the decision on the motion to dismiss. Why do they need imputed liability? They have direct liability - failure to supervise. If the plaintiffs fail to establish that the parents were directly negligent in any way, I seriously doubt they would ever succeed in proving that they should be held liable by imputed liability - and it has the potential to piss off any jury hearing the matter. To my mind, it’s an irrelevant long-shot claim which has the potential to sabotage the more meaty claims available. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/24 "2010-10-29T19:51:26Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > 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. This isn’t quite correct. Whether or not the kid is found liable or not isn’t the point. The point is by allowing the suit, precident is established. A “not guilty” verdict won’t void the precident. It’s already been established. As for the case, no one expects this to go to court. The idea is to settle out of court, like it usually happens. No lawyer wants to go to court over this. They want the insurance company (does homeowners cover this?) to settle out of court. I agree with the judge in the sense, that if a five year old could be sued, why not a four year old. Does a five year old really have any better grasp than a four year old? There’s really no good reason to say a five year old can be tried while a four year old can’t It’s not like turning 18 when a whole slew of legal obligations go along with your birthday celebrtions ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/25 "2010-10-29T19:53:38Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > If the suit wins, the estate will be awarded triple damages: six gumballs and three Happy Meal toys. That’s exorbitant. To be fair, their counsel’s choice of the “liar, liar, pants on fire” defense will be of little help. And I, for one, fully agree with the judge’s stated opinion of “neener, neener”. Wonder if the kid will be tried by a jury of her peers. ---
**Author:** ![No\_Wikipedia\_Cites](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@No\_Wikipedia\_Cites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/No_Wikipedia_Cites)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/26 "2010-10-29T19:54:17Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Young children are not reasonable. So you say, but what makes you so sure? You have not proved that assertion, nor defined reasonableness. Everything is relative; compared to adults, no, kids are not reasonable. But that was not the issue before the court. Rather: Do you mean young children are 100% unreasonable, and have no realistic understanding of the real world _at all_? Or are they partially reasonable, less so than adults, but more than entirely random behavior? I think the latter is far more in line with human nature, and by that they are to be judged. My earlier statement is not my opinion, but legal reality: normally, children are judged on what a reasonable person of their age and condition would do. So a 5-year old will be judged on what a reasonable five year old would have done. Hence the lawsuit. (I of course am SUPER reasonable, and when I was five I never ran my tricycle into octogenerians; so there you go. Dumb as kids can be, I managed that much.) A real lawyer should post here and put this thread to sleep. Juries tend to follow orders, and they are not above assigning liability to a child. Rules are rules, and very young children have been found liable in several cases in the past. A real lawyer can verify this, but the traditional rule is that a parent is not normally legally/financially responsible for liability of their children. I admit, it sounds like that would be so, but it is not so, for counter-intuitive but sound reasons. Tots or tater tots, young or old, each person’s actions are their own and bear responsibility if they hurt someone. Parents are not liable unless they got involved somehow in causing the negligence, as has already been mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/27 "2010-10-29T19:55:33Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > I agree with the judge in the sense, that if a five year old could be sued, why not a four year old. Does a five year old really have any better grasp than a four year old? If a four-year-old, why not a three-year-old? Two? > [@sassyfras](#): > > Do you mean young children are 100% unreasonable, and have no realistic understanding of the real world _at all_? Or are they partially reasonable, less so than adults, but more than entirely random behavior? That’s exactly what I said. Children are, we hope, _learning_ reason. When they have made sufficient progress to be held truly accountable for their actions, they are then adults. Until then, we hold other adults responsible for them. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/28 "2010-10-29T19:56:33Z")
Quoth **whole bean** : > [@](#): > > And the word you’re looking for is “plaintiff.” There is no prosecutor (in the criiminal sense) here. Ah, yes, of course, that was a brain fart on my part. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/29 "2010-10-29T19:59:15Z")
> [@sassyfras](#): > > So you say, but what makes you so sure? You have not proved that assertion, nor defined reasonableness. Everything is relative; compared to adults, no, kids are not reasonable. But that was not the issue before the court. Rather: > > Do you mean young children are 100% unreasonable, and have no realistic understanding of the real world _at all_? Or are they partially reasonable, less so than adults, but more than entirely random behavior? I think the latter is far more in line with human nature, and by that they are to be judged. > > My earlier statement is not my opinion, but legal reality: normally, children are judged on what a reasonable person of their age and condition would do. So a 5-year old will be judged on what a reasonable five year old would have done. Hence the lawsuit. (I of course am SUPER reasonable, and when I was five I never ran my tricycle into octogenerians; so there you go. Dumb as kids can be, I managed that much.) > > A real lawyer should post here and put this thread to sleep. Juries tend to follow orders, and they are not above assigning liability to a child. Rules are rules, and very young children have been found liable in several cases in the past. The site _you_ posted above contradicts this. > [@](#): > > 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.** [Emphasis] ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/30 "2010-10-29T20:07:38Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Why do they need imputed liability? They have direct liability - failure to supervise. You simply have no way of knowing that. This is not an incidence of \*per se \* liability. [QUOTE=Malthus] If the plaintiffs fail to establish that the parents were directly negligent in any way, I seriously doubt they would ever succeed in proving that they should be held liable by imputed liability - and it has the potential to piss off any jury hearing the matter. [/QUOTE] Again, why not? If the parents’ conduct was reasonable, then you wouldl not be able to establish their negligence. But if, _if_, a jury finds that the child’s conduct was not reasonable for an ordinary, prudent four-year old (did I just type that?) and thereafter finds the child liable for damages arising from his negligence, then that liability can be imputed to the parents. [QUOTE=Malthus] To my mind, it’s an irrelevant long-shot claim which has the potential to sabotage the more meaty claims available. [/QUOTE] Then put your face on the back of a bus and start doing this yourself. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/31 "2010-10-29T20:10:29Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > This isn’t quite correct. Whether or not the kid is found liable or not isn’t the point. The point is by allowing the suit, precident is established. A “not guilty” verdict won’t void the precident. It’s already been established. > > As for the case, no one expects this to go to court. The idea is to settle out of court, like it usually happens. No lawyer wants to go to court over this. They want the insurance company (does homeowners cover this?) to settle out of court. > > I agree with the judge in the sense, that if a five year old could be sued, why not a four year old. Does a five year old really have any better grasp than a four year old? > > There’s really no good reason to say a five year old can be tried while a four year old can’t > > It’s not like turning 18 when a whole slew of legal obligations go along with your birthday celebrtions “Not guilty” is not in the universe of outcomes for this case. The only precedent is that a four-year-old may be sued. There is no precedent that establishes a four-year-old liable, just capable of being liable. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/32 "2010-10-29T20:16:20Z")
The jury just has to judge the child’s behavior in comparison to a reasonably prudent 4 year old of like experience. Really, though, most jurisdictions hold that children under 5 are absolutely incapable of negligence. West Virginia uses the “rule of sevens”. 0 to 7 are incapable of negligence. 7 to 14 are presumptively incapable of negligence, but that presumption can be overridden with facts. 14 and up are held to the standard of a reasonably prudent person of like age and experience. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/33 "2010-10-29T20:16:32Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > You simply have no way of knowing that. This is not an incidence of \*per se \* liability. > > Again, why not? If the parents’ conduct was reasonable, then you wouldl not be able to establish their negligence. But if, _if_, a jury finds that the child’s conduct was not reasonable for an ordinary, prudent four-year old (did I just type that?) and thereafter finds the child liable for damages arising from his negligence, then that liability can be imputed to the parents. Yeah, if. If pigs could fly, we could get bacon with a fly-swatter. 😃 The point here is that while under whatever tough rules may exist for turfing cases on a summary basis, this case remains un-turfed on this point (a decision I disagree with, but whatever), I would not give it much of a chance that any jury is going to find that a four year old racing their toy down a side-walk was “behaving unreasonably for a four-year-old”. The possibility that the parents get dinged for allowing them to do so is much higher, if they ought to have known that dangers for others lurked as a result. Where a jury finds that the parents reasonably allowed their kids to race down the sidewalk with their toy in all the circumstances, the case is done like toast. > [@](#): > > Then put your face on the back of a bus and start doing this yourself. Naw, I think I’ll stick to poking fun at what I see as silly lawyering on the 'net, if it’s all the same to you. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/34 "2010-10-29T20:55:03Z")
You honor, my clients would like to enter a plea of “nana-nana boo-boo, stick your head in doodoo”. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/35 "2010-10-29T21:05:20Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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. > [@Markxxx](#): > > As for the case, no one expects this to go to court. The idea is to settle out of court, like it usually happens. No lawyer wants to go to court over this. They want the insurance company (does homeowners cover this?) to settle out of court. It seems to me that this encourages the defense to take it all to way to court, since it comes pretty close to handing them an automatic win. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/36 "2010-10-29T21:11:03Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Four or five is really little, though. I’m not sure kids really have the comprehension of their actions having consequences. I’m sure they do not have any such comprehension. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2010, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/37 "2010-10-30T05:09:18Z")
My five year old has no understanding of death. I have really tried to explain to her that it is not something that can be undone, but “forever” is not a concept a kid can grasp, heck, they can hardly understand “a little later”. A kid that age would know that something hurts, but not know to what degree. Hitting an old lady with the bike is no more serious than getting a boo-boo. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2010, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/38 "2010-10-30T09:14:53Z")
There was once correction according to the website > [@](#): > > Correction: October 30, 2010 > > An article in some editions on Friday about a lawsuit that claims an elderly woman was severely injured by two 4-year-olds racing their bicycles on a Manhattan sidewalk misstated the timing of the woman’s death. The woman, Claire Menagh, died of unrelated causes three months after she was struck, not three weeks. I think it makes an emotional difference that it was 3 months and not 3 weeks. I have no idea if there is any legal significance, though. ---
**Author:** ![bannerrefugee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c68b51/32.png) [@bannerrefugee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bannerrefugee)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2010, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/39 "2010-10-30T09:42:48Z")
> [@Mighty\_Girl](#): > > My five year old has no understanding of death. The woman died for some other reason according to the NYtimes. > [@](#): > > She died three months later of unrelated causes. Not that it changes the basic question. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2010, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786/40 "2010-10-30T10:51:07Z")
> [@TokyoPlayer](#): > > There was once correction according to the website > > I think it makes an emotional difference that it was 3 months and not 3 weeks. I have no idea if there is any legal significance, though. The language of the OP’s quote implied that the injury played a part in her death. Given this new information, I see no reason why the estate should be permitted to sue the mother _or_ the child. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-that-4-years-old-is-old-enough-to-be-sued/558786.md?page=3)