4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case

[Upisoft]

There is some age at which a child is deemed to have sufficient cognitive skills to have some rudimentary knowledge of right versus wrong. In the state of New York, that age is apparently four.

This is maybe lawful, but it is not right. Not all children grow up the same way. Maybe majority of children have some rudimentary knowledge of right vs wrong, but not all of them. My son(age 4), for example, doesn't think he is doing anything wrong when he is terrorizing our cat. He finds it funny. Despite all our attempt to explain him it is wrong and how the cat doesn't like it. The problem is that our cat does not complain or fight back. The most our cat will do is to run away. But my son likes running and he thinks that they are playing. So, he sees no wrong. Yet he is intelligent boy with communication skills like 5-6 years old.

 

[D H]

Stop acting emotionally. Do some research. Think.

After I did some research I found that New York and New Hampshire are the only two states where the concept of parental immunity still applies in full (or did in 1996; see http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/reform.pdf). You can however sue the negligent child in New York (and the parents are responsible for debts incurred by the child.) Crazy, yes. Crazier still is the notion that parents cannot be held accountable for the acts of their children.

 

[Upisoft]

Stop acting emotionally. Do some research. Think.

After I did some research I found that New York and New Hampshire are the only two states where the concept of parental immunity still applies in full (or did in 1996; see http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/reform.pdf). You can however sue the negligent child in New York (and the parents are responsible for debts incurred by the child.) Crazy, yes. Crazier still is the notion that parents cannot be held accountable for the acts of their children.

That's also crazy, yes. It doesn't help with the emotional response either. More crazy does not make it better.

 

[rootX]

That is your opinion, and that differs from the opinion of the court.

Stepping away from this particular case, suppose I have a steep driveway up to my house. Suppose that I pull up the drive, put my car in neutral, and fail to engage the parking brake. My car rolls down the hill, across the street, into your yard, and then crashes through your front door. You are going to sue me, not my car. My car is an inanimate object that cannot think for itself. The negligence was solely mine.

Suppose instead that I did engage the parking brake when I came home. In this case, my poorly-raised 16 year old son and his JD buds decided to go car bowling. They unlock the car, disengage the parking brake, and watch what ensues. Hive fives all around when the car smashes into your living room! You cannot sue just me; I engaged the parking brake. My son, while a minor, is not a mindless car. He is a thinking being; he is the one who caused the damage. It would be fruitless to sue just my son because he has no money. You need to sue both my son and me. You need to sue my son because he is the one who committed the negligent act, me because I am fiscally liable for my son's negligent acts.

Third case: I arrive home with my two year old daughter. I unbuckle my daughter and step out of the car to pick up the newspaper, leaving my daughter in the car. She plays with the parking brake and somehow disengages it. Now when the car crashes into your living room you do sue just me. In the mind of the court my daughter does not yet have the necessary cognitive skills to be held accountable. She is more or less mindless in the eyes of the court.

There is some age at which a child is deemed to have sufficient cognitive skills to have some rudimentary knowledge of right versus wrong. In the state of New York, that age is apparently four.
Exactly. We should have been picking that article apart for being poorly written and appealing to emotion. That article could have been written with a completely different spin, "Judge finds that parents may be held responsible for their child's acts." That kind of article doesn't sell to other news outlets. Yellow journalism does.

A car and a child bike don't have same momentum. On average a car cause far more harm than any child bike. Thus your comparison is unfair.

I assumed that the sidewalk was empty and the old lady should also have known children are coming towards her.

There are too many simple things in life that can turn out to be deadly. I consider children (not young teenagers) racing on sidewalks simple and normal activity not something that need to be stopped. If you want to see this as a dangerous act and parents who encourage this as acting negligent, you need to bring more than one case to prove that.

There are many other similar activities like: A child playing snowball can also hit say an old lady/pregnant woman. Should parents stop children from playing that? Or, every winter children play hockey outside their homes .. hitting an old person can cause more harm than small child bike.

 

[BobG]

There's more assumed than the story says.

For one thing, parents in New York can be held liable for their children "willfully, maliciously, or unlawfully" damage property. But a valid defense is that the parents showed diligent supervision. Plus, the cap is only $5,000 per incident, so the plaintiffs wouldn't recover all that much by just suing the parents (not to mention that 4-year-olds riding bicycles with training wheels don't present an unavoidable hazard to most people).

NEW YORK: Parents are liable when their children "willfully, maliciously, or unlawfully" damage property. There is a cap of $5,000 per incident. Damages may be mitigated by a limiting financial status of the parents, or by showing diligent supervision.

DH's reference refers more to juvenile offenders of the law than for liability for something such as a 4-year-old running her bicycle into an elderly lady. This is more like being responsible for a car accident you caused than criminal activity.

And the judge finding that the kids could be sued doesn't mean the plaintiffs will win, nor does it mean the kids will testify. In fact, I'm not sure the childrens' testimony would be much value since there's probably not much question about what actions actually transpired. Childrens' testimony isn't that desirable for younger kids since their testimony tends to be perceived as less reliable.

 

[D H]

For one thing, parents in New York can be held liable for their children "willfully, maliciously, or unlawfully" damage property.

Thanks for that. The link I found was old (1994-1996).

And the judge finding that the kids could be sued doesn't mean the plaintiffs will win, nor does it mean the kids will testify.

Exactly. The judge did not find that the child is at fault. All that the judge did was to find that the lawsuit can take place and that the correct parties have been identified. All you who are worried about the harm to the child: Wrong track. First off, the supervising moms should have thought about that before challenging their kids to race down the sidewalk. Secondly, that the child is named as a party to the lawsuit does not mean the child has to testify. I suspect it is the mothers who will be hammered for their quality supervision.

 

[Astronuc]

Can we sell Manhattan back to the original owners?

or maybe we have to pay them to take it back.

 

[BobG]

Perhaps the lawsuit is at least partially due to tensions that already existed previous to the accident. Apparently, elderly people in the apartment complex don't get along well with families that have children.

Reflecting on a Lawsuit Against a 4-Year-Old

Plus, the lawsuit doesn't imply that the kids are responsible for the elderly woman's death. She initiated the lawsuit herself and her relatives are continuing the lawsuit now that she has died of unrelated causes (such as old age?). The lawsuit is to recover damages for the hip injury.


NYC attorney suing four-year-olds, parents in bicycle accident that injured elderly mother[/url]

The second story makes the lawsuit infinitely more understandable. It wasn't some old woman that was injured - it was an elderly mother!

 

[russ_watters]

I'm totally with D H on this one.

"What he said." Every word.

Seconded. A clear voice of reason on a subject that swels to repel it (the article didn't help).

 

[stevenb]

Seconded. A clear voice of reason on a subject that swels to repel it (the article didn't help).

When reason leads to an absurd conclusion (and I agree that reason is being applied), it's time to abandon reason, or question the starting assumptions.

The idea that a 4 year old children are "negligent" for not realizing that playing would injure an old person does not hold water in my book. Adults realize that playing can injure. We usually expect the child or other children to be the injured parties. However, we all know that play is a critical part of a child's development; so, we accept the risk to our own kids and others. This is a societal based acceptance of risk, just as we accept risk in driving on public roads. How many of us were injured on bikes as children? How many of us have taken our kids to emergency rooms after such injuries? Of course the parents knew risk was there. There is no doubt about that, but 4 year old children do not contemplate this possibility, even after told by parents to be careful. The concept of negligence should not be applied to those that don't have the capacity to understand.

 

[Evo]

When reason leads to an absurd conclusion (and I agree that reason is being applied), it's time to abandon reason, or question the starting assumptions.

The idea that a 4 year old children are "negligent" for not realizing that playing would injure an old person does not hold water in my book. Adults realize that playing can injure. We usually expect the child or other children to be the injured parties. However, we all know that play is a critical part of a child's development; so, we accept the risk to our own kids and others. This is a societal based acceptance of risk, just as we accept risk in driving on public roads. How many of us were injured on bikes as children? How many of us have taken our kids to emergency rooms after such injuries? Of course the parents knew risk was there. There is no doubt about that, but 4 year old children do not contemplate this possibility, even after told by parents to be careful. The concept of negligence should not be applied to those that don't have the capacity to understand.

I'd have to say at that age I very cleary understood right from wrong and what was dangerous, was was safe, what was rude, et... and the consequences. Of course I know adults that still don't grasp those concepts. From the article

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.”

I fully agree. The suit sounds like a slap on the wrist to the mother to make sure she doesn't allow such behaviour to continue.

 

[D H]

When reason leads to an absurd conclusion (and I agree that reason is being applied), it's time to abandon reason, or question the starting assumptions.

You are the one making assumptions of what it means for a 4 year old to be held negligent. It is the parents who are truly negligent in such cases. A 4 year old however is not an unthinking being. There is a continuum of development from birth to adulthood. The law does not like scales of gray. It likes clear boundaries, so in some cases it just invents clear boundaries. In this case the law invented a boundary (or found one in a 1928 case). A person is either a party to a lawsuit or is not. There are no shades of gray when it comes to naming the parties.

Once named, there are plenty of shades of gray in how the named parties are treated. In this case it would be very foolish for the claimant's lawyer to direct probing questions at a four year old. The judge wouldn't allow it for one, and a jury would be very turned off.

I don't know New York tort law regarding acts committed by minors; probably none of us do. Does the law there require that the minor directly responsible for the damage be a named party in the lawsuit? Don't know. The arguments against naming the child as a party have been made solely on the basis of emotion rather than on reason.

If there is no leniency in the law then this is the only way the lawsuit can go forward. On the other hand, if there is leniency in the law this could just be a cold-heated ploy on the part of the plaintiffs to force the parents of the children to settle out of court.

 

[stevenb]

You are the one making assumptions of what it means for a 4 year old to be held negligent. It is the parents who are truly negligent in such cases. A 4 year old however is not an unthinking being. There is a continuum of development from birth to adulthood. The law does not like scales of gray. It likes clear boundaries, so in some cases it just invents clear boundaries. In this case the law invented a boundary (or found one in a 1928 case). A person is either a party to a lawsuit or is not. There are no shades of gray when it comes to naming the parties.

Once named, there are plenty of shades of gray in how the named parties are treated. In this case it would be very foolish for the claimant's lawyer to direct probing questions at a four year old. The judge wouldn't allow it for one, and a jury would be very turned off.

I don't know New York tort law regarding acts committed by minors; probably none of us do. Does the law there require that the minor directly responsible for the damage be a named party in the lawsuit? Don't know. The arguments against naming the child as a party have been made solely on the basis of emotion rather than on reason.

If there is no leniency in the law then this is the only way the lawsuit can go forward. On the other hand, if there is leniency in the law this could just be a cold-heated ploy on the part of the plaintiffs to force the parents of the children to settle out of court.

Like I said, I agree that you are being reasonable. And, yes, I am making my own assumption (or opinion) that a 4 year old does not have an understanding to be held negligent. But, that opinion is based on experience, and I think most people outside PF (admittedly a less logical and more emotional group) would agree with me.

I think it's great that Evo was so well developed at age 4, but prodigies are not a good model to base laws on. I was not so clear on what was dangerous at that age. I was stupid enough to deliberately stick my thumb in a bicycle chain while an older kid was rocking back and forth on the bike. First, I stuck sticks and leaves in the chain and watched them break. Then, I wondered what would happen to my thumb. Somehow my brain didn't want to distinguish between thinking about something and doing it. So, I stuck my thumb in and guess what happened? I still have the mangled thumb as evidence, if you want me to post a picture. I was 4 and 1/2 years old at the time, and the full memory of that event and my thought processes are still crystal clear in my mind, even over 40 years later. I know that at that age I did not have any concept that racing my friend on a bike could hurt an adult. The thought process would never have entered my mind at any point.

Come on people. Let's get real here.

 

[rootX]

I know that at that age I did not have any concept that racing my friend on a bike could hurt an adult.

I still don't believe a bike that look something like this
[PLAIN]http://www.allgov.com/Images/eouploader.67636a6f-f625-4eac-8da2-23cce5441cd1.1.data.jpg
and that cannot run faster than I me jogging could harm an adult. I can walk into someone and cause more harm but likelihood of that is quite low.

 

[Dembadon]

I still don't believe a bike that look something like this
[PLAIN]http://www.allgov.com/Images/eouploader.67636a6f-f625-4eac-8da2-23cce5441cd1.1.data.jpg
and that cannot run faster than I me jogging could harm an adult. I can walk into someone and cause more harm but likelihood of that is quite low.

We're talking about an 87 year old woman; it doesn't take much to injure an adult of that age.

 

[rootX]

We're talking about an 87 year old woman; it doesn't take much to injure an adult of that age.

Yes, I can walk into her and injure her more badly. It is bit ridiculous to label small children bike racing as dangerous and calling parents negligent based on only this accident.

 

[D H]

Are you 87 years old, root? 87 year old people can't see as well, hear as well, move as well, or think as well as can a twenty year old. They aren't all that agile anymore, and ... They. Walk. Real. Slow.

 

[D H]

Yes, I can walk into her and injure her more badly. It is bit ridiculous to label small children bike racing as dangerous and calling parents negligent based on only this accident.

Oh please.

Nobody is disputing that this elderly woman fell down as a result of the incident. Broken bones from simple falls are extremely hazardous to the elderly. They are one of the leading causes of death.

 

[Evo]

Yes, I can walk into her and injure her more badly. It is bit ridiculous to label small children bike racing as dangerous and calling parents negligent based on only this accident.

But it has to based on this particular instance. I'm not backing suing, but so many facts are missing. What was the attitude of the parents and child at the time of the accident? Did they show remorse and offer help? Did they apologize? Or were they arrogant and nasty? This is NY City. The parents obviously knew that there were elderly people living in that building. Common sense would dictate that you would exercise additional precautions in areas of pedestrians, expecially fragile elderly ones. It could very well be that the parent and child involved are nasty people and that is what prompted the suit. But, as I said, we don't know specifics like the judge does.

 

[Dembadon]

When reason leads to an absurd conclusion (and I agree that reason is being applied), it's time to abandon reason, or question the starting assumptions.

The idea that a 4 year old children are "negligent" for not realizing that playing would injure an old person does not hold water in my book. Adults realize that playing can injure. We usually expect the child or other children to be the injured parties. However, we all know that play is a critical part of a child's development; so, we accept the risk to our own kids and others. This is a societal based acceptance of risk, just as we accept risk in driving on public roads. How many of us were injured on bikes as children? How many of us have taken our kids to emergency rooms after such injuries? Of course the parents knew risk was there. There is no doubt about that, but 4 year old children do not contemplate this possibility, even after told by parents to be careful. The concept of negligence should not be applied to those that don't have the capacity to understand.

The issue isn't whether or not the child had the ability to cognitively identify a dangerous situation, nor should it be. There still needs to be accountability to some level. How else does a young child, especially a this young-an-age, learn that certain actions are negligent? Isn't the preferred method of reinforcement to repeatedly hold them accountable, even if they don't understand? In other words, I'm going to hold a child accountable for being rude to others, whether or not they are doing it maliciously.

 

[stevenb]

Yes, I can walk into her and injure her more badly.

Actually, you are right about the ease with which the elderly can be injured or killed. A slight bump is all it takes to kill an old person, unfortunately. I like to use personal or close family experience when I can, and i have a sad example about my relative. I'll leave the details of the story out and just say that my wife's uncle accidentally caused his wife to fall by bumping her slightly. She fell to the ground and did not seem injured. Five minutes later she was dead. They found that the relatively gentle fall caused an artery to rupture in her leg. That's all it takes.

They were only in their late sixties. He is still alive, but lives in misery from guilt. They were high school sweethearts and spent every minute together. Tragedies are terrible and we often want to place blame and exact a toll, but sometimes mistakes and accidents just happen.

Anyway, I do think there is relevance to your point, even if others don't see it. Is a 4 year old fully cognizant of the frailty of the elderly? That is a critical question if you want to say the child is negligent.

 

[rootX]

Are you 87 years old, root? 87 year old people can't see as well, hear as well, move as well, or think as well as can a twenty year old. They aren't all that agile anymore, and ... They. Walk. Real. Slow.

We can never make sidewalks safe enough for those people.

Here, sidewalks can be slippery, people play hockey in winter, basketball on driveways, you often see small children running and bike racing (I never seen anyone racing faster than I can run), there is a park where teenagers play soccer and the soccer ball often would come down running on sidewalk (small children and elderly people also walk around the soccer field), .. etc. This was an unfortunate accident but children were not involved in an dangerous act.

I oppose to people who saying that children were acting dangerously and parents acting negligent. I agree that we do not have sufficient information to make that conclusion based only on this accident. I am more on the side that small children bike racing is not dangerous from perspective of a normal person. I don't believe we should consider people with special needs to define what is dangerous.

 

[stevenb]

There still needs to be accountability to some level. How else does a young child, especially a this young-an-age, learn that certain actions are negligent? Isn't the preferred method of reinforcement to repeatedly hold them accountable, even if they don't understand?

All good questions, but the preferred method can't be to publicly stigmatize four year old children and make them carry a burden of guilt throughout their childhood. Would you want that for your child? Would you wish that on any other child?

 

[Dembadon]

...

Anyway, I do think there is relevance to your point, even if others don't see it. Is a 4 year old fully cognizant of the frailty of the elderly? That is a critical question if you want to say the child is negligent.

Why is it critical, or even relevant? Negligence simply means:

negligent |ˈnegləjənt|
adjective

failing to take proper care in doing something

The child caused injury to another person. Are you suggesting that children only be held accountable when they know better?

 

[rootX]

It could very well be that the parent and child involved are nasty people and that is what prompted the suit. But, as I said, we don't know specifics like the judge does.

Yes I agree with that.

 

[Dembadon]

All good questions, but the preferred method can't be to publicly stigmatize four year old children and make them carry a burden of guilt throughout their childhood. Would you want that for your child? Would you wish that on any other child?

Burden of guilt for what? The realization that her actions injured an elderly lady? I don't think such a burden is as heavy as you're implying.

 

[D H]

All good questions, but the preferred method can't be to publicly stigmatize four year old children and make them carry a burden of guilt throughout their childhood. Would you want that for your child? Would you wish that on any other child?

You are assuming that this is the preferred outcome. Bad assumption.

The preferred outcome in most lawsuits, this one in particular, is that the parties settle out of court.

 

[stevenb]

Burden of guilt for what? The realization that her actions injured an elderly lady? I don't think such a burden is as heavy as you're implying.

I think the burden of guilt from knowing that you injured another is quite great actually, but that guilt will be there with or without the accusation of negligence. That is out of control of the courts. Perhaps the injured person can offer forgiveness to ease the burden, but what's done is done and any decent person will suffer.

However, what is far more burdensome it being labeled as the negligent party that injured someone, and living with that label while a law-suit drags on. This case is even worse because the women died later, and everyone knows that an injury to an elderly person usually is the beginning of the end, even if the injury itself is not the cause of death.

I hope you can see the difference here. If I killed a pedestrian while driving my car, but was obeying all laws and trying my best to be prudent and safe, I would feel terrible, but would not feel anywhere near as bad as if I were speeding. And, if I was not speeding but was falsely accused of speeding and labeled as a reckless person who killed someone, that would be a great burden indeed.

 

[mugaliens]

True. The judge ruled that she could be sued, not that she was liable.

In order for a judge to rule that someone can be sued, certain requirements must be met. Not only does this case not meet those requirements, It's utterly frivilous:

"When a judge calls an argument "ridiculous" or "frivolous," it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the position has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone's time. It doesn't mean that the case wasn't well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you were "wrong." The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind." - http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#purpose"​

The parents can be sued for not providing proper oversight of their 4-year old, when the child's actions result in harm to another. The idea of the 4-year-old himself being sued, however is friviolous if for no other reason than the fact that it occurred 18 months ago and the child is now 5-1/2, and is incapable of recalling the event distinctly. Furthermore, developmentally speaking, the child is incapable of defending himself.

Provided the judge who hears this in pre-trial or trial is a different one from the judge who allowed this, it'll get thrown out of court faster than you can say "spit."

 

[Dembadon]

I think the burden of guilt from knowing that you injured another is quite great actually, but that guilt will be there with or without the accusation of negligence. That is out of control of the courts. Perhaps the injured person can offer forgiveness to ease the burden, but what's done is done and any decent person will suffer.

However, what is far more burdensome it being labeled as the negligent party that injured someone, and living with that label while a law-suit drags on. This case is even worse because the women died later, and everyone knows that an injury to an elderly person usually is the beginning of the end, even if the injury itself is not the cause of death.

I hope you can see the difference here. If I killed a pedestrian while driving my car, but was obeying all laws and trying my best to be prudent and safe, I would would feel terrible, but would not feel anywhere near as bad as if I were speeding. And, if I was not speeding but was falsely accused of speeding and labeled as a reckless person who killed someone, that would be a great burden indeed.

I completely understand your position, and I agree that if I were a parent, it would be an unpleasant situation on many levels, for me and my child. Is a lawsuit necessary? Maybe not, however, I still think it'd be unwise to withhold consequences.

I've no experience raising kids and could very well find myself chewing on my foot someday about this (), but I would take it as my personal responsibility, if I were this girl's parent, to ensure that she isn't exposed to any excessive punishment. The child doesn't need to be intentionally humiliated, but you can't avoid consequences just because they're emotionally taxing.