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

[lisab]

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.

It's questionable how much the kid even remembers of the incident. Even if it was traumatic, she may not have a clear memory of it. It happened in April 2009. One and a half years is a long, long time to a kid who is five or six.

 

[OmCheeto]

It's questionable how much the kid even remembers of the incident. Even if it was traumatic, she may not have a clear memory of it. It happened in April 2009. One and a half years is a long, long time to a kid who is five or six.

Does anyone know the statute of limitations on these types of events?

I distinctly remember, as a 5 year old, riding my training wheel equipped bicycle, rear ending some younger person on a tricycle.

There was a great wailing that ensued.

I'm quite certain that a baby tooth was lost. And since we left Fairbanks the next day, she, for all I know, may have died...

I need a lawyer too.

 

[Evo]

Does anyone know the statute of limitations on these types of events?

I distinctly remember, as a 5 year old, riding my training wheel equipped bicycle, rear ending some younger person on a tricycle.

There was a great wailing that ensued.

I'm quite certain that a baby tooth was lost. And since we left Fairbanks the next day, she, for all I know, may have died...

I need a lawyer too.

Never, ever admit to anything online.

 

[lisab]

Does anyone know the statute of limitations on these types of events?

I distinctly remember, as a 5 year old, riding my training wheel equipped bicycle, rear ending some younger person on a tricycle.

There was a great wailing that ensued.

I'm quite certain that a baby tooth was lost. And since we left Fairbanks the next day, she, for all I know, may have died...

I need a lawyer too.

Oh great, and now you've confessed. You *totally* need a lawyer!

 

[rootX]

I distinctly remember, as a 5 year old, riding my training wheel equipped bicycle, rear ending some younger person on a tricycle.

I remember hitting a younger kid around same age .. his older sister got pissed and beat the crap out of me.

Few years later, I almost ran a tractor over my friend. I was a playing with it when it started moving .. that was extremely scary but luckily no one got hurt. I never went near any tractor after that. I believe I still carry some guilt from that incident subconsciously.

 

[Upisoft]

I distinctly remember, as a 5 year old, riding my training wheel equipped bicycle, rear ending some younger person on a tricycle.

I don't remember anything about my life as 5 year old or less. Only God knows my crimes. Well, if God exists. Probably my mind protects me from the darkness of my evil childhood. I do remember that later I was very fond of chemistry. Was I a terrorist?

I see that some of you find the idea of suing 4-year-old normal and reasonable. Then they dismiss the possibility that the process can injure the child. They think it is perfectly normal that the child has not to be involved directly. Now do you see how one absurd leads to another? If you were sued I guess you would be outraged of the idea this happening behind your back. Think about it. The child does not know her legal rights, but she is forced in a legal process. Will she be allowed to defend herself or not? Either way of dealing with this situation is wrong.

I do know people who protect and defend their logic, but never question their assumptions. I call them fundamentalists. Otherwise the logic leads to similar ideas:

How else does a young child, especially a this young-an-age, learn that certain actions are negligent?

Certainly not by suing them. It is their parents responsibility to give them the proper education, mostly by example. If the parents have neglected their responsibilities they have to be sued.

 

[mugaliens]

Probably my mind protects me from the darkness of my evil childhood. I do remember that later I was very fond of chemistry. Was I a terrorist?

Lol! I was always fascinated by chemistry sets, but when I finally got one a few years later, I did a couple of experiments, then lost interest. Later, I wound up working with nuclear weapons!

It is their parents responsibility to give them the proper education, mostly by example. If the parents have neglected their responsibilities they have to be sued.

They can be sued, but it's not an imperative. The injured party can simply choose to forgive the 4-year-old.

 

[Upisoft]

Lol! I was always fascinated by chemistry sets, but when I finally got one a few years later, I did a couple of experiments, then lost interest. Later, I wound up working with nuclear weapons!

They can be sued, but it's not an imperative. The injured party can simply choose to forgive the 4-year-old.

Oh! Dealing with new-clear weapons? Anything cheap?

Well, I see how the law works in this case. The point is that the law can be wrong. And it is wrong. BTW, who sues the law makers?

 

[mugaliens]

Oh! Dealing with new-clear weapons? Anything cheap?

They never told us how much each one costs. Just that we never wanted to find out the hard way.

Well, I see how the law works in this case. The point is that the law can be wrong. And it is wrong. BTW, who sues the law makers?

I'm not sure. Justice Wooten appears to be making an erroneous assumption when 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.”"

His erroneous assumption is that the girls intentionally steered into the woman. While training wheels tend to render a bicycle more stable, they do not render it more steerable. I recall an incident at that age (I was 4-1/2, actually) when I quite unintentionally steered into the back of a parked car.

The girls were racing, not ramming. It was an unfortunate accident, nothing more.

 

[Upisoft]

I'm not sure. Justice Wooten appears to be making an erroneous assumption when 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.”"

His erroneous assumption is that the girls intentionally steered into the woman. While training wheels tend to render a bicycle more stable, they do not render it more steerable. I recall an incident at that age (I was 4-1/2, actually) when I quite unintentionally steered into the back of a parked car.

The girls were racing, not ramming. It was an unfortunate accident, nothing more.

I'm not trying to judge or excuse the child or her mother. As Evo already said we don't have enough details. The child may have missed the old lady with her Uzi and then decided to ram her, being out of ammo (I have a wild imagination ). It is not our job to decide if it was accident, negligence or malicious act, the court is the right place for such a decision if there is a dispute. My point is that the child has no place in the court. And if the law says otherwise, the law is wrong.

 

[D H]

Well, I see how the law works in this case.

That doesn't appear to be the case. You are basing your feelings on this matter on unjustified assumptions you have made regarding the purpose and outcome of naming the child as a party to the lawsuit.

Regarding the purpose of naming the child: The child was named as a party to the suit for one of two reasons:

• If the child wasn't named as a defendant the lawsuit could have been tossed on the grounds that the parents were not the ones who caused the woman to fall. Do you know the hairy details of New York tort law regarding minors?
• Suppose the parents could have been sued directly without naming the child. Naming the child is a somewhat cold-hearted ploy to force the parents to settle out of court. Do note that having a civil case settled out of court is after all the preferred outcome of the legal system.

In either case, the real defendants in this case are the parents.


Regarding the outcome of naming the child: You are assuming some unspecified harm will come to the child. What harm? This is a civil suit; the child will not be thrown in jail. The child will not be punished, period. If the plaintiffs prevail it is the parents who will be punished, not the child. The plaintiff's lawyer is not going to call the child as a witness and start asking probing questions. Most likely the plaintiff's lawyer is not going to call the child as a witness, period. So where exactly is the harm to the child?

If this case does go to trial, the trial will focus on two key questions:

• Did the parents who were supervising the children fail to properly perform their parental duties: Was their supervision negligent?
• Was the elderly woman using appropriate caution when she went out onto the sidewalk?

 

[Upisoft]

In either case, the real defendants in this case are the parents.

Yet the child was named as a defender. Is she imaginary defender then?

 

[D H]

Yet the child was named as a defender.

She was named as a defendant, not a defender. Yes, I'm being picky, but your use of obviously incorrect terminology is a bit telling.

Is she imaginary defender then?

Use of logical fallacies such as appeal to ridicule is not condoned here.


You have not answered my question, Upisoft. Exactly what harm do you see coming to the child as a result of naming the child as one of the defendants?

 

[Walgak Chuol]

Law is specific. Therefore if any act contradict or gone again the limit, charge articulate again this offend should be executed accoringly. That 4-years old child is human being no body could deny this. if she can be able to talk, there should be know problem at all to sue her but what she could able to speak? like in our case most child language become effective and clear at the age of 5. In bible Ezikil, it that no one should be punish with mistake of someone else that mean every person will face the consequent of his/her action whether child or mature human. But it's not a case in our context. It look like paradox in it's nature but it either be true or false?

In my judgement, if the child do speak, it be consider as object of her parent and there for they shall be held responsible. For instant if your cow kill a dog but cow does talk we know, the own of that animal (cow) should be held liable. Take this suppose you have planted a tree in you compound with your known purpose and the certain child come try to climb has fallen down and broke his hand, who will be held liable? the tree owner.

In our society such things are happening, and way we use to solve them is that we use to consider child as object to his/her parent, so if there is any fine parent are sole responsible to pay that charge.

 

[BobG]

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?

Certainly not by suing them. It is their parents responsibility to give them the proper education, mostly by example. If the parents have neglected their responsibilities they have to be sued.

This is a civil suit. Suing a person for damages has nothing to do with teaching anyone a lesson.

The only question is who should be responsible for paying the old woman's medical bills. The parents of kids that ran into the woman or should the woman have to pay her own medical bills?

This is no different than if you were driving down the road and one of your tires blew out, causing you to veer across the center lane and strike an oncoming motorcycle rider. Being sued by the motorcyclist (or his family since the motorcyclist will probably be dead) isn't intended to teach you to take a professional driving course so you'll be able to handle similar situations in the future - it's intended to make the responsible party pay the medical bills.

If there is any lesson to be learned, it's to pay for damages caused by you (or your kids) so the other party doesn't have to sue to recover damages - if the accident was actually the kids fault, of course.

In this case, the old woman's family isn't talking to the press. So, the family's side of the story only comes through their lawyer, with none of us actually knowing who is paying the lawyer. It could be the old woman's insurance company that hired the lawyer in order to get out of paying an insurance claim.

 

[D H]

Emphasis mine:

This is a civil suit. Suing a person for damages has nothing to do with teaching anyone a lesson.

The only question is who should be responsible for paying the old woman's medical bills. The parents of kids that ran into the woman or should the woman have to pay her own medical bills?

Stealing words from Chi Meson: "What he said." Every word.

 

[Upisoft]

She was named as a defendant, not a defender. Yes, I'm being picky, but your use of obviously incorrect terminology is a bit telling.

Well, I'm guilty. My english is not perfect. You, however, have a brain and know what I wanted to say. Anyway my english is not the topic.

Use of logical fallacies such as appeal to ridicule is not condoned here.

You have not answered my question, Upisoft. Exactly what harm do you see coming to the child as a result of naming the child as one of the defendants?

We don't discuss the logic either. It was a question, not a statement. And I still got no answer.

I already answered your question in post #66, the paragraph that ends with wrong. If I was not clear please specify what. I'll try to do my best to explain it.

 

[D H]

I already answered your question in post #66, the paragraph that ends with wrong. If I was not clear please specify what.

Are you talking about this?

I see that some of you find the idea of suing 4-year-old normal and reasonable. Then they dismiss the possibility that the process can injure the child.

You are assuming that the process will injure the child and you are not being specific at all. I am asking you to spell out exactly what you think those injuries are.

Remember that the reason a plaintiff sues a party in a civil lawsuit is to collect money from those parties. The only punishment is fiscal. The children presumably have little if no money. If the plaintiffs prevail, any money collected will come from the parents, not the children.

 

[Upisoft]

Are you talking about this?

You are assuming that the process will injure the child and you are not being specific at all. I am asking you to spell out exactly what you think those injuries are.

Remember that the reason a plaintiff sues a party in a civil lawsuit is to collect money from those parties. The only punishment is fiscal. The children presumably have little if no money. If the plaintiffs prevail, any money collected will come from the parents, not the children.

Options:
1. The child was not allowed in court to defend herself. It is the probable option as the child has no knowledge nor means to defend herself. Damage: The personal right to defend oneself is injured.
2. The child is allowed in court to defend herself. Damage: If you can't imagine the potential damage to the child in this case we have nothing to talk about.
3. The case is settled outside of the court. Damage: People are forced to pay for something they may not be guilty of, because they found the other options unacceptable.

 

[D H]

Options:
1. The child was not allowed in court to defend herself. It is the probable option as the child has no knowledge nor means to defend herself. Damage: The personal right to defend oneself is injured.
2. The child is allowed in court to defend herself. Damage: If you can't imagine the potential damage to the child in this case we have nothing to talk about.

The law recognizes that minors are less capable of defending themselves than are adults. That is why the law treats criminal offenses committed by minors quite differently than it does with criminal offenses committed by adults. In a similar vein, one cannot sue a minor only. The suit necessarily must involve the minor's legal guardians. They are there in part to protect the rights of the child. The law also limits attorneys in the kinds and the intensity of the questions that can be directed at minors. The law is quite aware of the issues related with minor defendants and works very hard to address those issues.

You are ignoring that the primary defendants here are the parents, not the children. It is the parents, if the judgement goes against them, who will have to pay. You are ignoring that the parents and the children are represented by legal counsel. You are ignoring that defense attorneys often counsel their clients not to testify. Whether the child is called to testify will be a decision of the defense attorneys. You are ignoring that if called, the judge will watch very closely over the nature of the questions asked of the child by both either side, but particularly those asked by the plaintiff's attorneys.

In this case, what exactly is the defense, and how exactly is the child being hurt? The only possible claims I can see on the part of the defense are that the children did not cause the woman to fall, that the parents are not liable for the children's negligence, or that the woman who fell was not acting prudently herself. The first is apparently not disputed, and regarding the latter two, the children won't know even what that means. For that matter, neither will the parents. Making those claims is the job of the attorneys representing the children and their parents.

3. The case is settled outside of the court. Damage: People are forced to pay for something they may not be guilty of, because they found the other options unacceptable.

That is always a risk in any lawsuit. People unfortunately file frivolous lawsuits in the hope that the suit is settled out of court. That said, is that the case here? Is this a frivolous lawsuit? (Hint: The judge said it is not.)

Who would suffer were this the case, the parents or the children? Remember that this is a civil suit.

 

[zomgwtf]

How long do you have to sue a child after an incident occurs?

Over the last 21 years of my life I have been in many situations where I've been injured by a child.

I've always wanted to go on a vacation...

 

[mugaliens]

The OP's link is now no longer accessible without registration.
URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/29/national/main7003546.shtml"]Here's a link [/URL]which requires no registration.

Interesting tidbit there:

"Ms. Menagh's estate sued the children and their parents, who had been supervising the kids at the time of the accident,"

​

The law recognizes that minors are less capable of defending themselves than are adults. That is why the law treats criminal offenses committed by minors quite differently than it does with criminal offenses committed by adults. In a similar vein, one cannot sue a minor only. The suit necessarily must involve the minor's legal guardians. They are there in part to protect the rights of the child.

Bingo!

It is not our job to decide if it was accident, negligence or malicious act...

When we do it, it's called "conversation," or at worst, "conjecture," and is not only a perfectly legal activity in which private citizens may engage, it's very commonplace. When the court does it, it's called a "judgement."

...the court is the right place for such a decision if there is a dispute.

Agreed, and the court's decision in binding towards all parties.

My point is that the child has no place in the court. And if the law says otherwise, the law is wrong.

Given the child was 4 at the time, I agree with you, as well as the fact that our is imperfect. To date, the only arguments I've heard for allowing this to go forward have limited themselves to whether or not girls of their age would recognize the wrongness of crashing into an old lady.

All have assumed the girls were in perfect control of their bicycles, and I find that a seriously bad assumption.

Interestingly enough, judges often allow cases to go forward, even when they already know (or at least have a good idea) that they'll be decided one way or the other, if not thrown out before long anyway.

The reasons behind this is are two-fold:

1. A judge cannot summarily dismiss a case until jurisprudence has run it's course.

2. Case law is critical to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis" , and serves to fill in the gaps in statutory law. By allowing a case where the outcome is virtually certain given the circumstances, this grants the judge the opportunity to establish precedence so as to prevent arguements such as these from ever being admitted in a lawsuit in the future. In short, it gives judges lower than the appellate level the firepower they need to call this a frivilous lawsuit and give it the boot before either side has spent tens of thousands of their hard-earned dollars attempting to seek "damages" for the death of an 87-year-old woman three months (not weeks - a correction was printed for the NYT article) later, especially when a coroner has already ruled her death was due to unrelated causes.

 

[Evo]

The OP's link is now no longer accessible without registration.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/29/national/main7003546.shtml"which requires no registration.

Thanks Mugs! This proves the case can be filed against the child.

And furthermore, the defense failed to prove any "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

.

 

[mugaliens]

This proves the case against the child.

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

The link merely clarifies that the lawsuit was directed at both the child and the child's guardians/parents. One cannot sue a 4-year-old (as stated in this thread's title). One can sue the guardians/parents of a 4-year-old.

...showing the child can been found to be capable of being completely at fault.

I'm sorry, Evo, but you'll have to lay out your argument in more detail than clasping your hands in victory. I do not see how a 4-year-old's inadvertant loss of control of their training-wheel bicycle in any way cements the plaintiff's argument that either the child or the guardians/parents were negligent or intentionally culpible in the elderly woman's injuries, and certainly not her death some months later, as the coroner already ruled it was due to "unrelated causes."

As I clearly stated, Judge Wooten's allowance is based on the faulty assumption that the girl(s) intentionally collided with the elderly lady. Furthermore, his allowance also assumes (and also with fault) that they had knowledge aforehand that such a collision might result in injury. Finally, his allowance counters with the conception that if they didn't, then the parents should have known that little girls riding their bicycles were a danger and a threat.

In law, there exists a concept known as the "http://encyclo.findlaw.com/0710book.pdf"," and Wooten's choice fails this criteria on the three aforementioned fronts. It fails, however, on a forth front: That of allowing the case in order to establish case law ruling in favor of the defendants so that from now and forevermore, such frivilous lawsuits would be able to be thrown out long before they ever come to trial.

 

[stevenb]

Legal definition of negligence: The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonable prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances.

In law, there exists a concept known as the "http://encyclo.findlaw.com/0710book.pdf"," and Wooten's choice fails this criteria on the three aforementioned fronts. It fails, however, on a forth front: That of allowing the case in order to establish case law ruling in favor of the defendants so that from now and forevermore, such frivolous lawsuits would be able to be thrown out long before they ever come to trial.

And, to the layman, it fails on the front of common sense. To charge negligence of a four year old child in these circumstance, one is saying that the child should have had the capacity to foresee the consequences of riding a bike in that environment, and had the capacity to take steps to prevent those consequences by not riding the bike in that environment. In other words, a reasonably prudent 4 year old child would understand not to endanger pedestrians by riding a bike, even after parents said it was ok and were there observing.

On the point of foresight, it is a very large stretch to expect four year old children to foresee all possible forms of tragedy that might result from their afternoon playtime. Yes, the issue of crossing the road is drilled into their mind. Still if a child is hit by a car in the road, we say the parent and driver are perhaps negligent, but we don't say the four year child was negligent. Even if we wanted to claim negligence on the part of the child if killed by a car, that example is poor because a child is drilled everyday on the dangers of the road. So, here the kids were on the sidewalk, in "their realm of safety", yet they (and not their parents) were supposed to foresee the danger they were presenting to all the adults in their world. Get real. Adults protect 4 year old children. Four year old children do not protect adults. Equally important - younger adults should protect the elderly. So, if there is any blame, it goes to the adults such as the children of the old lady (a point being ignored), and parents of the children (which should be the focus of the lawsuit). This is a case where only caretakers may have failed in their duty, or maybe it was just a freak accident.

On the point of preventing the foreseeable consequences, it is a large stretch to say the 4 year old children should have taken steps to prevent the consequences. They were supervised by parents, brought to an area where they were told it was OK to ride their (tiny little training-wheeled) bikes and have fun. So, the court is saying, "No! Those children should have had the common sense to tell their parents that they are presenting danger to pedestrians and that the parents are wrong to give them permission to play there." Again, get real!

Any possible charge of negligence can only make sense when applied to the parents. The exact circumstances would determine if this is truly a case of negligence. If this case ever makes it to a jury, it will be shot down as a frivolous case (at least the portion of the child's negligence), and become the example we all use as proof that children under 5 years old are incapable of being negligent.

Maybe that's how the system is supposed to work, but if so, we have a system that does not care about the damage it does to children in the process of turning its gears. And, to those that think no damage can come, you clearly don't understand the harm done to a child by their classmates pointing fingers and whispering "that's the girl that killed the old lady". Has anyone noticed that the children's names are right there in the public articles? It's in the public, a bunch of very intelligent PF members, legal scholars and other members of society have now supported the judges ruling. So, why shouldn't the children's peers also condemn the girl and boy as negligent members of our society that have caused the injury and accelerated the demise of a helpless elderly woman. By the time the case is correctly and publically labeled as "frivolous", the damage will have been done. Chalk up another victory for reason and logic.

 

[zomgwtf]

Personally even if we assume the child caused the death of the elderly lady I would say as big of a tragedy it is at least the child didn't die from riding their bike on the side of the road and hit a car.

 

[BobG]

Legal definition of negligence: The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonable prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances.

And, to the layman, it fails on the front of common sense. To charge negligence of a four year old child in these circumstance, one is saying that the child should have had the capacity to foresee the consequences of riding a bike in that environment, and had the capacity to take steps to prevent those consequences by not riding the bike in that environment. In other words, a reasonably prudent 4 year old child would understand not to endanger pedestrians by riding a bike, even after parents said it was ok and were there observing.

Your criteria for negligence is incorrect. They're overly elaborate.

The children had three 'duties' as bicycle riders:

1) Lookout. In other words, they should pay attention to their environment when they're riding a bicycle; look where they're going instead of at each other, etc. That takes one simple question: "Did you see the old lady in front of you on the sidewalk?" If they didn't, and there wasn't any reason they shouldn't have seen the old lady, then the children were negligent. It may be a type of negligence very common for such young children, but watching where they're going is something that most parents do stress when teaching their kids to ride a bike. If, on the other hand, the woman suddenly stepped out of a door without looking, then the woman's family will lose their lawsuit. Expecting 4-year-olds to anticipate unseen hazards is unrealistic.

2) Avoid. In other words, if they saw the old woman, they should have tried to avoid hitting her. This would probably take more than one question since there's a lot of possible factors. If the old woman were standing on the sidewalk, it shouldn't have been hard to avoid the woman, but there's other possibilities. The woman was standing on her step when they saw her and they thought she'd wait until they passed, so it was too late to avoid her when she stepped out onto the sidewalk, for example. Mommy said that someone ought to run over that old b- someday, for another example.

3) Follow the laws of the road. This part is beyond the capability of 4-year-olds, but it's also irrelevant since you're talking about a sidewalk in an apartment complex.

Mind you, all of these apply to the old woman, as well.

1) Lookout. Even pedestrians have an obligation to look where they're going. She might be hard of hearing or have bad eyesight, but those would be limitations that she'd have the responsibility for mitigating (or her adult children realizing she's incapable of indepent living, which is a very good point), since they wouldn't be obvious to an observer (much less a 4-year-old observer).

2) Avoid. If the old woman had the mindset that she had the right of way, that she could continue walking and the kids would just have to miss her, then she's violating the "avoid" part of her responsibilities as a pedestrian. Being elderly and slow moving, standing still in terror and hoping the kids were smart enough to miss her would be a valid means of doing her best to avoid an accident.

3) Follow the laws of the road. That's irrelevant in this case. (She wasn't jaywalking, in other words.)

Looking where they're going and trying to miss old ladies is not beyond the capability of a 4-year-old, even if most 4-year-olds don't have a high degree of proficiency in either task, even with constant reminders from parents.

Learning to ride a bicycle is a normal step in life, just as learning to drive a car is a normal step in life. Both also require a new 'leap' in learning to accept responsibility, even if it's easy for an adult to trivialize the leap of learning to ride a bike.

From the article I linked to earlier, there was tension between the elderly and the play of small children. There was apparently an attitude that the elderly people should be able to enjoy the area where they lived without having to constantly watch out for small kids and an opposing attitude that small kids should be able to play in the place they live. So I think it's impossible to say whether the children were at fault or not just because the judge allowed the suit to go to trial.

 

[stevenb]

Your criteria for negligence is incorrect. They're overly elaborate.

The definition of negligence isn't mine, it's just an accepted one. The criteria for negligence is a difficult issue.

There are no clear criteria for negligence. The criteria are open to interpretation. It all stems around the idea of what a "reasonable and prudent" person would do or not do. One needs to take the legal defintion, consider the details of the circumstances and make a judgement.

My criteria are no more elaborate than yours. You say ... lookout, avoid and obey. I say ... consider possible danger to actions, decide if those dangers are unacceptably risky, if risks are acceptable do what you can to minimize risk while engaging in those actions. There is not a great difference in complexity or "elaboratness".

I'm sure many flaws can be found in either set of criteria. For example, your criteria fails to consider that perhaps the decision to be riding was the act of negligence. There is no need to "lookout, avoid and obey", if it's clear that the very act of riding a bike in that environment is too dangerous. Note, I'm not saying it necessarily was dangerous, but I'm saying that asking that question is an important part of being prudent and reasonable. I like your criteria, but I would at least add that checkpoint to the beginning of your list.

 

[BobG]

For example, your criteria fails to consider that perhaps the decision to be riding was the act of negligence. There is no need to "lookout, avoid and obey", if it's clear that the very act of riding a bike in that environment is too dangerous. Note, I'm not saying it necessarily was dangerous, but I'm saying that asking that question is an important part of being prudent and reasonable. I like your criteria, but I would at least add that checkpoint to the beginning of your list.

That is a legitimate criteria, but that's one criteria that would be beyond the capability of a 4-year-old (the same as if the 'rules of the road' for that apartment complex were a sign that said, "No bicycles").

That's also the part that has caused conflicts between families with kids and the elderly residents. Elderly residents would probably prefer the kids play at a playground that's at least 3 blocks away (the apartments are on 52nd St and the nearest playground is on 49th St) or at least have the types of play and the hours of play near the complex limited. In other words, the old people might appreciate a "No bicycles or skateboards" sign.

I guess if the lawsuit were decided in the plaintiffs favor based on the decision that it was an unsafe environment to ride a bicycle, then that would be the best possible outcome for the elderly residents. In that sense, suing a 4-year-old instead of the parents does elderly people in general little good (but the lawsuit sues both the children and the parents). But, as a suit solely over who pays for the old woman's injury, the 4-year-olds could be the negligent party and not the parents.

 

[stevenb]

That is a legitimate criteria, but that's one criteria that would be beyond the capability of a 4-year-old (the same as if the 'rules of the road' for that apartment complex were a sign that said, "No bicycles").

OK, since it is difficult (or impossible) to hold a 4 year-old child to the standard of a reasonable and prudent person, you are interpreting the standard of negligence as what a reasonable and prudent 4 year old would or should do. I guess I'm not totally opposed to this concept (I'd have to think on this more to be sure). I'm concerned that the idea of holding a 4 year old child to the "negligence standard" of a "reasonable and prudent person" of any age is itself an absurd idea. How well do 4 year olds reason, and how prudent are they typically? How do we answer this and why do we even want to try and answer this? The law should protect children of this age, not accuse them. Of course, we can have extreme cases of maliciousness that are so shocking that we no longer worry about damage to the child because there is already something deeply wrong with them. But, barring that, the law should err on the side of caution when it comes to children, especially here where we are talking about children engaging in a normal play activity with full permission and supervision of the parents and no facts showing they did anything overtly wrong.

Anyway (stepping off my soapbox), based on what you are saying, we now have two criteria to apply to a 4 year old.

1. Lookout. In other words, they should pay attention to their environment when they're riding a bicycle; look where they're going instead of at each other, etc.

2. Avoid. In other words, if they saw the old woman, they should have tried to avoid hitting her.

To me, the second issue is a case of maliciousness, and not negligence. In a previous post, I said that if they deliberately hit the women, that would be different. If they didn't try to avoid her because they froze up and panicked, I also think it is unfair to call that negligence of the child because this goes back to the parents putting the kids in a situation they were ill-prepared for.

In my mind this leaves the issue of "looking". Well, if they decided to race each other while blindfolded, or with their eyes closed, one could argue that their decision is negligence. (I might even agree with that with suitable time to think about it, assuming the parents didn't encourage the idea - then, or in the past.) Without such obvious negligence in "looking", and without some facts in evidence that said they were blatenly "not looking", it's reasonable to assume that the children would only be able to ride and stay on the sidewalk if they were generally looking ahead. To try to hold 4 year olds to a standard of "degree to which they are looking ahead" is folly, in my view, because playing children do not just stare dispassionately ahead without distraction (unless they are nervous and unsure of their new skill). If that is the standard, then it is a very rare child that ever "looks" while riding a bike with a friend.