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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a legal case where a judge ruled that a 4-year-old girl could be sued for negligence after allegedly causing harm to an elderly woman while riding her bicycle. Participants explore the implications of this ruling, the responsibilities of children and their parents, and the potential emotional impact on the child involved.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the appropriateness of suing a child, arguing that a 4-year-old cannot be held responsible for their actions.
  • Others note that while the judge ruled the child could be sued, this does not imply liability has been established.
  • A few participants suggest that the parents should bear responsibility for the child's actions, as they were supervising the children during the incident.
  • Concerns are raised about the emotional toll on the child, with some arguing that the legal proceedings could cause lasting guilt and trauma.
  • There is a discussion about the fairness of having a jury that may not include children, questioning how this impacts the trial's outcome.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the legal strategy behind the lawsuit, suggesting it may be driven by revenge or greed rather than justice.
  • Questions are posed regarding the definition of negligence in the context of children and whether the elderly woman may have acted negligently herself.
  • Several participants emphasize the need for clarity on whether the incident directly caused the woman's death, indicating uncertainty about the facts of the case.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the appropriateness of suing a child and the implications of the judge's ruling. There are competing views on parental responsibility and the emotional impact on the child, with no consensus reached on these issues.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions of negligence, the legal responsibilities of children versus adults, and the emotional consequences of the lawsuit on the child involved. The discussion reflects a range of opinions on the legal and moral implications of the case.

  • #91
Slightly off topic, but it does deal with the difficulty of deciding when your kid is proficient enough to stray very far on their bicycle:

A friend of mine has a kid that just learned how to ride her bicycle without training wheels and the girl wanted to ride down the street on her own to her friend's house. The ride is mildly downhill, so my friend wanted to be sure her daughter could control her bicycle going downhill before she would let her ride to her friend's house on her own.

The test: The little girl had to be able to control her bike riding down the dirt hill behind my friend's back yard.

The result: Trip to friend's house cancelled. Instead, they substituted a trip to the emergency room for the daughter's broken arm.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
All the judge ruled on is that the case could proceed. It wasn't a judgement of guilt or innocence...that's the point of the trial he's permitting. And, yes, it is the parents who would be held liable if the plaintiff proves their case. It's probably a technicality of the law that the child committed the act, so needs to be named in the suit, even though the primary responsibility is in the hands of the parents or other adults present to supervise the actions of the child, which is why they are also being named in the case.

Of course, I think the plaintiff needs to decide if they are going to prosecute on the basis that the child actually ran into the lady on purpose, vs did the child do so accidentally, but under circumstances that were foreseeable and the supervising adults could and should have intervened before the child lost control of the bicycle and hurt someone. And, yes, they will also need to show that the injuries actually led to the woman's death if that's the basis of the complaint.

Probably a slim chance of winning such a case, but that is the point of having a trial and a jury to evaluate whatever evidence they present.
 
  • #93
Moonbear. I thinkt that people understand what happened here.

People just think it's retarded. And I agree.
 
  • #94
zomgwtf said:
Moonbear. I thinkt that people understand what happened here.

People just think it's retarded. And I agree.
The OP wasn't asking if people personally approved. It asked what the legal reasoning and ramifications were.

Of course 99% of the posters went completely off topic with their personal anecdotes. :-p That's ok, I was expecting that.

Thank you Moonbear for one of the few meaningful replies. BobG & DH are two other posters that come to mind with meaningful posts that were on topic. I'm too lazy to go back through the entire thread, so thanks to anyone else that answered my questions.
 
Last edited:
  • #95
This is ridiculous, how fast can a 4 year old on a bike go anyway? Might as well sue the guy who came around the corner to fast and knocked an old lady down.

No... Let's take this a step further! Every sidewalk now has speed limits for how fast people walk!
 
  • #96
bassplayer142 said:
This is ridiculous, how fast can a 4 year old on a bike go anyway? Might as well sue the guy who came around the corner to fast and knocked an old lady down.

No... Let's take this a step further! Every sidewalk now has speed limits for how fast people walk!
The bike can go fast enough to knock someone down and cause severe injury. Let's stay on topic please.

No more off topic posts in this thread.
 
  • #97
Moonbear said:
All the judge ruled on is that the case could proceed. It wasn't a judgement of guilt or innocence...that's the point of the trial he's permitting.
Multiple posters here have missed this point.

It's probably a technicality of the law that the child committed the act, so needs to be named in the suit, even though the primary responsibility is in the hands of the parents or other adults present to supervise the actions of the child, which is why they are also being named in the case.
A whole lot of posters here have missed this point.


Of course, I think the plaintiff needs to decide if they are going to prosecute on the basis that the child actually ran into the lady on purpose, vs did the child do so accidentally, but under circumstances that were foreseeable and the supervising adults could and should have intervened before the child lost control of the bicycle and hurt someone.
Or the plaintiff could just show that the moms encouraged the two children to have a bicycle race down the sidewalk. What were they thinking? Of course four year olds aren't going to look where they are going under those conditions.

And, yes, they will also need to show that the injuries actually led to the woman's death if that's the basis of the complaint.
Given the limited amount of money that can be collected ($5,000; see post #35) and given the costs of medical care for a broken hip, I don't know if they have to prove that the injury led to the woman's death. Medical expenses plus "pain and suffering" from a broken hip will hit that $5,000 cap easily. The plaintiff will have to prove that the woman was not acting negligently herself.
 
  • #98
D H said:
"All the judge ruled on is that the case could proceed. It wasn't a judgement of guilt or innocence...that's the point of the trial he's permitting."

Multiple posters here have missed this point.

I'd be surprised if anyone reading the article actually missed the point that a judgement of guilt or innocence has not been given. It's too obvious to miss, and assumes someone doesn't know the purpose of a trial (not likely for PF members). What is clear is that a judgement that a 4 year old can be legally sued in court for negligence has been made, and that is a very big deal and worthy of discussion.

D H said:
"It's probably a technicality of the law that the child committed the act, so needs to be named in the suit, even though the primary responsibility is in the hands of the parents or other adults present to supervise the actions of the child, which is why they are also being named in the case."

A whole lot of posters here have missed this point.

Those that missed this point are correct to miss it because it is a fallacy. A suit can proceed against the parents solely, and so there is no "need" to name the child. The judge is just allowing more options for the plaintiff's side to make its case. The plaintiff apparently "wants" this option for a few reasons. Ultimately, the court could find that the parents were not negligent and the child was (which is unlikely, but still possible), in which case the plaintiff would lose if the child was not named, or if the judge did not allow the child to be named. Also, what a great bargaining chip to force a settlement, which is a point I made initially. However, there is also the risk of a backfire if this goes to a jury trial, for the obvious reason that the jury members may be biased against the plaintiff if they see the child named (technically, they shouldn't do that, but this is going to be a sore spot with some people).

An important point in this matter is that there is no "bright line rule" about the possibility of negligence of a 4 year old (the bright line rule only says if under 4 years old, and says nothing about 4 and older). The judge could very easily have opted to not allow the child to be named in the suit, and indeed that would be the usual choice of 99% of judges. Even the existence of a bright line rule does not force the judge to use that as the standard, if there are special circumstances. The lack of a bright line does not force the judge to allow the case, nor is there a need for a precedent to be set by this case. Other states have much higher age limits for negligence (7, 14, or even 17), and the judge can draw on this knowledge, or common sense to make a ruling. The reason why we are even talking about this is because the ruling is unusual and overtly against the usual norms and expectations. So, is the judge off-base, or does the case have some unusual aspects to it that we don't know about? I guess time will tell.

If we want to talk about a point that may have been missed by some people, then we should stress that this case is ostensibly not about whether the children deliberately hit the women, because this would be malice and not negligence, which is a completely different legal standard. If the judge is allowing this because there is a possibility of malice on the part of the child, then we have been misled by the public information available. There are plenty of precedents of children sued for malice. I can't find any at age 4, but there is a well known case against a child at age 5, which puts a "malice bright line (actually in a different state, but still relevant)" only 3 months different from the actual age in this case.
 
  • #99
Moonbear said:
And, yes, they will also need to show that the injuries actually led to the woman's death if that's the basis of the complaint.

Probably a slim chance of winning such a case, but that is the point of having a trial and a jury to evaluate whatever evidence they present.

D H said:
Given the limited amount of money that can be collected ($5,000; see post #35) and given the costs of medical care for a broken hip, I don't know if they have to prove that the injury led to the woman's death.

Successfully suing for wrongful death would be quite impressive considering the old woman, herself, initiated this lawsuit before she died.
 
  • #100
BobG said:
Successfully suing for wrongful death would be quite impressive considering the old woman, herself, initiated this lawsuit before she died.

That would be audacious of her. :smile: But ...

... does that make her an optimist?? or a pessimist??
 
  • #101
DaveC426913 said:
That would be audacious of her. :smile: But ...

... does that make her an optimist?? or a pessimist??
Well, I posed the question of whether her injuries lead to her death. Although the coroner may not have officially been able to state it, the problems caused by surgery and hospitalization could quite possibly have caused her death, the strain on her heart would have been enormous. I watch a lot of the autopsy shows on tv and and the coronwer was saying that even though there was no doubt that the person's death was directly linked to the injuries, and that you'd think it would be a no brainer to state that as the cause of death, there are legal hurdles that get so specific that you just have to put "unknown" or "natural causes" as cause of death.