14 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
14 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

NY judge rules 6 yr old can be sued... it never ends...

by KenThompson
12 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
In April of 2009, a young girl was riding her training bike and allegedly
hit an 87 yr old woman. The woman fell and broke her hip which
required hip surgery. Three months later, the woman died.

I couldn't read more to find out if she died from complications of
the surgery.

An attorney argued the case should be dismissed due to the age
of the young girl. A NY supreme court justice ruled she can be sued.

Will there be any end to this madness?

String 'er up!


Ken
  • Profile picture of the author CCGAL
    When I saw this on the news, I was quite puzzled by it. After reading the article you provided the link to, I'm even more perplexed. I have so many questions that are not answered by the news; after reading the comments, I see I'm not alone in my curiosity.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800438].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ken Strong
    From what sketchy details there are in the link you provided, it sounds like the judge is an idiot and the case is very bizarre... the little girl was four years old when the incident occurred. I have a four-year old daughter, and although she's very intelligent for her age, I wouldn't expect her to have the capacity and self-awareness to always avoid accidents like the one described.

    Sounds like a tragic accident. The article doesn't say who is doing the suing, on what grounds, and what they hope to get out of it. Not sure why they'd want to sue a four-year old, or what they hope to get out of it. Seems like they'd have a better chance of winning if they sued whichever adult was supposed to be supervising the kid at the time.

    All that being said, I sure wish you'd remove the code phrase "it never ends" from your Subject line, and the code sentence "Will there be any end to this madness?" from your post, as it gives the distinct impression that you're trying to start a political argument thread here.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800453].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
      Originally Posted by Ken Strong View Post

      All that being said, I sure wish you'd remove the code phrase "it never ends" from your Subject line, and the code sentence "Will there be any end to this madness?" from your post, as it gives the distinct impression that you're trying to start a political argument thread here.

      Ken,

      Please explain to me how in the world this is political?

      Secondly, for your information and future reference, I never
      post anything with the hopes that it will start a political
      argument. Please bear that in mind for the duration.

      The madness refers to the ongoing tendency for people to
      want to engage in lawsuits for any reason under the sun.
      That is also what I'm referring to by the comment in the
      title.

      There is no "code" anywhere, Ken. If anything, it's more of
      a sociological statement and that should be even more
      obvious now.

      I don't know if you're an official moderator, or not. If you
      are, then I appreciate the request to remove it as opposed
      to deleting the thread, outright. However, the thread is
      nothing important to me.

      If you wish to exercise your influence and powers regarding
      this matter, then please delete the thread. You are wholly
      incorrect in your assumptions and conclusions, and I will not
      remove the comments.

      Thank you,

      Ken
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800511].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ken Strong
        Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

        The madness refers to the ongoing tendency for people to
        want to engage in lawsuits for any reason under the sun.
        That is also what I'm referring to by the comment in the
        title.
        If that's the case, then fine. I don't think you made that as clear as you could. I assumed the judge was the main focus of your post, and in that light, the "madness" could easily be interpreted as referring to actions of the judiciary in general, which is how I interpreted it. Not unreasonably, I feel, but you've set the record straight now, so no problem.

        I'm not surprised that there are people who would be willing to file suit against a small child, or that they found a lawyer willing to argue in favor of it, but I was surprised that the judge ruled in favor of it.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800547].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
          Originally Posted by Ken Strong View Post

          If that's the case, then fine. I don't think you made that as clear as you could. I assumed the judge was the main focus of your post, and in that light, the "madness" could easily be interpreted as referring to actions of the judiciary in general, which is how I interpreted it. Not unreasonably, I feel, but you've set the record straight now, so no problem.

          I'm not surprised that there are people who would be willing to file suit against a small child, or that they found a lawyer willing to argue in favor of it, but I was surprised that the judge ruled in favor of it.
          Ah.. ok. Well, no, the judge is a supreme court judge. So I was, and
          still am, quite confident that he was interpreting the law to the best
          of his ability.

          No. It wasn't about the judge or the courts at all. Just the people who
          are behind it. And you're right, I'm sure you can always find a willing
          attorney for whatever you want.

          No problems and thanks for explaining.

          Ken
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800553].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ahlexis
            I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment . . .

            The girl is sued. She decides to settle and is able to negotiate a payment arrangement of some type to avoid the whole trial mess.

            How can she even agree to anything? According to the laws in most states, a minor cannot sign a legally binding contract because the minor does not have the capacity to enter into such an agreement.

            So . . .

            She settles. Then, years later, she is of the age of majority (18, or 21, or ???), and she disavows the previously signed agreement contract?

            And the attorneys for both sides have another case in their "IRA" files, their retirement fund, ready for future litigation without marketing or in any other way actually working to acquire a client!

            But I get why a lawyer will sue a 6 year old. The first rule of business law is, sue everyone involved and let the judge(s) sort it all out (or throw it out).
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800582].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
              Originally Posted by ahlexis View Post


              How can she even agree to anything? According to the laws in most states, a minor cannot sign a legally binding contract because the minor does not have the capacity to enter into such an agreement.
              I was thinking the same thing as Ken mentioned. Usually when a lawsuit
              involves a minor, it's the parents or other supervising adults who get
              served.

              But for your comment above, I don't think something like that is a contract
              or would be considered a contract in the usual terms. But I'm not a lawyer,
              so I don't know.


              Ken
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800606].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ahlexis
                "Sue everyone involved and let the judge sort it all out."
                That was the first thing my Business Law 101 professor said on the first day of class. No joke.

                I'm not a lawyer, either. After taking that class I decided to major in real estate instead!
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800649].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Ken Strong View Post

      I have a four-year old daughter, and although she's very intelligent for her age, I wouldn't expect her to have the capacity and self-awareness to always avoid accidents like the one described.
      WOW, so I guess you never let her outside, huh? I mean if she is going to go into a fire, drink water off the ground, eat trash, or run off a cliff, WHY let her out? At least keeping her inside helps to avoid some of those "accidents".

      OK, the lawyer says the little girl should not be sued because her mother was doing the REPONSIBLE thing and SUPERVISING! GREAT! SUE HER! If she brought out a machine to do that, and did the SAME thing, she would be sued and NOBODY would complain about it. NOBODY would say IT didn't know any better or IT was too young, etc.... HECK, people have been sued because of the action of PETS!

      And who cares if the woman died because of the fall. OBVIOUSLY she couldn't and didn't.
      Or as a consequence of trying to get back to normal. SAME DIFFERENCE. I mean people don't die from bullet wounds or poison either, they die as a consequence. If the bullet hits your heart, you will basically die from a loss of blood as a consequence, and not because toi bullet merely pierced you. And if you go to a hospital to get things fixed, you wouldn't be there if you didn't have the problem.

      Frankly, it stinks that people are considered innocent MERELY because they are too young, or incompetent. And if that little girl is allowed to crash the training bike like that with NO repercussions, then why should she be any more careful witth a car?

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800990].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rondo
    This story made the news here in Australia on Friday.
    We are all very puzzled.


    Andrew
    Signature
    Online courses
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800458].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    Clarifications and another write-up available here:

    4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case - Care2 News Network

    Relevant bits... death of the plaintiff:

    At some point in the race, they struck an 87-year-old woman named Claire Menagh, who ... died three months later of unrelated causes.
    Actions of the lawyers:

    Her estate sued the children and their mothers, claiming they had acted negligently during the accident. In a response, Juliet’s lawyer, James P. Tyrie, argued that the girl was not “engaged in an adult activity” at the time of the accident — “She was riding her bicycle with training wheels under the supervision of her mother” — and was too young to be held liable for negligence.
    More detailed explanation of judge's decision:

    Mr. Tyrie “correctly notes that infants under the age of 4 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence,” Justice Wooten wrote in his decision, referring to the 1928 case. “Juliet Breitman, however, was over the age of 4 at the time of the subject incident. For infants above the age of 4, there is no bright-line rule.”
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2800897].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ruby Rynne
    Seems from the quotes CDarklock posted that the judge is saying 'there is nothing in law to say you can't sue this child', which is very different from saying 'it would be a good idea to sue this child'.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2801110].message }}

Trending Topics