New York child sued for woman's death after bike crash

Clicky


Quote:




A New York child can be sued for crashing a bicycle into an elderly pedestrian and causing injuries that led to her death, a judge has ruled.

Juliet Breitman and another child were four years old when they raced their small bicycles on a Manhattan street and ran into Claire Menagh, 87.




I'm sorry, but was there something I missed here, or was this judge smoking something by the bucketload before making this baffling ruling? |||The judge smoked bucket loads.|||To be honest I think the kid got off lightly.

I'd have given her the chair.

-Art

</Sarcasm tag for my US buddies>|||Quote:








To be honest I think the kid got off lightly.

I'd have given her the chair.

-Art

</Sarcasm tag for my US buddies>




'Youngster kills Oldie - Sparky bites back!' would have been a catchier tagline.

Also L-O-L.|||I try to not jump to conclusions anymore on these cases that are brought up in forums so I've been looking at other mentions of this accident. I found another article that people may want to read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/ny...30bigcity.html

Seems to sum up the situation nicely.

EDIT: Upon further investigation I found this:

http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryatto...ry+Law+Blog%29

So basically, the judge ruled that they should go to court to find out if this was truly an accident or if she is a bully who intentionally tried to run over the old lady and whether her mom knew she was a bully or not? I guess I can understand that a little better, but I still think that judging someone at 4 years of age to be a bully is jumping the gun a bit. I just hope the girls life isn't ruined by the death of an 87 year old woman.|||Oh for God's sake. There are so many questions here - first off, where were the parents of the kid? Second, why did the kid not stop? Third, accidents happen and it's tragic that such a small thing led to the death of an old woman. But here's a question - would the judge have said the same thing if the victim had been, say, a person in their 20s? Somehow I doubt it. So while it is tragic, the kid is four years old. You're really going to mess up the rest of her life over an accident? She didn't ram the woman on purpose (I hope). She'll probably be screwed up the rest of her life anyway knowing her bike riding day turned into a "murder", or whatever you want to call it. Let's not add insult to injury. I've heard of children being tried as adults for cases, but a four year old being sued? I'm moving out of this country, because that's just sick. I agree the judge was high.

But if the judge is so desperate to punish someone, why not the parents who weren't watching their kid? Technically they should be held accountable for the actions of their child, especially one that young. If I lived in New York I wouldn't let my kid run around without supervision, especially at that age. Just because it's a big state and if this is in New York City, that's one of the biggest cities in the world. A lot could happen there.|||Yeah Tender Wolf, I agree with your sentiments. The thing is that I think the judge wants to find out for sure what you are hoping (whether it was on purpose or not). I still think it's insane same as you though.

As for your issue with the parents, you may want to read the first link I pointed to. Personally, if I had kids when living in New York, I'd move regardless of whether I'd have to find a new job but that would be a scary thing to do especially in the current state of the economy but yeah, my thoughts on New York are a bit off topic to this thread, heh.|||Overreaction, much?

This wasn't a "omigod the kid is guilty off with his head" kind of verdict. It wasn't even that kind of trial. It's more along the lines of "I have no idea what happened, maybe the kid did it on purpose, maybe he didn't, maybe it was the parents' fault, whatever, it should be looked into" type of thing.|||Quote:








~




...please read the second link djacob posted.


Quote:




PJI 2:261 Vicarious Responsibility�Family Relationship�Liability of Parent for Tort of Child�Failure to Restrain

A parent is not responsible for the act of (his, her) child, but is responsible for (his, her) own failure to use reasonable care to restrain the child from so viciously conducting (himself, herself) as to (intentionally harm, create an unreasonable risk of harm to) others, provided the parent has knowledge of the child�s propensity toward such conduct. Reasonable care means that degree of care that a reasonably prudent parent would use under the same circumstances. Propensity toward vicious conduct means a habitual tendency to do an act that might endanger the person or property of others.|||True, but they obviously weren't watching her at all to prevent this from happening, or they didn't try to stop her. We don't have the full story on that part so it's hard to say. Still, the fact remains that this is a four-year-old we're talking about. I doubt it was done on purpose and the judge is overreacting. Yes it's a tragedy, but an accidental one I think. But we don't have all the facts so no one can be sure yet.