We are now reduced to suing 4 year old preschoolers.

[eliza61]

As a little girl growing up in Manhattan, I remember riding my bike outside my building and yes I did accidently run into a pedestrian once.

Now a 4 year old on her tricycle is being sued for negligence for that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?no_interstitial

I hate the way they phrased it as "running down an elderly women" as if the 4 year old cased the joint out and waited behind a door for some unsuspecting senior to jump out, just to mow them down.

Why can't a tragic accident be just that, a tragic accident? ***sighs***

 

[si-am]

I think it's weird to sue a 4 year old, but if my mom were killed by an out of control kid on a tricycle, I'd probably be angry enough to sue the family. Those kids had no business racing on a sidewalk!

 

[luvmy3]

I don't have a problem suing the mothers in this case, but I don't see the point in being able to sue a 4 year old.

 

[zetachi]

They going to garnish her allowance for the next 50 years? Maybe make her give up her piggy bank?

 

[Scurvy]

I think it makes more sense to sue the parents, but maybe for some reason they have to sue the child also. Either way, I don't see anything wrong with a lawsuit against the family. I don't view this as an accident as much as negligence. The parents shouldn't have been allowing the behavior that caused the accident, so the accident never should have been able to happen. I do disagree that the child was negligent - I think the parent was - but this wasn't a completely unforseeable accident.

 

[SandrA9810]

I don't see how it was a terrible accident. Yes the woman died, but 3 months later, and it never states how she died. She was 87 years old, there's a lot that could've caused it. And why didn't the lady do the suing?? She was alive long enough to bring on the suit.

 

[si-am]

I don't see how it was a terrible accident. Yes the woman died, but 3 months later, and it never states how she died. She was 87 years old, there's a lot that could've caused it. And why didn't the lady do the suing?? She was alive long enough to bring on the suit.

Well the accident was bad enough to break some bones and at that age I'm sure it contributed to her death. And I doubt she was in any physical shape to start a lawsuit in the weeks between her accident and death, you know?

 

[catycatcat4]

I was just coming over here to post this.

Thats crazy and its not all ways easy to stop a four year old on a bike.

 

[luvmy3]

I don't see how it was a terrible accident. Yes the woman died, but 3 months later, and it never states how she died. She was 87 years old, there's a lot that could've caused it. And why didn't the lady do the suing?? She was alive long enough to bring on the suit.

She was 87, there very well could have been complications that resulted because of the accident, just because the article doesn't publish how she did doesn't mean it wasn't caused by what happened to her.

In terms of healing, for someone that age 3 months is not a long time, she may have been alive but she may not have been in any condition to go through with a lawsuit during that time.

 

[Scurvy]

I don't see how it was a terrible accident. Yes the woman died, but 3 months later, and it never states how she died. She was 87 years old, there's a lot that could've caused it. And why didn't the lady do the suing?? She was alive long enough to bring on the suit.

Her hip was broken because of the child. If she died as a result of complications caused by the broken hip - and that happens fairly often to older people, unfortunately - then the accident was the cause of her death, at least in part. It's possible she was too ill once they realized the severity of her injuries or illness to sue on her own behalf. Even if her death was unrelated to the injury, it would be reasonable for them to sue for the medical costs related to the injury. Her estate shouldn't be responsible for bills that were caused by someone else's negligence.

 

[allison443]

I don't see how it was a terrible accident. Yes the woman died, but 3 months later, and it never states how she died. She was 87 years old, there's a lot that could've caused it. And why didn't the lady do the suing?? She was alive long enough to bring on the suit.

Well, you saw the part where she was 87, sustained a hip fracture, and required surgery, then died three months later? I guess she was busy in those three months....
I didn't see anything in the article that they were claiming she died as a result of the accident. However, she did sustain an injury as a result so there is a claim for that injury, the surgery she underwent, expenses, etc.

FYI, the statute of limitations for negligence cases in New York is three years. Even if she brought the suit the day after the accident, I guarantee you it would not have been resolved in the three months she survived after the accident. So even if she brought the case while alive, it would be continued by her estate. The claim didn't die just because she died.

 

[disneyjunkie]

Millions of kids in the five boroughs play (ride bikes, roller skate, skate board, ball, double dutch....) on the sidewalks.

Kids ride (and race) their bikes up and down the block when they are too young to ride in the street.

I can't imagine suing someone for doing something that every kid growing up here did/does.

 

[Magpie]

I wonder if the family offered to contribute in any way to the old lady's medical bills after the accident?

If they just threw up their hands and went, "Oh well, it was an accident. Not our problem," then I can definitely see the old lady's family being mad enough to sue. Especially since her broken hip likely contributed to her death - certainly she was mobile and active before this kid slammed into her, afterward she would have been bedridden and crippled and in horrible pain.

I can also only imagine what kind of drain this might have had on her family's emotional and financial well-being.

I don't see this so much as a case of "sue the 4yo" as I do "sue the whole family". Just because something is an accident, doesn't mean you're not liable. I've been teaching my kids for years that, "It was an accident!" is no defence, not even when it IS an accident. Whether you meant for bad things to happen or not, bad things still happened and it was because of your actions. Therefore you're responsible.

 

[allison443]

I think it makes more sense to sue the parents, but maybe for some reason they have to sue the child also. Either way, I don't see anything wrong with a lawsuit against the family. I don't view this as an accident as much as negligence. The parents shouldn't have been allowing the behavior that caused the accident, so the accident never should have been able to happen. I do disagree that the child was negligent - I think the parent was - but this wasn't a completely unforseeable accident.

You are correct, because in New York there is no cause of action for negligent supervision. The plaintiff cannot recover damages against the parent for allowing the child to ride the bike. (there is negligent entrustment, like if a parent entrusts a child with a dangerous instrumentality, like a gun, etc.)
They have to sue the person who acted negligently.

This decision did not make a finding that anyone was negligent. The court only ruled that a four year old could be sued as a defendant, so the case can continue. She is not automatically considered to be incapable of negligence, like someone under four years old is. (The child in the case was almost five).

Now the case will continue and the plaintiffs will have to prove that this child violated the standard of care of a normal four year old. Meaning I guess, should four year olds be able to brake, swerve, etc. to avoid an 87 year old pedestrian? If so, and this particular child didn't they will be negligent.

As for what they will recover, I would make an assumption here that there is a liability insurance policy involved. I think the little girl's piggy bank is safe.

 

[bjgrazi]

They were two 4 year old's riding their bikes on a city sidewalk. (except if they go to a park there is no where else to ride and most parks have rules there too.) It's a crazy lawsuit. The family has no right suing anyone, it was an accident. It's a shame that this world is so darn sue happy. What good is suing them going to do? What does it teach the parents? That most people are tools? It's not like the adults were riding the bikes and purposely ran into her.

This is one of those give me a break stories

 

[allison443]

Why can't a tragic accident be just that, a tragic accident? ***sighs***

You realize that "accidents" are often caused by negligence and these "accidents" would have been avoided if people acted differently, right?

By definition an accident means there was not an intention to cause injury. However, an injury occurred and if it is often due to a person's negligence. The civil justice system is supposed to hold people responsible if they cause injuries due to their negligence.

If someone is sued/found liable, it doesn't mean it wasn't an accident. It means it was an accident that could have been avoided.

(Yes, I know the system doesn't always work this way, but that is the idea of it. )

 

[allison443]

They were two 4 year old's riding their bikes on a city sidewalk. (except if they go to a park there is no where else to ride and most parks have rules there too.) It's a crazy lawsuit. The family has no right suing anyone, it was an accident. It's a shame that this world is so darn sue happy. What good is suing them going to do? What does it teach the parents? That most people are tools? It's not like the adults were riding the bikes and purposely ran into her.

This is one of those give me a break stories

Of course I agree suing a four year old sounds ridiculous, but why do you say the family has no right suing anyone, it was an accident? Are you saying you wouldn't sue if you or a family member were injured in a car accident? After all it was an accident.

The kid isn't being charged with an intentional crime. Obviously it was an accident. That's why it's a lawsuit based in negligence.

 

[luvmy3]

They were two 4 year old's riding their bikes on a city sidewalk. (except if they go to a park there is no where else to ride and most parks have rules there too.) It's a crazy lawsuit. The family has no right suing anyone, it was an accident. It's a shame that this world is so darn sue happy. What good is suing them going to do? What does it teach the parents? That most people are tools? It's not like the adults were riding the bikes and purposely ran into her.

This is one of those give me a break stories

Yes, actually they do have the right to sue. And you ask what is the point, how about covering the medical bills incurred as a result of the "accident". It teaches the parents to not let their 4 year old run into people walking on the sidewalk.

 

[livie1205]

THIS IS JUST STUPID and they will not get a dime from a 4 yr old....period.I bet it will be dismissed, the child was being a 4 yr old.They can not sue the parents,they did not set out to let their child run down a old lady.

 

[bumbershoot]

Well.....

In '96 I was driving my car into the townhouse parking lot. I always went slowly b/c people were crazy in there. As I approached a curve with bushes hiding beyond the bed, I saw a boy on a bike speeding towards where I was about to be. I knew I couldn't back up in time to avoid him, so I chose to stop entirely so I had no velocity when he hit. Honestly, if I hadn't been there, he had so much speed that I doubt he'd have made that turn at all, I think he would have hit the back of totally parked cars, he was going that fast and the turn was that sharp and short.

So I stopped, and he hit me. He was maybe 9. Knocked off my side view mirror, scraped up my hubcap cover, did a number on my paint. I got out, tried to help him, he got on his bike and sped away.

I knew who he was, went to my mom/stepdad's townhouse (where I was living), told them. Stepdad contacted the boy's dad (the boy had gone home and spun a lie about it, but there were plenty of adult witnesses who called out to me, as the boy rode off, that they saw I was not at fault at all), and we contacted the boy's parent's home owners insurance company, and my brand new car was made brand new looking again.

The difference in the case in the news is that...the child was younger, a person died, and maybe the people don't have homeowners/renter's insurance for the woman's family to contact. And of course their relative can't be made new again.

I see little difference. A child did something that damaged another person (or their property), and their family is being held accountable.


"permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward. "

I keep seeing comments that they can't sue the parents, but they can and are.