uptowngirl

A four-year old child can be sued in Manhattan

Just came across a truly bizarre case. Judge Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court of Manhattan recently ruled that a young girl who was accused of running down an 87 year old woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a side walk in Midtown can be sued for negligence. It so happened that the old lady fell and broke her hip and subsequently passed away after which her estate sued the young girl and another young boy and their mothers who had been supervising the toddlers.

Here are the details
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes

I am truly shocked by the judge. Yes its unfortunate that the lady in question,Claire Menagh was hurt and died but accidents do happen and that is exactly what this an unfortunate accident. To drag the families and the young children through court is an unbelievable waste of time, money and effort. What do you think?

6 people following
this discussion

15 Comments

Uraniumfish Oct 29, 2010

Well you can't hold young children accountable for crimes if committed under a certain age, so it' snot like the child would be punished. And it's not like the kid owns property, so what would you sue her for? Just seems like one of those things that has to be struck down in the appeals process.

BroadwayBK Oct 29, 2010

I think the parents should most definitely be held responsible - and they often are in cases like this. But in this particular case it doesn't seem like the old lady was in need of money to pay her medical bills - she had an "estate," after all. It's a bit absurd.

hhusted Oct 29, 2010

According to the article, the woman died three months later. But that I do not think really added weight to the case. The mere fact the girl ran her over was what the courts claimed was sufficient to hold her responsible. The entire thing sucks. Okay, the old lady got hurt. Whether the girl accidentally or deliberately ran her over is of no consequence. What the estate should have done was sue the family of the girl for medical expenses only.

uptowngirl Oct 31, 2010

I know the whole thing is pretty ridiculous though I cant help thinking about the impact it will have on the psyche of the children.

Uraniumfish Nov 01, 2010

@uptowngirl They'll just become litigious jerks when they grow up.

NeverSleeps Nov 01, 2010

Do you guys think the child really has any idea of what's going on? I think my parents would have limited their explanation of what was happening in order to protect my four-year-old self. I think that's what I would do for my kids in this situation as well.... Then again how much can a child really understand of the legal system anyway!

Uraniumfish Nov 01, 2010

I agree, NeverSleeps. At four years old I doubt I would have gotten much of an explanation from my parents, and they would have done their best to protect me. Who even remembers being four years old? I think my biggest concern at that age was my teeth growing in.

uptowngirl Nov 01, 2010

@Uraniumfish I sure hope not ... I do think that the parents will protect these kids as far as possible but the legal hassles must be causing a significant amount of stress and worry which perhaps may transmit to the kids eventually.

uptowngirl Nov 01, 2010

@everyone the Manhattan super rich and their follies.. no disrespect to the lady but she was 87 years old!. In India when you pass away in your 80s or 90s, you are generally considered to have led a full life..and some families even distribute sweets at the funeral in order to celebrate this full life of the deceased.

BroadwayBK Nov 01, 2010

@uptowngirl They printed a correction in that article... The lady didn't die of anything that was related to the accident. She passed away three months later due to something else completely.

BroadwayBK Nov 01, 2010

Which of course makes it even stupider to sue a child.

Uraniumfish Nov 02, 2010

Wow, not that's really too stupid to believe.

uptowngirl Nov 03, 2010

@Everyone Any rational person would have realized that the 87 year old could have passed away due to other age related complications especially if the death occurred three months after the fall but the estate and the judge both seem to be lacking in common sense.

ajadedidealist Nov 03, 2010

I think the technical point of the ruling was that, on a purely technical basis, the kid was above the "age of liability" (four) and thus could be sued, along with her parents. That doesn't mean, of course, that the suit won't get thrown out for ridiculousness - but I think the judge meant it as a legal technicality, not as a go-ahead to SUE A FIVE YEAR OLD.

NeverSleeps Nov 05, 2010

Aren't they really suing the parents? From what I gather this case only went to court because the child was over four-years-old. But that still makes the parents financially responsible, as the child is under 18. I think.