Judge allows 4 year old to be sued

A Judge allows a lawsuit to be brought against a 4 year old kid. You see, this is why I have little faith in our legal system at times. It's like people throw all common sense out the window.
The little girl was riding her bike and hit an 87 old lady who broke her hip... then died 3 months later due to unrelated causes. Now the 4 year old is getting sued.

WTF????

Judge: "So, Juliet Breitman, are you 4 years old?"

Juliet: "Four and a half! I want some soda..."

Judge: "Ah, 4 and a half, Sorry. Let's focus on the bike accident..."

Juliet: "What is focus, like magic?"

Judge: "Yes, yes Juliet, it is magic..."

Juliet: "My pony can do magic. It has pink ribbons and a sparkly tail... and it can fly... I put socks on my pony today because it was cold. What toys do you have?"

Judge: "There are no toys where you will be going Juliet, only pain, cold meals, cold showers and a hard bed without a nightlight...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/ny...o_interstitial

A tad harsh I must say...actually make that very harsh. How can the judge justify this? A 4 year old's brain is far from fully developed, therefore not being fully aware of consequences and actions. Surely any judicial system can recognise that children this young cannot be held accountable for this.

she deserves it... she wasnt wearing a helmet...

Actually, let me play the devil's advocate. If a parent is old enough to think the child can handle a bicycle, even at 4, the parent should have explained to the child in language the child should have understood that racing down a sidewalk was dangerous. Especially with elderly people. If the child, hearing the explanation, then goes out and does it...I'd say then that yes, fair and even repurcussions need to be dealt with.

Plus, the suit does include the parents. If it were only against the kids, then yes, I'd be a bit less inclined to take the devil's advocate.

I didn't read the part about the parents. Still though, can anyone say that when you were 4, you were always conscious of what your parents told you as you're happily playing? I believe that children that young are largely carefree, with little concern of the strangers around them.

I can honestly say that at 4, my parents would never have let me get on the bicycle on a Manhattan sidewalk...ever. They would have made me either walk with it to the park, or loaded it into the trunk, and drove the both of us there. Then, they would have made sure there was a clear path with no one on it, and would have made darn sure I stayed on it, even with playing with a peer. Plus, there would have been repeated warnings to watch out for anyone around me.

Then again, I also would not have had the bike at 4. My parents would have made sure they had my hand and wrist tight in their grip, so I wouldn't be running off.

so, the child was a child and accidentally hit a person with there bike.


A judge is stupid and allows someone to sue them...


Yes the parents can do something,


But imagine the child is ordered to pay money or something like that,


Does the judge want chocolate >_>



edit: I'd also like to point out that, the person may have had a fractured hip, but isn't it a bit late to sue, after the person no longer needs a hip >_>

Darren, it's the principle of the thing. I wish the article would have gone into better detail about what all the suit entailed. As far as monentary damage, of course that would go to the parents. The child might have the bicycle impounded, and be ordered to visit elder hostels and volunteer there to sit with lonely elderly as a lesson 'sentence'. It's just my thought here.

The Old lady shouldn't have been in the way. -_-

Why would you sue the child? Thats just stupid. In Japan (As you may know, Japanpimp), I think it's not allowed for people under 16 (Which is the description of "Child") to go to Jail or be sued, BUT, their guardians can.

The ruling by the judge, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, did not find that the girl was liable, but merely permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward.

That is the second paragraph in the article. The bolded part is the part I think most people miss in that article. It's not ONLY the kids that are in that lawsuit, and it states that the judge didn't find her liable. People are just blowing this out of proportion.