Judge allows 4 year old to be sued

[Revoltion]

She's getting what's coming to her.


30 whacks with a wet noodle.

[Rota]

The parents should be allowed to be sued. It's their responsibility. The old woman is certainly not liable for any medical bills.

Why is a 4 year old racing on the streets of Manhattan?
When I was 4, I treated all adults as authority figures, not as speed bumps. Why did the parents not indoctrinate some sort of respect for elders. Rather than focusing on winning the race, the children should have stopped. I respect that children have the attention span of a gnat and should not be expected to act "reasonably" all the time. Maybe they weren't mature enough yet to even think to yield to pedestrians. If that's the case, then the parents should not be allowing them to ride around the streets.

There are plenty of bike/jogging paths in NY they could go. On those paths, the other people are reasonably aware of bike traffic. An average pedestrian on a Manhattan sidewalk is not reasonably expected to be on the lookout for a speeding bike that might come out of nowhere.

The parents are responsible, for not teaching the children correctly, or not chaperoning them correctly. I don't care which you choose, but it's the parents fault, either way.


It's already been said, but the OP was poorly worded. The children aren't being sued, they are just being named in the suit because they are the transgressors. The actual target of the suit is the parents that have money and are liable. The title was deceptively worded to be attention grabbing, and that's fine. But, the opening post was a fail. You know the girl isn't really being sued, JP. Even if she was, there's no risk of jail time in a lawsuit. She's not being criminally charged. I hope you were just failing at trying to be funny, and not truly being that naive.

[Richie_B]

That's the danger of tl;dr. I read the title, then skimmed through the OP instead of reading the article. I based my answers on the fact it was just a 4 year old being sued. I understand the situation now.

[Boleslav]

I feel sorry for the judges who have to make determinations on ridiculous cases like this, knowing their opinion becomes precedent. This whole incident wouldn't have happened and could have been dealt with if people were more responsible and less litigious.

[Fallbreeze]

I feel sorry for the judges who have to make determinations on ridiculous cases like this, knowing their opinion becomes precedent. This whole incident wouldn't have happened and could have been dealt with if people were more responsible and less litigious.

That, I can endorse wholeheartedly!

[Rota]

I feel sorry for the judges who have to make determinations on ridiculous cases like this, knowing their opinion becomes precedent. This whole incident wouldn't have happened and could have been dealt with if people were more responsible and less litigious.

Agreed!!

There should be no reason for this lawsuit. The parents of the girl should have volunteered to help with medical costs from the beginning. They should not have to be sued to do the right thing. Are they really going to try and argue that they aren't liable for what happened? I can agree that sometimes "accidents happen" and noone is liable. But, I can't see how this is one of those occasions.

[TrulySorry]

ITS MTV!!!ITS BRAINWASHING AMERICA!!!oh AND BARACK OBAMA,HES RUINED OUR COUNTRY.

[Zen Master]

ITS MTV!!!ITS BRAINWASHING AMERICA!!!oh AND BARACK OBAMA,HES RUINED OUR COUNTRY.

please PLEASE SHUDUP

if i were the parents i would pay the damages out of respect i wouldnt need to be sued
both sides went to far
and im pretty sure letting a little child
a infant ride her bike on a city side walk like manhatten is out of the question most definately neglegence it self

but for the most part i agree with montros

[Montros]

The parents should be allowed to be sued. It's their responsibility. The old woman is certainly not liable for any medical bills.

Why is a 4 year old racing on the streets of Manhattan?
When I was 4, I treated all adults as authority figures, not as speed bumps. Why did the parents not indoctrinate some sort of respect for elders. Rather than focusing on winning the race, the children should have stopped. I respect that children have the attention span of a gnat and should not be expected to act "reasonably" all the time. Maybe they weren't mature enough yet to even think to yield to pedestrians. If that's the case, then the parents should not be allowing them to ride around the streets.

There are plenty of bike/jogging paths in NY they could go. On those paths, the other people are reasonably aware of bike traffic. An average pedestrian on a Manhattan sidewalk is not reasonably expected to be on the lookout for a speeding bike that might come out of nowhere.

The parents are responsible, for not teaching the children correctly, or not chaperoning them correctly. I don't care which you choose, but it's the parents fault, either way.


It's already been said, but the OP was poorly worded. The children aren't being sued, they are just being named in the suit because they are the transgressors. The actual target of the suit is the parents that have money and are liable. The title was deceptively worded to be attention grabbing, and that's fine. But, the opening post was a fail. You know the girl isn't really being sued, JP. Even if she was, there's no risk of jail time in a lawsuit. She's not being criminally charged. I hope you were just failing at trying to be funny, and not truly being that naive.

And so speaks the great, all knowing Rota...

ITS MTV!!!ITS BRAINWASHING AMERICA!!!oh AND BARACK OBAMA,HES RUINED OUR COUNTRY.

And so speaks the stupid, no-nothing TrulySorry...

please PLEASE SHUDUP

if i were the parents i would pay the damages out of respect i wouldnt need to be sued
both sides went to far
and im pretty sure letting a little child
a infant ride her bike on a city side walk like manhatten is out of the question most definately neglegence it self

but for the most part i agree with montros

Yay I haz a folowr....

[japanpimp]

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.

Ok, have a go at Devils Advo. Let's get it on...
Ok, even IF the parents tried their best to control and supervise the 4 year old kids, hey, kids don't always listen. So the parents get sued because their 4 year old kid did not listen to them? Let's put this in more better edumacated terms... after all, I are edumacated a little. Is a 4 year old capable of making rational decisions? For the most part, no. Is a retard or crazy person capable of making rational decisions, not really. In the court of law, if a crazy or mentally retarded person would have accidently hit the 87 year old lady, could they be sued? What if the mentally retarded person had a guardian at the time. And that guardian tried to stop the retard but the retard went running away like greased lightening, arms flailing, and hit the lady. Does the guardian get sued? Same should apply to a 4 year old. A 4 year old is basically mentally retarded. As in a very underdeveloped brain thus not able to make rational decisions or even act rationally.

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.

Don't know about japan. But I would think you are right. Japan has a different legal system. The courts cannot use past cases as a presidence on rulings. That is american law system. In japan, the law is very linear. Judges make the laws (I believe) and it is set in stone. Past cases do not influence outcome of existing or future cases at all. So I would assume that Japan has already made a basic law about age groups that can and cannot have legal action brought against them. That would be a very basic component that I am sure has been set in stone.