Four Year Old Sued, Could Be Held Liable for Negligence

[madfranks]

Link Here (http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-4-year-old-sued,0,4732230.story)

NEW YORK (WPIX) —
A four-year-old girl -- accused of mowing down an 87-year-old woman with her bike on a Manhattan sidewalk -- is being sued for negligence.

The incident occurred in April 2009, when Claire Menagh was struck by two four-year-old's -- identified as Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn -- who were apparently racing their bikes on an East Side sidewalk.

According to a complaint, the children's mother's were with them during the time of the incident and the woman was "seriously and severely injured." In fact, reports state the woman suffered a hip fracture and underwent surgery. Officials say Menagh died three weeks later.

The decision, which was made official by King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten on Thursday, is causing a major divide in the neighborhood.

Menagh's estate is suing both children and their mothers. However, Breitman's attorney, James Tyrie, argued that four is too young to be liable, citing the fact that courts have held in the past that children under the age of four are "incapable of negligence."

However, Wooten dismissed arguments by Breitman's lawyer that the case should be dismissed because of her young age. He instead ruled that she is old enough to be sued and the case can proceed.

In addition, Wooten disagreed with Breitman's statement that the young girl should not be sued because her mother was supervising at the time.

"A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street," Wooten wrote.

[General of Darkness]

Sounds like a bunch of jews, Breitman, Kohn, and Menagh. Well it is New York

[Twisted Titan]

A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street," Wooten wrote.


Unless the child is the Parent of a Cop...... .......................

Then they are afforded the same protects of The State.


T

[Mouse]

Let them j themselves to death. Pikers all. The four year old jew should pay the 88 year old jew all of her slave labor, less taxes, forever. I want to see it come down. Bring it down, Bring it down.

ps learn to swim

[Spectrism]

The old woman or her caretakers are the negligent ones. If she is that fragile, she should NOT have been walking on a NYC sidewalk. If I were judge/jury, I would throw this trash case right out.... and fine them for frivolous lawsuit.

[Neuro]

Seems like the family fortune is held by the 4 year old, and the mother is penniless...

[Awoke]

What a joke the states have become.

What a sense of entitlement. How pathetic.

[Ash_Williams]

"If you don't like my driving then get off the sidewalk."

[BrewTech]

"A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street," Wooten wrote.

What the hell does "a reasonable child" mean? We are talking about a four-year old kid here.

My understanding is that "reason" is a human mental faculty that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. I don't know about others here, but I haven't known too many preschoolers that have a well-developed capacity for sound reasoning.

The judge's statement is asinine and ridiculous. I wonder what he stands to gain out of this case.

[Ash_Williams]

I read some more articles 'cause of how silly this sound and it seems there is some sort of older case law that applies here. Unfortunately the media assumes were all too stupid to understand the details (or they don't understand them) so they just give bits and pieces of the story. From what I gathered, he didn't rule that a 4 year old could be sued, but simply recognized that existing law was that the kid could be sued if not under the age of 4. Judges are bound by precedent... show them the right precedent and have no real argument from the other side and you're done.

[Spectrism]

I read some more articles 'cause of how silly this sound and it seems there is some sort of older case law that applies here. Unfortunately the media assumes were all too stupid to understand the details (or they don't understand them) so they just give bits and pieces of the story. From what I gathered, he didn't rule that a 4 year old could be sued, but simply recognized that existing law was that the kid could be sued if not under the age of 4. Judges are bound by precedent... show them the right precedent and have no real argument from the other side and you're done.



"Case law" is no law at all. Think about all the crap being legislated from the courts by the idiotic judgments. These are now called case law as if they were legislated through legitimate authorities. Those who will trumpet "case law" are the same who seek to enslave you.

[Joe King]

I read some more articles 'cause of how silly this sound and it seems there is some sort of older case law that applies here. Unfortunately the media assumes were all too stupid to understand the details (or they don't understand them) so they just give bits and pieces of the story. From what I gathered, he didn't rule that a 4 year old could be sued, but simply recognized that existing law was that the kid could be sued if not under the age of 4. Judges are bound by precedent... show them the right precedent and have no real argument from the other side and you're done.



"Case law" is no law at all. Think about all the crap being legislated from the courts by the idiotic judgments. These are now called case law as if they were legislated through legitimate authorities. Those who will trumpet "case law" are the same who seek to enslave you.
Who are these legitimate authorities you speak of? Congress?
Are you saying that you'd prefer that no laws be Judged, and that everything enacted by the Legislative branch should be final?

[Ash_Williams]

"Case law" is no law at all. Think about all the crap being legislated from the courts by the idiotic judgments. These are now called case law as if they were legislated through legitimate authorities. Those who will trumpet "case law" are the same who seek to enslave you.

It can work for you or against you.
What probably happened here is one lawyer brought in case law while the other lawyer brought nothing of substance.
The second lawyer hoped the judge would decide in his favor, while the first lawyer simply took the decision out of the judge's hands.
Any one of us can be creative and do the same thing.

[Spectrism]

I read some more articles 'cause of how silly this sound and it seems there is some sort of older case law that applies here. Unfortunately the media assumes were all too stupid to understand the details (or they don't understand them) so they just give bits and pieces of the story. From what I gathered, he didn't rule that a 4 year old could be sued, but simply recognized that existing law was that the kid could be sued if not under the age of 4. Judges are bound by precedent... show them the right precedent and have no real argument from the other side and you're done.



"Case law" is no law at all. Think about all the crap being legislated from the courts by the idiotic judgments. These are now called case law as if they were legislated through legitimate authorities. Those who will trumpet "case law" are the same who seek to enslave you.
Who are these legitimate authorities you speak of? Congress?
Are you saying that you'd prefer that no laws be Judged, and that everything enacted by the Legislative branch should be final?


The LEGISLATIVE branch of government is the only one with the authority to enact laws. Valid laws are consistent with the constitution. The courts have judges that are APPOINTED - not elected. The resilience of our system has been the duration of those appointed tenures to reduce the sway of election fads. Unfortunately, corruption and trash appointments have been happening for so long that the stability is now one of base levels rather than scholar and principle. The new "case law" is not a simple ease of presidence but of new directions for law with scopes far beyond original legislative intent.

My dream is to see many black-robed court pretenders dancing alongside usurping elected traitors at the ends of ropes. I suspect that won't happen but a worse judgment will befall them all when they stand before a perfect and holy God.