New York Judge rules 6-year-old can be sued

New York Judge rules 6-year-old can be sued

www.reuters.com

The ruling by King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten stems from an incident in April 2009 when Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, both aged four, struck an 87-year-old pedestrian, Claire Menagh, with their training bikes.

"For infants above the age of 4, there is no bright-line rule," Wooten wrote, adding that the girl had been three months shy of turning 5.

Wooten also disagreed with the lawyer's assertion that Juliet Breitman should not be held responsible because her mother was supervising the children at the time.

"A parent's presence alone does not give a reasonable c

(visit the link for the full news article)

Suing a 6 year old child for their actions that led to an accident when they were 4 years old?

I can understand suing the parents for damages, and holding the parents (who were supervising) legally accountable for damages if it could be found that they were demonstrably negligent...but saying that a child of age 4 who is innocently riding a bicycle for the first time is mentally and emotionally capable of making legal decisions for themselves beyond the supervision of their parents, and is mentally and emotionally capable of standing trial for those decisions is absolutely ridiculous and a farce!

Listen grandma, sorry you were too slow to react and got hit by a 4 year old riding a tricycle and the fall caused you to break your hip. I understand Social Security is tight and doesn't cover jack and you have to find someone to pay the medical bills. However, what in your mind made you think you could sue a 4 year old child, let alone appeal to a higher Court? Is it easier to prove that this wasn't just an unfortunate accident and that someone was demonstrably negligent in going after the 4 year old instead of the family? Sounds to me like you are either a money-grubbing opportunist or you have a lawyer who takes lawyers to a whole new level of scum-baggery.

To find a NY Supreme Court Judge who agrees with your scum-bag lawyer is even more frightening as we expect nothing less of lawyers but assume that Judges will uphold better judgment.

I'm sure there are plenty here that will find this equally ridiculous, however the scary part is the legal ramifications of this!

If a child, despite supervision of their parents, can be held legally accountable for their actions as a fully competent adult, then this blows the doors open on a whole new shameful era in our Judicial System.

To where should I address my Amicus of the Court?

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by fraterormus


What is the Judge going to Rule for Damages ? Will this Little Girls Allowance be Garnished to Pay for Damages ? I mean , this Ruling is INSANE , the Judge should be sent to Belview for Psycological Testing !

I saw this on the news yesterday and my jaw just about hit the floor.
I truly don't understand, how exactly is the child going to be held legally accountable? A fine? What is she going to pay the fine with? Her allowance? If so then it's actually the parents who are paying!
Are they going to send a Six year old to jail if she can't pay the fine? or send bailiffs in to reposes her Barbie collection

Ongoing thread here from 10-30-2010 in this forum

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sure, let's get the kid in court. Let the judge, and attorneys yabber on, giving the kid a complex. After all, the kid killed an old lady!

THEN, the family should ask that the judge, and other negligent players in the farce, be ARRESTED for child abuse. Further, the parents should sue the judge, and other accomplices, for permanently damaging their child, who will never be the same.

Of course, often the answer to such ludicrous news items is something as common as the ugly skeletons in the judge's closet. Find a few of those, and all questions would likely be answered.

JR

reply to post by fraterormus


The thing that disgusts me is that someone would actually consider suing a child. I mean thats what had to happen for this judge to make that ruling. I mean really... this is almost comical....is life really turning into a sitcom!?

If children this young are legally allowed to be sued, I wonder if they are also old enough to seek refugee status in another country, where a person cannot be sued until they are legally an adult, like maybe at 18.

That's an interesting thought on the ramifications.

That also has me wondering what this court precedent means for immigration. Does that mean a child born in the United States to illegal immigrants can now legally seek citizenship as a child rather than face deportation with their parents?

Likewise, if children are held legally accountable for their actions, does that mean that it is now okay for predatory lenders to sign-up children for pre-approved Credit Cards and Loans? If they are regarded by the law as legally accountable, then they can legally enter binding contracts...

Does that mean that 4 year old Jill can sue 4 year old Jack for Defamation of Character when Jack told everyone on the preschool playground that she was a "Bugger Eater"? As if our Judicial system wasn't already overburdened with overly-litigious lawsuits with little or no merit!

reply to post by fraterormus

Originally posted by fraterormus
That's an interesting thought on the ramifications.

That also has me wondering what this court precedent means for immigration. Does that mean a child born in the United States to illegal immigrants can now legally seek citizenship as a child rather than face deportation with their parents?

Likewise, if children are held legally accountable for their actions, does that mean that it is now okay for predatory lenders to sign-up children for pre-approved Credit Cards and Loans? If they are regarded by the law as legally accountable, then they can legally enter binding contracts...

Does that mean that 4 year old Jill can sue 4 year old Jack for Defamation of Character when Jack told everyone on the preschool playground that she was a "Bugger Eater"? As if our Judicial system wasn't already overburdened with overly-litigious lawsuits with little or no merit!

Here, Here...the only reason that I have quoted this entire post is because every sentence, on the ramifications of this absurd case is duely noted...and when it's put into context like this it makes you realise just how far the legal system has come and how far their willing to go.
Have a star on me

Originally posted by snowspirit
If children this young are legally allowed to be sued

This depends on several factors, but I don’t understand this ruling. The judge wrote that for a child “above the age of 4, there is no bright-line rule,” although it is true that there is no bright-line rule, the age used as reference is almost always 7 and not 4 as stated by the judge.

As I’ve mentioned this depends on several factors — one very important being the activity the child is engaged in at the time. Children can be subject to liability if they were engaged in “adult activities” — like driving a car — but, usually, as I’ve said before, this never applies to children below 7 years of age.

Riding a bike, more so one equipped with training wheels, doesn’t strike me as qualifying as an adult activity.

Originally posted by fraterormus
That's an interesting thought on the ramifications.
That also has me wondering what this court precedent means for immigration. Does that mean a child born in the United States to illegal immigrants can now legally seek citizenship as a child rather than face deportation with their parents?

A child born to illegal immigrants in the United States is already a US citizen, and doesn’t need to seek any legal action for this. This has been the law of the land for many decades.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Laughing at America. Though the UK is crazy I don' think we'd ever allow a case like this to get this far. Laughable, literally.

reply to post by DSSONE

Originally posted by DSSONE
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Laughing at America. Though the UK is crazy I don' think we'd ever allow a case like this to get this far. Laughable, literally.

O really...do you honestly have enough faith in our British Parliament that something like this wouldn't happen over here. The same Parliament that puts cameras on every street corner 'for our benefit', but when you have been assaulted/stabbed and report it the same cameras were conveniently pointing in the wrong direction.

They now use them to spy in your house again 'for our own benefit'. Our rules...erm sorry our laws, are increasing everyday and turning this country into a George Orwell novel.

Does this mean I can sue my Three yr. old for drawing on my kitchen table?

Originally posted by britt
Does this mean I can sue my Three yr. old for drawing on my kitchen table?

LOL! I guess it does.....I guess we are going have to start putting disclaimers on our children now.. "I will not be held accountable for actions I do not understand yet and probably won't remember in the future".... "Caution: when at play I will not be held accountable for damages that can probably be avoided by you (the adult)"..... What a pathetic moment for the courts...

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Sure, let's get the kid in court. Let the judge, and attorneys yabber on, giving the kid a complex. After all, the kid killed an old lady!

Of course, the timing of the old lady's death and the original misprint of it makes things even murkier for many people. The fact that she died of unrelated causes seems glossed over. It is sad that she lived the last of her days in pain (from fractured hip) and apparently anger about the kids. This is rediculous, though.

Think of all the compensations for pain and suffering, mothers could prosecute to claim after each birth.

So who pays the lawyers fees? The old lady who can't pay the medical bills? Or the 6 year old out of allowance?