Can a 4yr old be sued? Well if you live in the US of A...

[onearmedbandit]

The answer appears to be yes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=2&no_interstitial

[Dave Lobster]

If that isn't enough evidence to prove to everyone that speed kills, I don't know what is. :shit:

[Kickaha]

Your title is misleading, she's 6 and should now be old enough to accept responsibility for her callous disregard for others safety

[mashman]

:rofl: only in America eh... but once they're of school age they can have negligence charges brought against them because they should just bloody well know better :killingme... there's idiocy and then there's the utter ignorance of adults who just wanna screw people for a buck :facepalm:...

I guess if the govt and ACC get their way and the right to sue comes to NZ you can look forwards to the bludgers throwing themselves in front of kids bicycles, as long as they're over 5 :blink:...

[Winston001]

I'm not surprised because for many centuries the law has made parents liable in negligence for the actions of their children. So if your 15yr son has an accident driving your car, you could be held liable.

You will note the article says of Juliet's parents - "Rachel and Jacob Kohn did not seek to dismiss the case against them" which tells us they understand they face liability for their daughters act.

Mind you, this is only a skirmish, no decision on liability has been made.

I am however puzzled as to why Juliet is named as a defendant - usually that would be pointless, must be some legal advantage. Possibly her parents could be found not liable, but Juliet liable for damages, and the law in New York requires parents to pay childrens debts.

[slofox]

Amerikans - fookin' mad bastards.

[Bald Eagle]

Americans - nutters, and they want to run the free world, geeze. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

[spacemonkey]

Americans - nutters, and they want to run the free world, geeze. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

I think they do run the world by and large, if only by default..... Have you not noticed how fucked up things have been? :blink:

[Winston001]

Amerikans - fookin' mad bastards.

Not really. All this decision says is the plaintiffs can proceed with their claim including Juliet as a defendant. It doesn't mean the claim will be successful. Certainly you wouldn't try it in NZ.

If someone's 4yr old, under their parents supervision, knocked your MV Agusta over with costly consequences, what would you do? Assuming your insurance didn't cover it (maybe you'd forgotten to renew).

[onearmedbandit]

I'm no lawyer but in no way would I be holding a 4yr old responsible in any shape or form. I'm the parent of a 4yr old, anything she gets into or breaks, it's my responsibility as a parent to; a) teach her properly so she understands better, and b) front up for any damage. Not hers. Neither should she be called a 'defendant' or have to go through any legal action.

Dear Sophia's Teacher,

Unfortunately Sophia will not be able to attend pre-school today. Not it's not the flu, or head lice, nor even chicken-pox (I remind you she has already had that), but one of the other little bumps in childhood that we can all remember, yes that's right she is a defendant in a negligence-causing-injury case and is required to attend court.

We hope this can all be settled by mid week so she can attend the fairy-princess concert on Friday.

[slofox]

...including Juliet as a defendant.

Exactly...

[Winston001]

I'm no lawyer but in no way would I be holding a 4yr old responsible in any shape or form. I'm the parent of a 4yr old, anything she gets into or breaks, it's my responsibility as a parent to; a) teach her properly so she understands better, and b) front up for any damage.....


So what would you do if the parents just shrugged, said sorry about the bike, and refused to pay any compensation? What do you think should happen? I'm genuinely interested.

[onearmedbandit]

Unless things have changed from when I used to get into shit as a minor the parents are responsible for the actions of any minor under their care.

[Tink]

So what would you do if the parents just shrugged, said sorry about the bike, and refused to pay any compensation? What do you think should happen? I'm genuinely interested.
As per bling Winston.... accident or intentional... the big question. A 4 yr old bumps a 85 or 87 (no biggy with age)... woman, and she falls.... and dies (sadly she could have done this anywhere).... but fact is it happened to a minor.... the whole thing is really a joke.

Now if it had been intentional yes I would question the upbringing of the child, as per say the 11 yr olds in Masterton... all in all... does court have to define Accident or Intent?

Parents (yes to others here), are responsible, but honestly COURT for a 5-6 yr old...

What are they trying to do... catch them early??? Interested! :)

[Winston001]

OK Tink, the question of intent is a criminal concept (mens rea), whereas this is a civil action. It is a matter of negligence. No crime involved.

I'd guess this is a novel action by a lawyer trying to stretch the boundaries of the law. You'll note the parents who are also being sued have not tried to have the case against them dismissed. Only for Juliet.

If anything this illustrates what a litigious society the USA is. Its estimated that 1/3 of the cost of medical care is soaked up by litigation insurance cover. Doctors and hospitals cannot exist without insurance protection.

Also suing for negligence is so common that the insurance companies settle claims paying out just to get rid of them. It's cheaper than going through a civil trial. I'm guessing that is one of the tactics here - Juliet's parents may settle rather than carry on.

[onearmedbandit]

She died, yes, but from unrelated issues.

[Tink]

OK Tink, the question of intent is a criminal concept (mens rea), whereas this is a civil action. It is a matter of negligence. No crime involved.

I'd guess this is a novel action by a lawyer trying to stretch the boundaries of the law. You'll note the parents who are also being sued have not tried to have the case against them dismissed. Only for Juliet.

If anything this illustrates what a litigious society the USA is. Its estimated that 1/3 of the cost of medical care is soaked up by litigation insurance cover. Doctors and hospitals cannot exist without insurance protection.

Also suing for negligence is so common that the insurance companies settle claims paying out just to get rid of them. It's cheaper than going through a civil trial. I'm guessing that is one of the tactics here - Juliet's parents may settle rather than carry on.

Honestly though Winston, how dare this even make court, regardless of the charges being dropped on Juliet... the age difference is enough to say... ACCIDENT. Surely? As one stated here "only in america"... the thoughts obviously to the family, but in my eyes regardless of negligence by the parents, how can they watch their child whilst walking down a road... amazingly they have too, or they will get sued etc.

She died, yes, but from unrelated issues.

Exactly... unrelated.. hmmm

[Winston001]

Honestly though Winston, how dare this even make court, regardless of the charges being dropped on Juliet... the age difference is enough to say... ACCIDENT. Surely?

As one stated here "only in america"... the thoughts obviously to the family, but in my eyes regardless of negligence by the parents, how can they watch their child whilst walking down a road... amazingly they have too, or they will get sued etc.


Yes I'm sure we all think this is pretty stupid. I'm simply explaining the legal perspective in the American climate for blaming somebody.

Lets be clear - there are no charges. No criminal act. Its a civil law suit asking a judge to award damages (money compensation) against the defendants. The suit might be dismissed and nothing paid.

Define "Accident". If I run into you and damage your bike, I sure as heck didn't intend to do that. Its just an accident so you can do your own repairs.....right?

Parents must watch young children at all times. What if Juliet biked onto the street and was killed?

[Kickaha]

What if Juliet biked onto the street and was killed?

In America you would sue the person who hit and killed her, then the driver would counter sue for the child not being under adequate supervision:facepalm:

[Tink]

In America you would sue the person who hit and killed her, then the driver would counter sue for the child not being under adequate supervision:facepalm:

When I was driving in the states, I also was on bikes, and walked a lot... My aunty also said if its smaller than you, you loose! So I steered clear of dogs, cats, people shorter than me, motorbikes, other cars, deer ... and another time we got stopped for speeding on the motorway, and the officer made my cousin get out the car and step into his car.... we were 18... never again.

America is a great place to ride, but hell I would have good insurance.:blink:

[Indiana_Jones]

The flip side is so much better here:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10683810

"A desperate mother is begging for help to punish her 11-year-old son, who has admitted ransacking graves and starting a fire in a $300,000 spree of destruction with a mate.

A Masterton police spokesman said that from there, conditions would be imposed on the boys, but they were not criminally liable for their actions because of their age."

-Indy

[Cr1MiNaL]

Yes I'm sure we all think this is pretty stupid. I'm simply explaining the legal perspective in the American climate for blaming somebody.

Lets be clear - there are no charges. No criminal act. Its a civil law suit asking a judge to award damages (money compensation) against the defendants. The suit might be dismissed and nothing paid.

Define "Accident". If I run into you and damage your bike, I sure as heck didn't intend to do that. Its just an accident so you can do your own repairs.....right?

Parents must watch young children at all times. What if Juliet biked onto the street and was killed?

Hi Winston,
It's actually not a civil law issue at all. Negligence is a tort - a separate part of law all together. I notice some of the other comparing law to NZ, this cannot be reasonable done as Americans have a written constitution and their law is codified i.e. civil law as opposed to the common law system we run here in NZ, as we don't have a formal document we can call a constitution. Based on my law background, if a case like this was brought in NZ, the 4 year old will very likely not be liable to owe a duty of care to the old lady - Age of Minority Act. Secondly, if the charge for being a negligent parent was brought on the mother, then the courts will consider what a 'reasonable' mother could be expected to do given she could not directly control the actions of her 4 year old. The only exception to negligence is: Proximity, Foreseeability and Rescue. The second one is the only debatable one and it is likely as above that the courts will dismiss the charges. I am sure I could dig up a few precedents to back this up as no doubt there is a very similar case somewhere in the NZLR or QB database.