Judge rules 4 year old can be sued

[∞∞∞]

Citing cases dating back as far as 1928, a judge has ruled that a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence.

But what about the parents?

Mr. Tyrie had also argued that Juliet should not be held liable because her mother was present; Justice Wooten disagreed.

“A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street,” the judge wrote. He added that any “reasonably prudent child,” who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there. The crucial factor is whether the parent encourages the risky behavior; if so, the child should not be held accountable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyreg ... terstitial

[Ivytalk]

The first thing I learned in first-year torts class was "parents are not liable for the torts of their children."

[BlueHen86]

Sad. The only winners in this case will be the lawyers.

[SuperHornet]

Sad. The only winners in this case will be the lawyers.

Holding a four-year-old to 10-year-old standards is ludicrous. This judge ought to be out of a job....

[mebison]

This woman's family should be ashamed of themselves. The woman didn't die because of the girl. The woman fell because of the girl. She died because she was 87 years old and that's what happens when you are 87 years old and any little thing happens to you. Money-grubbers, pure and simple.

[SuperHornet]

This woman's family should be ashamed of themselves. The woman didn't die because of the girl. The woman fell because of the girl. She died because she was 87 years old and that's what happens when you are 87 years old and any little thing happens to you. Money-grubbers, pure and simple.