“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.” [New York Times] Earlier: suit against 8 year old skier in Colorado. More: Eugene Volokh and Eric Turkewitz on the legal background.
21 Comments
I long for the days when the citizenry understood there were such things as accidents, which were simply part of life and were not legally actionable. Or, if they were legally actionable, the injured party had the good sense not to bring a suit.
The injured party died.
An accident that led to death is too small to be swept under the rug. I thought that Parents were legally responsible for their child’s actions until the child reached the age of maturaty. I can see suing the Mother, not the child, since she was “supervising” her child.
Suing the mother and/or the child accomplishes what?
If my grandmother died in that manner, I would reassure the mother and child that it was an accident, let them know I forgave them, and continue on with my life.
But I guess that would be “sweeping it under the rug”…
Paul-
I was referring to the estate, who must feel they are “injured” in some way or form, or else they wouldn’t be suing.
One should certainly be liable for compensation if they caused an unjustified death. The family has financial losses. I’ll defer emotional losses and the like to another flame war. 🙂
But if you sue a kid, what can you collect? Can you garnishee the kid’s allowance? Take a bite out of every candy bar? If the parents are liable anyway, then why name the kid as a principal?
Legal question: If you win a judgment against a 4 year old, can you still enforce it 17 years later, when the kid reaches his majority?
Leaving insurance aside (since we all know that her parents’ homeowners policy is the real reason the suit was filed), she should declare bankruptcy.
Her credit rating will be restored at age 11, seven years before she can actually use credit.
Answering your question specifically, there is no reason to sue her if her parents don’t have a homeowners insurance policy.
But they probably do, and she’s covered under it. Good luck to the plaintiffs in front of a jury.
Sue the parents. The kid ain’t got no money.
Mannie-
Good point. I could see suing for expenses such as hospital care and the like that would be covered under a homeowners insurance policy.
What I don’t know, and the article doesn’t mention, is whether the grandmother contributed to the accident. Did she step out in front of the kids roaring down the sidewalk, or was she standing there and they ran her down? Makes a lot of difference to me.
Just another reason we used to put playing cards on the frame to be hit by the spokes. But now with solid plastic wheels, that isn’t possible.
It should make a lot of difference to the jury, too. I’m sure it will be argued.
You people don’t understand: the wicked must be made to pay for their crime. That means the insurance company.
Bob
The kids had nothing to do with her death.
NY Times, “She died three months later of unrelated causes.”
The New York Times says her death was unrelated to the accident. So the little girl didn’t kill her. I think they are getting some pretty bad legal advice. Sometimes unfortunate accidents just happen and it’s nobody’s fault.
The New York Times says her death was unrelated to the accident. So the little girl didn’t kill her.”
Are you really under the impression that, in the one day between publication of the decision in the New York Law Journal and the NYT running the story, that the NYT miraculously procured all of her medical records and had them reviewed by an expert?
She’s was not even old enough to be in kindergarten…
What did the 87 year old lady die from? Maybe that explains why she stepped in front of 2 toddlers on bicycles w/ training wheels…
They’ll get a writ of attachment and seize the kid’s bicycle…
The court’s order describes the complaint as alleging that the collision caused “severe injuries” and does not mention any claim that the accident caused the woman’s death. I guess the lawyers for the estate just aren’t as smart as Turkewitz and didn’t know they should obtain the medical records related to the woman’s death and have them reviewed by an expert. Or maybe they did their homework, know that there is no relationship between the two events and have more regard for their ethical obligations than other plaintiff’s attorneys.
Or maybe they did their homework, know that there is no relationship between the two events and have more regard for their ethical obligations than other plaintiff’s attorneys.
It was a motion to dismiss at the outset of the lawsuit. Discovery has not been done. The extent of the injuries were not at issue before the court. The only issue before the court is whether the Complaint is legally sufficient to proceed, which is to say, can the 4 year old be found to be negligent given her age. It is not material to the court, at this stage, whether the injury is a broken pinky or death.
You should not mistake a cursory mention of something for a conclusionary finding.
The procedural posture of the case has nothing to do with this point.
You responded to another readers’ comment that the NYT stated the death was unrelated to the incident by implying that the Times statement was not worthy of belief because it had not procured the medical records and had them reviewed by an expert. My comment was intended to point out that – based on the statements made in the order regarding the allegations of the complaint, not any findings of fact that would be inappropriate in deciding a motion to dismiss – the estate does not appear to claim that the incident caused the elderly woman’s death.
Plaintiff’s lawyers do not need discovery to ascertain what injuries the victim (or those claiming through the victim) supposedy suffered and generally overstate, not understate, allegations of damage. If the complaint does not include such a claim, one can either conclude that plaintiff’s counsel did not do the expected medical investigation or did so and concluded that alleging that the incident caused death was not justified. Unless there is an independent reason to believe that counsel for the estate is incompetent, the Times is justified in relying on the complaint’s failure to attribute the death to the accident. There is no need for the Times to review the chart and to imply otherwise is unjsutified.