A New York judge ruled that a 6-year-old can be sued. What do you think? (details included).

Just an unfortunate accident….to sue tiny children is overkill. No pun intended.

I suppose the parents should have been supervising such little kids on their bikes, but…still….I do not agree with the lawsuit.

I read about that last night (here) and I thought it was insane. It’s not the lady they accidentally hit that is suing (and her death was not related to them accidentally hitting her from what I read). Instead, her estate is suing these children. (That is what I think is insane.)

If the lady was suing them (well their parents) because of her broken hip and the medical care, I could kind of understand that, but I don’t get why her estate is doing it. From my understanding, the kids’ mothers were supervising. Nothing in the article I read said what happened immediately following the accident, just that the lady broke her hip and required surgery. For all we know, the lady told them it’s no big deal because it was just an accident.

Pure mental as they say in these parts.

America is so litigious, didn’t somebody even try to sue God once?

Oh this is fabulous! I can’t wait to sue my kids for not doing their chores or homework. This is the best news E-V-E-R!!!

Shoot or else depose the judge.

FFS!! Common sense should prevail here! As soon as it gets to court it should be laughed out straight away and the Judge that said it could go ahead in the first case should be struck off immediately.
An unfortunate accident, I bet the old lady is turning in her grave.

@Seaofclouds thanks for that link, much better article I think.

@phaedryx You’re welcome.

I’ll be interested to see how it comes out.

Playing devil’s advocate here: I presume that the plaintiff’s attorney presented enough facts about the case to convince the judge that the four-year-old is not entirely blameless. (We’ll have to see how it comes out, though.) But I expect that the plaintiff will attempt to show some amount of “callous disregard” for the safety of the old woman, that the kids could have been “buzzing” her until one of them “accidentally” hit her and knocked her over—and that they should have known better, even at their age. (Didn’t we all know at that age to be careful of old people on the street?) At that age, a broken hip can be a death sentence to an older person, particularly a woman. (It’s not the broken hip itself but the initial shock and later confinement to bed that does them in. And three months is a long time to be lingering from that injury.)

I expect that in the end it’ll be settled by the parents’ insurance company and their attorneys, however. I’m curious why the suit wasn’t brought against the parent, however, for some form of negligence in “supervising” her child.

@CyanoticWasp

I agree that there may be some form of negligence on the behalf of the parents, but no, I don’t agree that 4–6 yr. olds should know better.

This is where supervision comes in.

Kids get lost in the moment, hell, many adults do as well.

4–6 yr. old children are not responsible for a lack of consciousness when involved in play, this is an evolving developmental unfolding and if anything I think the parents lack of supervision is what’s questionable.

Also, purely from a developmental POV, kids that little are very narcissistic, they are barely at the beginning of their understanding of cause and effect and empathy.

If they were being little shits. their parents made them that way…kids that young can’t be assholes without an adult asshole to emulate. The parents should be sued, if anything.

Things like this are, clearly, why people think America is so pathetic. And it’s cases like this that make me completely agree with them, and want to move. Suing 6-year-olds? Give me a fucking break.

Were they being little shits or was the old bag just on the sidewalk and in the way and since they were new to bike riding they didn’t know how to get around her. For all you know she was an evil thing that felt she owned the walk and wouldn’t let the kids she saw coming pass. I’m not saying that IS what happened but it could be exactly what occured. But to sue minors and for the Supreme Court to be on board with this….just ludicrous. Makes you wonder if any of them have a brain in their heads. This kind of stupidity is scary. What next?

Whats really sad is that these little kids are being set up for all kinds of guilt and bad feelings.

Jesus they are little kids!

I just hope the ‘adults’ in their lives are not seriously blaming them, talk about setting up someone for a lifetime of issues.

My opinion is it was simply an unfortunate accident, case closed!

This wasn’t really much of a ruling, the judge just pulled up some ancient precedent that pretty clearly states that only kids below age four are automatically un-suable. The kid wasn’t under four, so the judge said “ok! I’ve got some old rulings to cover my ass on this silly case, so no one can tell me I made the wrong decision. You may sue this child!”

I think the strangest part is that the plaintiff included children in the suit at all. Maybe there’s something I’m missing here, but it seems to make more sense to go after the parents only, since they seem to be ultimately responsible for the kid, plus they have more than 75 cents in their piggy banks. Maybe you’d have to prove negligence on the parent’s part, which might be more difficult than proving the child was negligent.

Hmm…. ruminate ruminate ruminate…

Here in Europe such things are considered true accidents and no one is held to blame. We can’t even get insurance for what our kids do when we travel places. Ironically, we’d be insured if we trashed the hotel room on purpose, but damage from a child when a parent is in the bathroom can’t be covered (cost us about a thousand euro for a broken door lock).

Kids on bikes accidentally hitting an elderly person… oh my, but the fact the deceased’s relative can bring a civil proceeding against minors is beyond belief. America… fix yourself!

Its not as bad as it seems. All that happened is that the judge didn’t dismiss the case. The case is silly and I’m not sure where damages will come from, but it looks like the judge did the right thing. If the law says she can be sued, the judge has to uphold that. The legislature has to change the rule, not the courts.

Also, this isn’t the supreme court. This is the State Supreme Court which is actually the lowest level court in New York.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/structure.shtml

Edit: Also, this will probably go in front of a jury and I would imagine they would think its silly and not award damages.

Actually I was walking on a narrow footbridge across a creek just last week. A little girl maybe 5 or 6 came towards me riding her bicycle with training wheels. Since I was in the middle of the bridge and the kid had not yet entered onto the bridge, one would think that common courtesy would suggest she wait until I got off but nope she came tearing right at me, I moved over as far as I could but she banged into my thigh as she went past. She could easily have knocked me off the bridge. Her father was following along behind and he too came onto the bridge before I could recover and get across, he smiled apologetically and explained she didn’t know how to use her brakes. I told him he and the kid were bloody idiots and why the hell didn’t he teach her some manners and how to use her brakes.

If I had been injured and required any sort of medical treatment, I feel it should have been the responsibility of the one who caused me to injure myself. Obviously though I feel it was negligence on the part of the father. I am sure with this sort of parenting, the kid will grow up to be a wonderful addition to society.

This is yet another problem I find with current society. I despise the fact that everyone is so “sue-happy” just as I despise how PC everyone has become. In short, the human race is slowly going down the toilet. With my vomit of disgust directly behind.

@rooeytoo I think the parents actions and response has a major roll in things like this. If you heard the father trying to get his daughter to stop and then he ran up to you to check on you immediately (without making excuses for his daughter), would you have looked at things a little differently?

@Seaofclouds – of course, but if I was injured because of his negligence I still feel he should be responsible for my medical expenses.

@WillWorkForChocolate – so in your mind, if I had been injured and incurred medical costs, I should have just smiled and said, that’s okay, she’s just a child, doesn’t know any better and obviously you are one of those parents who is too stupid to do your job and teach manners, respect for others and safety.

I believe in personal accountability and that means paying for your own mistakes and omissions so if you consider that being sue happy, then I am being followed by your vomit. (lovely visuals there)

If I were around a six year old on a bicycle, I would assume that it is my responsibility to avoid being run over.

@LostInParadise – You and the kid’s father would get along perfectly then. My father would have taught me how to use the brakes before he let me loose on society and he also told me to be respectful of others and their right to walk safely.

The child may not be blameless, but this is still pretty ridiculous. At the most it is negligence (and stupidity in the case of the parents), but the parents should probably help pay medical expenses and so forth.

God, this little girl is going to grow up so screwed up. Can you imagine learning at 4 that everyone is out to sue you for no real reason? I mean, sure, I bet the kids who were abused can, and look how well that turned out for them! ::goes and schedules extra therapy appointments…::

@rooeytoo I agree in the personal accountability thing, but are you saying the father or the child should be sued (in your hypothetical).

@roundsquare – first of all I didn’t say I would sue, that was @WillWorkForChocolate‘s interpretation of my response. What I did say was that the father should be responsible for medical expenses incurred by his child’s actions. I believe parents and dog owners are responsible for the behavior of and any damages caused by their inability to control or train their charges so as not to infringe on the rights of others.

As I said if that makes me the cause of someone’s nausea, then so be it, I accept the responsibility for that.

I do think it is crazy to sue a 6 year old, what assets do they have? Now if they have a trust fund worth a couple of billion I might change my mind. Truly though I believe it is the parent who is lacking in responsibility here.

@rooeytoo Sorry, I read it quickly. Anyway, I was more asking about the parent vs kid thing.

I read this in the paper this morning and thought “how freaking stupid”. A 6 year old has no idea what being sued is about. What the hell they think they’ll get ‘his tooth fairy money’?
The judges give the celebrity druggies a break and torment a child. Our legal system is screwed up BAD!!

@rooeytoo I didn’t interpret your response. I wasn’t replying to you at all. I didn’t even read your response. I simply made a statement about what I thought of the situation. Check yourself before making false assumptions and accusations please.

I wonder if this judge would be considered an ‘activist judge’ or not.

@WillWorkForChocolate – sorry Chocolate, your first response was directly under mine and in a moment of wild egomania, I assumed you were responding to me. You’re right, next time I will check myself before jumping in. Actually I am relieved to hear I am not the cause of the vomit part!!! :-)

@rooeytoo Nope. Just society in general. I agree that there should some responsibility on the parents’ part, but I completely disagree with deciding that a 6 yr old can be sued for something that happened when she was 4. My 4 yr old has accidentally kicked me, hit me, poked me in the eye, nailed me in the crotch, ripped my hair out, made me bleed, hit me in the head so hard I almost went to the doc to see if I had a concussion… nothing that killed me, but still, 4 yr olds do all kinds of things on accident. I’m quite positive that the child in question wasn’t thinking “Hey that old lady looks slow; I’m gonna run her ass down!”

Just the situation itself, and the fact that so many people are sued over complete accidents and stupidity really makes me angry. Sort of like that idiot woman who sued McDonalds because of the “hot coffee incident”. It’s completely ridiculous how far people will go to make a buck these days.

I didn’t get any on your shoes did I? :P

@WillWorkForChocolate

When my nephew was 4 he took a swing with a baseball bat behind me and nailed my ankle. I went down like a house of cards. lol

I didn’t sue my brother & sister-in-law though for negligence.

@Coloma See? that’s exactly what I’m talking about- the kid was 4!! My 4 yr old has no idea how to brake yet, she’s just happy she’s learned how to pedal herself on her tricycle and bicycle! She just sort of rolls to a stop when she wants to get off. She’s 4 for crying out loud! Some 4 yr olds are still wearing training pants at night because they haven’t mastered all night bladder control, for crying out loud! If they can’t control their own bladders, how are we supposed to expect them to have master control over a bicycle?

@WillWorkForChocolate

I agree.
Babes on bikes.

Hell my goose almost nabbed a little old lday Jehovohs witness in my driveway last year.
She must have been in her 80’s, ancient little woman. lol

Sooo, if my goose gooses an old lady and knocks her down even though she is technically trespassing on my property I still could be sued. Bah….foolishness! ;-)

@WillWorkForChocolate – I understand a 4 year old is not in full control. But if your 4 year old is riding her trike on a public sidewalk and runs into and injures a 90 year old who falls down and breaks a wrist, hell let’s say an ungainly 20 something year old, who is responsible. Granted you can’t sue a 4 year old and I don’t think trikes have brakes, so I guess the whole situation is a public sidewalk is not the proper venue for out of control trike riding by anyone of any age. However if it occurs who is going to pay the medical bills? How about if your child is run into by another child on a trike and your child breaks an arm, who is going to pay? Especially if you are on a fixed income and don’t have money to spare?

This is the point I am trying to make. Parents have to take responsibility for the actions of their children. And if this occurs on public property, not your backyard, what then??? And @Coloma what would have happened if he would have clocked his baby sister in the eye with the baseball bat? It isn’t his fault, I guess the question is why is a 4 year old playing with a baseball bat?

I think that people that think that parents can be hovering over their 4 year old at all times do not have children.

(wonders if @rooeytoo has kids)

@Patamomma – I think parents should hover over a 4 year old when there are baseball bats around. And whenever they are doing something that would endanger themselves or someone else.

@cazzie – nope never had them, never wanted them but helped to raise many. I don’t see that as relevant. I am of a generation when children were expected to behave. As I said above, my dad would have taught me to use the brakes on my bike and told me to allow walkers to have the right of way before he set me loose on society.

But this is all straying from the question, so to answer, no I think it is crazy to sue a 4 year old, sue the parents for medical expenses or negligence. Let’s face it, a broken hip is often a death sentence to someone that age. The parent could be an accomplice to manslaughter by not properly instructing the kid in how to responsibly ride a bike and not to run into people.
Sidewalks are designed for people not bikes of any size. And really if you can’t control your 4 year old, what the hell kind of control are you going to have when the kid is a teen ager???

hahahahahahaa….

@rooeytoo I get what you are saying about the medical expenses, but what about the fact that it is the lady’s estate suing the children and their mothers and not the lady herself (since she died after the fact of causes unrelated to the bike accident)? I’m interesting to know exactly what they are suing for and it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

@Seaofclouds – yep the whole thing seems sort of “out there.” Someone is trying to make headlines or a bundle. Maybe the family of the child is wealthy. Who knows??? It is a crazy world we live in, I would never deny that.

Unconscionable and stupid. This person is a judge?

@rooeytoo If my 4 yr old is riding her bike on a public sidewalk (which she never does- we ride in our neighborhood street) and she runs into someone, I’m quite certain she doesn’t have enough power behind her tiny 4 yr old self to actually cause lasting injuries. A bruise or two maybe, but nothing serious. She’s 4, she’s tiny. And she can’t be expected to think adult thoughts or have any sort of adult control. Nor should we be expected to form a bubble around her to keep anything bad from ever happening. You have to let kids experience things and do things on their own, otherwise they’ll grow into insecure, naive prats. I know, I watched it happen with my 7 cousins, because their parents overprotected them to a disgusting point.

I think the entire situation is stupid and those people are trying to make an easy buck and get themselves some attention in the process. That’s why many people sicken me these days.

And just FYI, if somebody else’s kid accidentally knocked me over with their bike, I’d probably just laugh about my own clumsiness. I certainly wouldn’t hold the kid’s parents responsible for any of it. Now, if it was a teenager and it was done intentionally, then you bet your ass I’d have something to say. If I was smacked by a 4 yr old, I’d probably grab her off her bike, toss her into my grass and proceed to tickle torture the little scamp.

Kids are kids, and they are prone to accidents. I should know, since my 4 yr old recently fell off her daddy’s shoulders because her older sister tickled her. She actually has a skull fracture and had some bleeding on the brain when the accident occurred. It was a pretty serious accident and if she had hit her head differently, it could have killed her. Should I blame my 9 yr old for it, since she’s the one who technically caused the fall? Or should I be gentle with her and reassure her that she’s not to blame? She couldn’t possibly have known that tickling her sister was going to cause her to let go of her daddy and fall to the floor. She didn’t tickle her with the intent of hurting her. She was just being a kid, and didn’t think about what might happen.

Out of everyone else on this thread at the moment, I have more reason to blame a child for a horrible accident that could have resulted in the death of my beloved tiny princess. Yet I don’t blame my headstrong 9 yr old at all. In fact, we keep telling her it wasn’t her fault and it was just an accident. And we would tell her the same thing, even if, God forbid, my little one had died. Why? Because she’s just a child and she didn’t mean to cause any harm! To blame her for an obvious accident would be to traumatize her for life and make her kick her own ass for many, many years.

@Seaofclouds I think the fact that the estate is suing probably gives this a little more legitimacy. If you are executing an estate you have all sorts of legally imposed responsibilities. I don’t think you’re really allowed to exercise much judgment… so I wouldn’t be surprised if whoever initiated the lawsuit thinks its stupid as well but feels obligated or pressured by the role they are in.

@WillWorkForChocolate While a 4-year-old riding into a 20— or 30-something year old may not do much damage, it’s very easy for 80— and 90-year-olds to fall and break their hip (like this lady did). Hip surgery is very intensive and patients have to go through quite a bit of therapy to recover.

Accidents happen, but we are still responsible for them. Parents are responsible for their children’s actions.

@roundsquare Why do you think it has more legitimacy because it’s from the estate? Without more information about what they are suing for and why there are doing it, I think it’s really hard to say. If there are left over medical bills from the lady’s injuries, I could understand them wanting these families to pay for it so they don’t have to, but what if the lady told them not to worry about it? Even then, why sue the children? Why not just sue the parents?

@Seaofclouds I agree, its all speculation (I’m hoping the opinion gets posted somewhere so I can actually read it…). But in general, executing an estate after someone has died means a lot of things you have to do.

Firstly, I’m guessing its not a lawsuit to recover money for the family but for the insurance company. I’m not sure how all insurance works, but a lot of policies require you to try and recover medical expenses covered by the insurance company after someone dies (so they can be reimbursed). If thats true, then its just a general rule and I’m sure whoever made the policy didn’t foresee this possibility.

So now you have a lawyer who is scared of being disbarred and looks into the best way to file a lawsuit. So we come to the second problem… somehow the legislature has decided that a 6 year old can be sued. I would like to see the statute but if my speculation is correct, this is the crux of the problem.

So, some lawyer makes a strategic decision. Lawyers are legally obligated to make the best strategic decisions for their clients and maybe thats what happened. It sort of makes sense. Its easier to sue the person who actually did the damage than someone who was supposed to supervise.

Finally, we come to a judge who sees the law and is duty bound to enforce it. If the law actually allows this the judge (especially at the lowest level court) can’t really stray from it. This might get reversed on appeal, but for now it looks like the judge is just being a regular judge, i.e. not at all activist.

I realize its a lot of speculation, but even if I got some details wrong, my point is that everyone in the chain is in a position where they are not allowed to exercise common sense.

On the other hand, if the old lady were still alive, I wouldn’t be surprised if she said “don’t be stupid” or “sue the parents.” At that point, she’d have the ability to exercise common sense, but I doubt the topic came up till after she died.

@Seaofclouds The kid was only 4. I don’t know how many times I can stress that. It’s not like the parents gave the kid an uzi and told her to go play, she was on a bike. Is it upsetting that the accident happened? Yes. Should the parents have to pay a ton of money because the poor lady fell? Hell no! Accidents happen all the time, and it’s sad, but when it comes to accidents, it’s not always someone’s fault or someone’s obligation to pay up. That’s why they’re called accidents.

If someone had to accept blame for every accident that ever occurred, my 9 yr old would be moping around the house horribly upset and depressed, blaming herself for her sister’s near death experience. I have as much reason to blame her, as this lady’s estate has reason to blame that poor kid. So how then should I punish her for causing her sister to fall and almost die? Should I spank her every day for a year, to cause her pain akin to her sister’s pain? Should I refuse to ever buy her a car or pay for her college since we owe the hospital so much money and tell her it’s her own fault that she can’t have anything? No. Why? Because it would be stupid and pointless. And it really isn’t her fault. It was just a stupid freak accident.

My brother fractured his ankle in high school because his coach kept making him run lap after lap, even though my brother had been complaining of severe pain in his ankle and foot. Should we have sued his coach? No. Why? Because he was doing his job, making his gym boys run and lot of the boys whined to get out of laps. How could he have known that my brother was truly having problems and that his ankle was going to break? He couldn’t have. It was a stupid accident.

People with the attitude that someone always has to be held responsible for stupid accidents are one of the main reasons our country is so damned sue happy. People win stupid lawsuits all the time, and innocent people have to pay up and drain themselves dry to satisfy that ridiculous attitude.

If I sued everyone who caused me to have an accident, I’d be a billionaire.

Man…. health insurance companies… it all comes back to that disgusting evil empire. America has got some fixin’ to do.

I believe that one person in every five in the United States is a lawyer or is in the legal profession. Give them a break, they have to make a living somehow.

@WillWorkForChocolate I see things differently than you do, but I am not saying people should be suing each other over these things. I’m just saying we as parents should take responsibility for what our children do. If my child did something like this, I would offer to help the person they caused harm to as part of being the parent. My child doesn’t need to know the financial part of it, but I do believe a child should know the effects of what they did, even if it was an accident. It’s part of learning from our life experiences. That doesn’t mean we have to make the child feel guilty about it or allow them to beat themselves up, but they should learn that if they ride their bike into someone, they could seriously hurt that person. Also, I never said anything about blame, just understanding that what we do has an effect on the people we do those things to.

In regards to your exact situation, I wouldn’t blame the 9-year-old or tell her it was her fault. I would however point out that maybe it’s not a good idea to tickle her little sister (or anyone else) when she is high in the air because she could squirm and loose her balance and fall and get hurt. It’s not about making the child feel like crap about what happens, it’s about taking care of the situation that happens.

If your kid threw a baseball through your neighbors window, would you offer to fix the window? Even if it was an accident? When accidents happen, there is an effect from those accidents. I believe it’s best to explain that even though accidents happen, we should still help people out when we cause them harm.

I personally wouldn’t sue someone over an accident (an actual accident with no one at fault) and I don’t agree with suing people in those situations. I’m strictly talking about personal responsibility.

@Seaofclouds – Congratulations on being a responsible parent.

@WillWorkForChocolate – Your reasoning that if something is an accident there is no responsibility involved is a really interesting one. So if someone drives their car through your living room they don’t have to pay because it was an accident? Or perhaps you are saying there is no responsibility because the kid was 4? So then the question would be at what age does responsibility for one’s actions or the actions of one’s children kick in? The baseball through the window is an excellent example and question? I just can’t imagine that you think it is somehow not your responsibility to pay for damages caused by your child regardless of its age.

But I give up, you obviously don’t see personal accountability the same way I do.

@Seaofclouds – You see that’s where the problem lies, you are accepting liability. An accident (as @WillWorkForChocolate put it) is an accident. When you accept liability people will claim monies from you.
@rooeytoo – No when someone runs a car into your house I presume he was old enough to drive therefore old enough to take responsibilty for his negligence.

@Mat74UK – That is the point, “old enough to take responsibility for his negligence” if a child, any child is not old enough to take responsibility for their accidents or negligence,then it is the job of the parents. That is what parents are for! I cannot understand why anyone would have children and then not want to accept the responsibility that comes with the job.

This is precisely why people sue. If everyone were responsible for their actions or the actions of their children, there would be no need. But this position that “she’s only 4” so it doesn’t matter if she ran into someone, and broke their hip, it is their problem for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is preposterous. If that happened to me you are spot on, if the parents refused to reimburse my medical costs I would be racing to my solicitor’s office. To sue the negligent parents, not the kid!

Accidents do happen. Who would you sue if you were struck by lightning? God?

@Mat74UK Actually, in my experience, when I have been genuinely concerned about my son’s actions and offered to cover the cost of any damage he has done, everyone has told me not to worry about it. He has broken things at other people’s house a few times when he was younger. It may have been an accident because he didn’t know any better, but he was still taught the proper way to do things and to apologize for doing some kind of harm to another person or their property.

@LostInParadise – so if your house was struck by lightning and it fried all electrical appliances in your house, you would shrug your shoulders and get on with life, because it was just an accident??? I wager you would be calling your insurance company as soon as you could find a working phone.

I simply sigh right now at the logic… I have to sigh because I’ve been drinking and alcohol hazed fluthering coul be hazardous to my health.

@rooeytoo , Of course I would go to my insurance company if my house was hit by lightning. But the insurance company is not at fault. They are just stuck with the payment because they cover accidents. If the woman who was hit by the bicycle had insurance, she would also have been covered for medical payments.

Well I think we have some very bitter and twisted old people fluther, why don’t you people go out and steal candy from babies too. I think that’s the next step after innocence from toddlers.
Why have you not question why was the old lady not more careful around the kids?

@LostInParadise or if she lived in a civilised society with health coverage for everyone her family wouldn’t be out of pocket for the accident and her family and ‘insurance’ company wouldn’t be out for money and revenge on a 4 year old kid.

Well then, let’s just change the scenario a bit and see how you all feel. Suppose my dog ran over and knocked the 4 year old off its trike. Not aggressively but friendly and wants to play. But the 4 year old breaks an arm in the fall. Now the average dog has about the same mentality as a 4 year old, so it was just an accident, nothing intentional. Would you blame the dog? Would you blame the dog’s owner and expect restitution? Or would you say, oh well, it was just an accident, I’ll pay my own bills even if it causes my insurance premium to go up or if I have to sell my car to pay the bills because I don’t have insurance.

@Mat74UK – hehehe, that is funny, I have never been called “very bitter and twisted old people” before. If thinking people should be responsible makes me that, then yep, I wear the title proudly.

I didn’t know this until I had kids, but people who don’t have children too easily compare them with pets.

@cazzie – I don’t believe that answered the question. But it appears as if you are inferring that I must be responsible for damage caused by my dog, but you don’t have to be responsible for your child. Damage is damage, an accident is an accident, what is the difference?

Your dog is your property. Your child is a human being. We treat them differently where I live.

@cazzie – I don’t believe that answered the question. But it appears as if you are inferring that I must be responsible for damage caused by my dog, but you don’t have to be responsible for your child. Damage is damage, an accident is an accident, dogs and humans are different but how is that relevant?

Your dog should be on a leash around children.

You can’t raise your young child telling her she was responsible for the death of a neighbour lady when she was 4. I realise in your culture, you put put children on death row, but in the rest of the world, that is not acceptable. Holding a child responsible for an accident like this, or their parents is ridiculous. They would have to prove some sort of malicious intent, like the 4 year olds targeted the old lady and ran her down with the bikes to torment her for me to see ANY responsibility on the kids or parents of the kids.

How about the responsibility of the family of the old lady? If she was that sickly and infirm, you could argue that SHE should have been looked after better. A less dottery person wouldn’t have gotten knocked over and certainly wouldn’t have broken something.

And like I said, this kind of thing wouldn’t happen unless the litigation and healthcare system in the US wasn’t so broken.

I’m SURE the parents feel bad about the accident. Should they lose their home and livelihood and should the child bear all that guilt for the rest of her life? No.

yeah… leash laws are for dogs, not kids.

@cazzie – The world in general and little old ladies in particular would be a lot safer if kids were kept on leashes, hehehehe! Did you know that most stores have a policy that says if you break it you bought it? It applies to children especially. Guess you think that is unfair too, since it was an accident, the shopkeeper should pay for the breakage.

What culture are you referring to as mine that puts children on death row? As far as I know the death penalty was abolished here in 1973 and the last execution was actually in 1967.

Oh… you’re in Australia…. I meant where this happened…. in the US.. the US death penalty doesn’t exclude children. I had a ‘harness’ for my boy when he was 2 and a half and I had to bring him through airports. My boy has no fear and I only ever used that harness for that particular trip, when we were going to the US. But you kid about leashes and kids, I don’t. Remember that HUGE furore about that woman dragging her kid around on his back in the store? http://www.parentdish.com/2009/08/04/parenting-can-be-a-drag-for-woman-who-keeps-child-on-a-leash/ The thing was quickly explained, it wasn’t a leash.. it was a back pack…..etc… but it caused SUCH an uproar.

We’re not talking about a jar of jam here, we’re talking about the litigious nature of the US civil court system and its money hungry lawyers and ‘punitive damage’ loving judges and cost of healthcare that has gone astronomical in its costs.

And as a store owner MYSELF, I know accidents happen. If it was the same person every time or a particularly expensive item I might ask the parent to not take their child in again, or ask for some recompense for the item. (I wouldn’t expect them to pay the retail sticker price, and I also have insurance for ‘accidents’) I often keep the child busy while the parent looks around. We have treats and toys for the kiddies. But we ask that the dogs be tied up outside.

Next year this New York judge will probably rule that a 8-year-old dog can be sued as well for biting an elderly woman. Anything seems possible.

@cazzie The lady did not die from the fall, so her death is irrelevant. I specifically said I wouldn’t blame the child, but I would teach the child that if they run into someone and knock them down, the person could be seriously hurt. I don’t see why anything is wrong with teaching our children that doing such a thing can hurt someone. I agree that this shouldn’t be lawsuit worthy and I’m really interested to see exactly what they are suing for. I don’t agree with them at all for suing the child.

I’m not passing any judgement on this case because we don’t know exactly what happened. I’m just saying if my child knocked someone down on accident, I would still make sure the person was okay and teach my child how to avoid such accidents in the future.

@Mat74UK If that makes me bitter, twisted, and old, so be it, but my son understands that his accidents can still hurt other people. I said nothing about taking innocence away from toddlers or children in general, just that they still have to learn that even accidents hurt people and they should help the person they hurt.

Well, the kid can’t really be held “responsible,” but I think that the parents do need to step up and make restitution. And make sure the child learned a lesson about being careful.

For all we know, this little girl is an angel in every other aspect, but simply had an accident…. OR, on the other hand, for all we know, she’s the incarnation of the devil… because this accident reminded me of that scene in one of the Damien movies where he rides his tricycle on the mezzanine floor, knocking a person over who is standing on a chair or step ladder, sending them to their death over the rail and onto the parkett floor below.

@Seaofclouds My comments were directed toward @rooeytoo….

@Seaofclouds I think you and I agree on this issue.

@cazzie Not sure who you were talking to because you didn’t specify, but kids CAN be compared to pets in regard to who is responsible. If you have a dog who gets out of the yard and tears up the neighbor’s prize rose bush, you have to be held responsible for what the dog did. Can’t very well sue the dog, just like you can’t actually sue a little kid!

But to your other post about suing them till they don’t have a pot to pee in…that’s a whole other story. It’s one thing to pay for the rosebush, it’s another for the lady who lost the rosebush to try and take everything you own as compensation. It’s one thing to pay for the elderly person’s hip surgery, it’s another thing for the family to try to make some sort of profit on it. That’s sick.

@Dutchess_III , I have a problem regarding suing for medical costs in the US. They are overblown, overpriced and ridiculous. Insurance companies/for-profit hospitals are just gouging and the ‘industry’ should be stopped. If I go visit in the US with my child, am I going to have to take out ‘child liability’ insurance next? My little boy is a handful… who knows what he might get up to in the US? He ruined a 800euro door when he was 3 when we were visiting his grandparents in France… who knows what we/he could have been ‘sued’ for for the same incident in the US.

wow, many more responses than I expected and a great discussion too, awesome

@cazzie I hear you. Our health system is an absolute mess. Obama is TRYING to do something, but the nutcases (who have their hands in the mega-Insurance company’s pockets) are in an hysterical panic to stop him. And what’s even more embarrassing is…it appears that many other-wise normal Americans are letting them selves be convinced…

cross-link: http://www.fluther.com/102501/are-parents-responsible-for-their-childrens-actions-and-to-what-extent/

Thanks @phaedryx. I wanted to ask it as a separate question so we didn’t completely hijack you question about the court case with a discussion about parental responsibility. :)

@cazzie – well you have certainly had your opportunity to criticize the US. Just out of curiosity what country do you hail from?

And thankfully, according to the new thread referenced above by @phaedryx, your denial of responsibility for your child’s actions is unique.

@rooeytoo WHAT?

what new thread? what denial?

@cazzie – “what denial” in practically every response above you denied parents have responsibility, financial or otherwise, when their child causes an accident. That is the denial to which I am referring and in which you are thankfully unique.

The end (for me anyhow).

$(ignore rooeytoo) end.

Came a bit late, but I think I should point something out: this happened on 52nd St, on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Crowds are thick, sidewalks are narrow, and everyone is in a rush. The only people who get special treatment in the endless sidewalk battle are the elderly. I have seen, many times, crowds part around old folks concentrating on walking slowly and not falling, people twist themselves into pretzels to avoid hitting an old person they didn’t notice until the last second, and people assisting the elderly with packages and doors and such. So I think there is a certain amount of heightened awareness expected of people regarding the elderly on sidewalks in Manhattan. And I think it’s very unfair to argue that this woman should not have been out or that she should have been on top of avoiding the little kids – this is simply not realistic for the environment we are talking about, the majority of the time.

I can’t believe that it is not the parent who is going to be on the stand for his/her “negligence”, or negligence, but the child. That is insanity.

I think it’s stupid. A kid that young is not going to be well and truly aware of what constitutes responsible behavior, it will still be getting to grips with bodily functions and capabilities (such as maintaining balance – hence training bicycles). I think it’s plain stupid. A 12 year old kid by comparison though, that would be different, it would be far more acceptable. This is not.
I wonder how long it’s going to be before they start chucking infants into Juvenile Detention facilities.

Did the kids do it deliberately? If so, the parents are to blame, not the kids. I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to start suing parents if their kids are turning into horrible brats and causing other people harm, or damage to their property. If the parents can’t figure out internal control, external control isn’t such a bad idea.

We agreed when this question was posed Dutchess and we still do!

Isn’t it interesting that people think they don’t have to be responsible for their children, I still find it amazing! If parents aren’t responsible for a 4 year old, who is?????

Why does it say ”..the 6 year old can be sued”? instead of “the parents of the 6 year old” There is no way they were are thinking of putting him/her on the stand, and cross examine. There must be an error on the newspaper/journalist’s part.

@flo It is not an error. The estate for the elderly woman sued the children and their parents in the lawsuit. The little girl’s lawyer tried to have it dismissed due to her age and the judge ruled that she could be sued (along with her parents). Unfortunately, doing a google search at this time does not show any new information.

I agree it is totally ridiculous to sue the child, but if the parents did not pay for the medical bills incurred as a result of the accident, then I don’t blame anyone for suing the parents.

@rooeytoo I believe people find it reasonable that the parents are sued. It is the child part that is makes no sense.

@flo – look at the answers up above, one says they have no responsibility for their children. Another says old ladies should get out of the way of 4 year olds because they don’t know what they are doing. Yes some said what you state, the frightening part to me are the ones that feel no responsibility for damages caused by their children.

There are ‘accidents’ and then there is proof of intent to do harm.

Here is something for an example from California: http://www.shouselaw.com/accident-defense.html

If the parents were sure that their child would/could do harm to another person through his/her actions, then it shows that it was an accident through neglect. If not, then it was an accident. End of story. Get over it. Stop complaining about children because you don’t like them for some reason.

I will complain about irresponsible parents as long as you defend your right to be irresponsible.

If your 4 year old is not in control of her bicycle then don’t take her out in an area where there are others to be hurt. You don’t teach your kid to drive by taking them into traffic. And you don’t let them drive until they know how to control the vehicle without hurting themselves or others. Same should be true of a bike.

@rooeytoo @cazzie I think you’re both on the same side. Whether it is an accident or not, it should be only the parents who should be sued.

@flo – based on her answers above and her responses directed at me specifically, she thinks she is not responsible for the actions of her children. So nope I don’t think we are on the same side.

I do however think it is crazy to sue the child, I would sue her parents for medical expenses incurred and legal expenses incurred if they did not offer to pay initially.

I think there should be NO reason to sue either the child or the parents in such a situation. I know that Universal healthcare is such an odd conscept, but New Zealand had the ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) and most other civilised countries have Universal Healthcare for such occurances. There simply should not be a need to vilify anyone. Also, I think @rooeytoo should acquiesce from the argument because she is not a parent and, therefore, has no idea what it is like to be a parent.

Parents are responsible for their children until age 18 or whatever it is where you live. If I am injured by a improperly supervised child, the parent is responsible. This has nothing to do with universal health care so to bring that into the discussion is unjustified. If a parent is stupid enough to teach a child to ride a bike in an area where they are likely to injure themselves or someone else, the consequences are their responsibility.

If @cazzie cannot control her children, that is no reason to suggest that the rest of the world should follow suit and acquiesce their control.

Also following along in the logic (?) of her argument, all male gynecologists and obstetricians should change jobs because they have no idea what it is like to give birth, and the list goes on.

@cazzie I am a parent and I agree with @rooeytoo. We are responsible for our children. Also, I agree that Universal Healthcare is totally beside the point. Just because someone can afford to get themselves fixed doesn’t mean it’s OK to allow your kids, or yourself, to hurt them. In the question above, it sounds like the elderly lady died, probably from complications due to the injury. Universal Healthcare can’t help her now.

If a six year old can be sued then by rights of fairness six year olds can sue back.

The whole discussion is pointless. The judge ruled that the 4 year old can be sued. I am going to put this in my ‘Only in America’ file and move on.

The main reason for suing people in cases like this in the USA is to cover the costs of healthcare and loss of income the person might suffer. That is not a requirement here where I live because everyone is covered in such an event. How does that NOT make a difference? Of course it does.

Thank you @cazzie responding I was wrong, as to where you stood. The more there is no fault system the more people will act irresponsibly. The incentive to prevent accidents is lessened. If the parents are proven to be negligent, it will teach the population to be responsible, child or no child.

@cazzie It’s not just about covering costs. It’s bigger than that.

It amazes me that we went from taking responsibility for your children to blaming countries for health care. I don’t see how that in the least affects parental responsibility.

@flo Right, because we are so horribly irresposible, obviously, with our children, here in Scandinavia. The gangs, the riots, the level of drug use, the drop-out rate, teen pregnancies, tragic illiteracy rates… Oh… wait…. *eye roll.

Wow…this went off topic, badly!
? Nobody was criticizing Scandinavia. Or Canada. Or even Kansas. Just a judge.

@cazzie You are the one who brought up the cost thing. Regardless where we live, how is there a debate that we have to do our best to prevent accidents esp. involving lives.

….And if an accident occurs inspite of our efforts, we should step up and be accountable for it, instead of having to be dragged to court.

@Dutchess_III did you not read what @flo said about how the more there was a no-fault system, the more irresponsible people would be with their children? Well, we do not have a system like in the US for sueing people when injured in a private way. Many countries don’t. I am telling her that this has NOT made our culture more irresponsible with our children. Her point is simply wrong.

So if your son hits a baseball or in some way breaks your neighbor’s window, you just tell them, hey it was an accident and I am not responsible for my child’s actions and that is the end of it?
I can’t imagine, I broke a fair few windows with home run balls, my dad always paid and I had to repay him out of my allowance. It is called learning to be responsible.

Of course you pay for the window, but the neighbour isn’t going to sue you for ‘punitive damages’. (personal story.. .unless you are our asshole neighbour who broke our window with a stone thrown from his lawnmower.. he never did pay us for it, but they are one of the very few assholes in the neighbourhood and we have the misfortune of sharing a property line.)

Also, the child did not intentionally do it (unless you did) and that would be a case for the police.

You guys keep talking about the cost and paying for the cost of an accident. Yep. But if everyone has universal healthcare, the need to sue for thousands of dollars to pay for doctors and medicine and surgery goes away. The temptation to deny responsibility goes away because you know you won’t be sued for thousands of dollars by admitting fault. Does that make sense?

I guess I missed that @Cazzie. I don’t think people would become more irresponsible in a no-fault system. They’ll still be the same people they’ve always been, either responsible or irresponsible.

And that’s just it…we don’t know if it was deliberate or an accident. Either way, the parents are responsible for it. Not the kids.

Parents are responsible for their kids, that is the bottom line no matter where you live or if you have health insurance.

@cazzie, Considering that you brought up that in a no-fault health care system, it is covered. my statement should have gone:

“Apparently according to @cazzie it makes the irresponsible parents even more irresposible” in no -fault system” How about that?

Whether it was intentional, or negligence, the parents are responsible. Whether they are ordinarily responsible parents or ordinarily irrresponsible parents.

@flo you aren’t reading, or you are reading and simply do not understand, my responses, so I’m not going to waste my time responding to you. That will be the case for any thread, from now on.