Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,611 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html

In legal papers, Mr. Tyrie added, “Courts have held that an infant under the age of 4 is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence.” (Rachel and Jacob Kohn did not seek to dismiss the case against them.)

But Justice Wooten declined to stretch that rule to children over 4. On Oct. 1, he rejected a motion to dismiss the case because of Juliet’s age, noting that she was three months shy of turning 5 when Ms. Menagh was struck, and thus old enough to be sued.

Mr. Tyrie “correctly notes that infants under the age of 4 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence,” Justice Wooten wrote in his decision, referring to the 1928 case. “Juliet Breitman, however, was over the age of 4 at the time of the subject incident. For infants above the age of 4, there is no bright-line rule.”

The New York Law Journal reported the decision on Thursday.

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.

In Ms. Menagh’s case, however, there was nothing to indicate that Juliet’s mother “had any active role in the alleged incident, only that the mother was ‘supervising,’ a term that is too vague to hold meaning here,” he wrote. He concluded that there was no evidence of Juliet’s “lack of intelligence or maturity” or anything to “indicate that another child of similar age and capacity under the circumstances could not have reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman.”
No comment on my behalf.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
:WTF:WTF:WTF 4 years you gotta be retarted to even think it let alone sue a child thats right a child
 

·
Grey Squirrel
Joined
·
22,780 Posts
No worries for the four year old, the elderly woman will most likely be taking her dirt nap long before she has the opportunity to garnish her first paper route paycheck.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,611 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
No worries for the four year old, the elderly woman will most likely be taking her dirt nap long before she has the opportunity to garnish her first paper route paycheck.
She's already dead for a while now, it's the children who are suing.

:cheers:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,611 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
Good thing I only read the quoted part of the article. :laughing:
Doesn't change the fact that it's ****ed up.

Any who says a 4/5 year old kid is reasonable and responsible is living proof that you don't need any inkling of intelligence to breath.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
Why would you you sue a 4 year old?:WTF

They don't own anything. What the hell are this woman's children going to do with a Barney jumper, the bicycle in the article, and a DVD of Yo Gaba Gaba? There is no income to garnish, typically no estate to lien against, no assests to sieze.

Now the parents there is cuplability there, especially if they were watching the child at the time.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top