this looks like a job for edgar
2010-10-29 20:13:01
16
4 year old cyclist sued for killing 87 year old woman
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=1&no_interstitial
"The suit that Justice Wooten allowed to proceed claims that in April 2009, Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, who were both 4, were racing their bicycles, under the supervision of their mothers, Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, on the sidewalk of a building on East 52nd Street. At some point in the race, they struck an 87-year-old woman named Claire Menagh, who was walking in front of the building and, according to the complaint, was “seriously and severely injured,” suffering a hip fracture that required surgery. She died three months later.
Her estate sued the children and their mothers, claiming they had acted negligently during the accident. In a response, Juliet’s lawyer, James P. Tyrie, argued that the girl was not “engaged in an adult activity” at the time of the accident — “She was riding her bicycle with training wheels under the supervision of her mother” — and was too young to be held liable for negligence."
2010-10-29 19:53:44
She was 87 years old for chrissake! That's a bummer she died, and I know broken hips are supposed to be painful, but you gotta be kiddin' me.
You sure that's not from the Onion?
2010-10-29 20:41:42
I think the argument might really be that the mother wasn't adequately supervising the kids. I mean, the ultimate liability is going to fall on the parents in the end.
2010-10-29 21:45:38
I'm guessing the 4 year old has a trust fund or something - or else including them in the suit wouldn't be an issue.
2010-10-29 22:11:12
The term we like to use in law school is "judgment proof," meaning "OK, you've got an award for $250,000, but what are you going to do with it? My assets consist of a pacifier and a stuffed animal... and evidently a small bicycle."
In reality, the parents and/or the parents' homeowners insurance may be liable for paying any judgment. Otherwise, pursuing a lawsuit like this is a waste of time.
2010-10-29 22:28:40
"She died three months later of unrelated causes."
The child did not kill anyone. The woman died due to unrelated causes. All the child did was run into her.
2010-10-30 04:46:45
@ jared. . All the child did was run into her.
When someone breaks their hip in their eighties, it usually leads to a decline in overall health. It's common for it to be a deadly downward spiral.
2010-10-30 04:55:26
The story says she died of unrelated causes. It's a bit of a stretch to claim that the child running into her killed her.
2010-10-30 05:04:17
@ Jared The story says she died of unrelated causes
Apologies.
The excerpt I read did not say "unrelated", although the article linked to does say that.
I'm guessing the lawyers (and some expensive expert witnesses) will fight over "unrelated," but I might be wrong.
2010-10-30 05:30:32
My dad is fond of pointing out that people very rarely "fall and break a hip" if they do so in their 80's. What happens is their bones are so brittle that a hip breaks, and then they fall. Whether that's true or not, I have no idea. I know that's what happened to his mother - she broke her back and THEN fell. She died of pneumonia in the hospital. Unrelated to the fall, but when you reach the bottom of downhill, it doesn't matter how you started rolling.
There's nothing good that can come of this. I may be beyond the pale here, but I'd wager that the only two people who behaved appropriately before, during, and after this incident were the 4 year old and the little old lady. Her estate and the mother should be left to themselves to sort out their own inappropriate behavior, most effectively perhaps in The Octagon.
2010-10-30 13:38:44
yes, ejwme you're right. often the bone breaks when a person stands up, then they fall.
breaking your hip at an old age is almost a death sentence given the likelihood of decline and other complications.
it seems weird to sue a 4 year old. I don't really get why they aren't just suing the parents for not supervising.
2010-10-30 21:22:12
@ejwme
I have also heard, from numerous sources, that the break usually happens first, and then the fall.
2010-10-30 23:07:17
I don't really get why they aren't just suing the parents for not supervising.
I suspect it's a technical matter of NYS law that they can't sue the parents directly.
2010-10-31 15:47:28
I suspect it's a technical matter of NYS law that they can't sue the parents directly.
That might be the case. If the child cannot be held responsible, the parents may likewise be free from responsibility.
2010-10-31 22:26:58
I suspect it's a technical matter of NYS law that they can't sue the parents directly.
The article says they're suing both the mothers, in addition to their kids.
Perhaps they included the kids to keep the parents' lawyers from arguing that the parents did all they could to prevent the accident, and it was really the kids' faults. Sue everybody, and a lawyer can't point to somebody not being sued and put all the blame on them.
Oh, and the paper may say the death was from unrelated causes, but I bet the estate's lawyer won't see it that way in court.
2010-11-01 02:20:12