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. The ruling by the judge, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, did not find that the girl was liable, but merely permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward.Â
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 â€œseriously and severely injured,â€ suffering a hip fracture that required surgery. She died three months later of unrelated causes.
Her estate sued the children and their mothers, claiming they had acted negligently during the accident. In a response, Julietâ€™s lawyer, James P. Tyrie, argued that the girl was not â€œengaged in an adult activityâ€ at the time of the accident â€” â€œShe was riding her bicycle with training wheels under the supervision of her motherâ€ â€” and was too young to be held liable for negligence.
In legal papers, Mr. Tyrie added, â€œCourts have held that an infant under the age of 4 is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence.â€ (Rachel and Jacob Kohn did not seek to dismiss the case against them.)Â
â€œA parentâ€™s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street,â€ the judge wrote. He added that any â€œreasonably prudent child,â€ 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. Menaghâ€™s case, however, there was nothing to indicate that Julietâ€™s mother â€œhad any active role in the alleged incident, only that the mother was â€˜supervising,â€™ a term that is too vague to hold meaning here,â€ he wrote. He concluded that there was no evidence of Julietâ€™s â€œlack of intelligence or maturityâ€ or anything to â€œindicate 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.â€
In my humble opinion, the judge is an absolute moron. A remedial course in child development may be in order. What a Dumbass!