New York Judge rules 6-year-old can be sued

• Kayate wrote on 2010-11-05 22:22

  NEW YORK (Reuters) – A girl can be sued over accusations she ran over an elderly woman with her training bicycle when she was 4 years old, a New York Supreme Court justice has ruled.
  The ruling by King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten stems from an incident in April 2009 when Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, both aged four, struck an 87-year-old pedestrian, Claire Menagh, with their training bikes.
  Menagh underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died three months later.
  In a ruling made public late Thursday, the judge dismissed arguments by Breitman's lawyer that the case should be dismissed because of her young age. He ruled that she is old enough to be sued and the case can proceed.
  The decision also will allow for the lawsuit to proceed against the Kohn family for the incident.

  
  New York Judge rules 6-year-old can be sued - Yahoo! News
  
  This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard
• Iyasenu wrote on 2010-11-05 22:38
  She accidentally ran over the old lady when she was 4.
  
  And now the judge's ruling says that now that she's 6, she can be sued?
  
  That's...
  
  Just no.
  
  I mean, seriously.
  How can you...
  
  I mean, come on.
  Really?
  
  
  That's ridiculous.
• JustNoOne wrote on 2010-11-05 22:40
  What? What type of stupidity is this?
  
  What's the judge's reasoning for this case? o.o This is going to be very interesting to read once it's known why the judges made this decision.
• Magenera wrote on 2010-11-05 23:24
  dead mother+ paying for medical bills+ paying for funeral+ grief+anger= Uncaring family members who wants to hit the family as hard as possible, with least amount effort as payback. Heard of this story like some time ago, can't really blame the family for suing the girl, grief and anger doesn't bring out the caring side of human emotions.
• paladin wrote on 2010-11-05 23:38
  Is he even allowed to do this 2 years after it happened?
• Magenera wrote on 2010-11-05 23:41
  I'm pretty sure that clause is far longer than 2 years.
• Kueh wrote on 2010-11-05 23:45

  Quote from paladin;205726:

  Is he even allowed to do this 2 years after it happened?

  
  
  Yes. There isn't a cutoff for how long after an incident happened that you can sue for it, but if there is an amount of time it's usually asked why they waited so long. A lot of times the case is put on hold and it might have just been in waiting for two years.
• Osayidan wrote on 2010-11-05 23:47
  Only in america.
  If it was anywhere else I would be surprised and angry.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2010-11-06 00:52
  Well, the death of the 87-year old is her fault. The family of the 87-year old had to put up with medical bills and etc. Why shouldn't the family of the 6 year old girl pay some of the cost?
• Pocoyo wrote on 2010-11-06 00:56
  Of course this happens with stupid Americans..
• TA wrote on 2010-11-06 01:08

  Quote from Whyrainfalls;205736:

  Yes. There isn't a cutoff for how long after an incident happened that you can sue for it, but if there is an amount of time it's usually asked why they waited so long. A lot of times the case is put on hold and it might have just been in waiting for two years.

  
  
  Actually it's either 7 or 10 years, I forget.
  
  By the way, this is stupid.
• Zid wrote on 2010-11-06 01:48
  She was 4 years old, with that mental capabilities. I'm not sure if her family knew about this or not.
  
  If the child refused to tell her family about this incident, well... where should this blame be?
• Moppy wrote on 2010-11-06 02:04
  This is one of the many situations when my law teacher would simply say, "that's America for you."
• Kueh wrote on 2010-11-06 02:31

  Quote from Tasha;205856:

  Actually it's either 7 or 10 years, I forget.
  
  By the way, this is stupid.

  
  
  Actually, there isn't a limit on when or for what people can sue. You can sue anyone for anything. Whether or not your case will actually make it into court is where effective limits take place.
  
  

  Quote from EndlessDreams;205844:

  Well, the death of the 87-year old is her fault.

  
  

  Quote from EndlessDreams;205844:

  the death of the 87-year old

  
  

  Quote from EndlessDreams;205844:

  death......87

  
  
  She was 87 years old! If they wanted the girl or her family to pay for anything they would have to prove irrefutably that it was the girl who caused the death. All the girl's family needs to do is show that if could have possibly been complications in the hospital due to age, poor health, or any other factor. With the old woman being 87, that possibly would be very very easy to pull off.
  
  The best I can see the other family doing is proving that the girl caused the hip injury and have expenses paid for only the procedures that pertained to mending the hip.
• Osayidan wrote on 2010-11-06 02:36
  Ask for autopsy results proving the hip injury caused death.
  It's that simple.
  
  They may be allowed to sue but they aren't going to win.
  
  It's still a typical "only in america" thing though.