An irreverent, inclusive, alternative parenting community
Tiny defendants
Did anyone else see "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued" in the NYT yesterday? The comments are a hoot!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Herasmus B. Dragon on
-
Well, I'm no lawyer, but this judgement was only about whether or not the case against the child could proceed, not the child's guilt, and precedent is precedent.
As for the case itself, the mom alone should be sued for negligence, actually BOTH moms, since two children were involved in trying to go faster than each other on a city sidewalk. I'm not sure why the woman's estate decided to include the child in the first place. Are they expecting to get damages from her, from her piggy bank?
-
Permalink Reply by kommishoner on -
This is dusting off kind of an old memory file, but the test applied (holding the child to a standard of prudence that is reasonable for a child of that age and level of emotional maturity, so long as they are not engaged in an "adult activity") sounds correct. So the child can be held negligent, as compared to the reasonable maturity/capacity of a child of that age.
The moms were sued also - the children were probably included because it ramps up the liability by including more bad actors. The children will likely not be held superduper negligent (because of their decreased, though not nonexistent, capacity for negligence) but even that minimal additional amount is worth it to the family of the woman who died.
Interestingly, the article said that the parents weren't trying to dismiss the suit against themselves, just the kids. Which seems to reflect that they're trying to be accountable, which is good, while also trying to spare their kids being associated with this. Even more interestingly, I wonder whether the kids will be able to testify - in Washington children younger than seven are not considered to have the capacity to testify because they don't have the ability to accurately remember and recount details.
-
Permalink Reply by Floor Pie on -
Did the kids deliberately run down the old lady, or was it an accident?
-
Permalink Reply by kommishoner on
-
Probably accidental, since it's negligence and not some other civil claim like battery (didn't read the full legal documentation, just the article, so it's what I'm gathering).
Floor Pie said:Did the kids deliberately run down the old lady, or was it an accident?
-
-
I hope that argument gets used, too!
Lady Grey said:If kids aren't old enough to testify, I don't think they should be able to be sued, either.
-
Permalink Reply by Boring User Name on -
Those strike me as two different issues. I can drive drunk, have no ability to recall the event, but still be held responsible. Or epileptic seizure, injured in the accident, die, etc., and still be responsible for what happened. You don't need the testimony of the bad actor to find them responsible.
Herasmus B. Dragon said:I hope that argument gets used, too!
Lady Grey said:If kids aren't old enough to testify, I don't think they should be able to be sued, either.
-
Permalink Reply by kommishoner on
-
Well (ahem, legal nerd alert) it's a different test. Like I said, the child can be held to be negligent, but it's probably not going to be very negligent, because they're only being held to the standard of responsible behavior that one can reasonably expect from a four year old. Which is to say, you can expect a little, but not very much. Whether you can expect responsible behavior such that the child would know to give an old lady some room is a question for the jury, not this judge.
But a child testifying is different: there, they have to be able to recount details to a degree of factual accuracy that will help determine the liability or guilt (depending on whether it's a civil or a criminal trial) of another person, most usually an adult - so the details have to be relevant to establish whether the adult acted like a reasonable adult. A child's recollections and analysis of the situation, given the level they operate at, aren't going to be very helpful in that situation.
And, for what it's worth, a child in Washington can't be guilty of a crime until around age 7 - so here, they can't be held accountable in court until they're old enough to testify.
(See, JTC's not the only one who can bring the legal on here! ;) )
Herasmus B. Dragon said:I hope that argument gets used, too!
Lady Grey said:If kids aren't old enough to testify, I don't think they should be able to be sued, either.
-
Permalink Reply by mcglory13 on -
Here's the thing though, kids aren't capable of consistent high level reasoning (so like, good judgment) until they are 7. This is a pretty well established fact. So why are they legally considered to be? It doesn't make any sense. I mean, our knowledge about the brain has advanced some since legal precedent was set in 1925. Not to mention, that one of the commenters wrote that it is legal for kids in New York under 14 to bicycle on the sidewalk. Don't get me wrong, I would be furious if someone mowed down my grandma, but this seems more like a tragic accident than a good lawsuit.
-
Permalink Reply by kommishoner on
-
Right, they're not. That's why kids' actions aren't held to an objective standard - their actions are compared to what's reasonable for other kids of comparable age and development. So in this case, the kids' liability will be minimal, because you can't expect much reasoning from them. The parents present, however, who are included in the lawsuit, will be compared to other reasonable adults, and will probably be found (depending on the facts, obviously) to have been negligent.
And if NYC is anything like here and San Francisco, it's legal to bike on the sidewalk provided it is safe to do so. Meaning, there aren't old ladies in your way. That doesn't really change the kids' liability at all, though - it's sort of a side fact.
mcglory13 said:Here's the thing though, kids aren't capable of consistent high level reasoning (so like, good judgment) until they are 7. This is a pretty well established fact. So why are they legally considered to be? It doesn't make any sense. I mean, our knowledge about the brain has advanced some since legal precedent was set in 1925. Not to mention, that one of the commenters wrote that it is legal for kids in New York under 14 to bicycle on the sidewalk. Don't get me wrong, I would be furious if someone mowed down my grandma, but this seems more like a tragic accident than a good lawsuit.
-
-
Kommish, is it possible this case might have some arguments that might create new precedent moving the age of liability to age 7?
-
-
I'll go ahead and say what every parent is thinking now:
Ebay the Destroyer is never leaving the house again. Or I'm bubble-wrapping every little old lady I see coming near us.
-
Permalink Reply by kommishoner on
-
I assume so, yeah. It's hard for me to extrapolate without knowing the court rules in NY, but my guess is that the child's testimony is relevant to establish the reasonableness of their own actions, but wouldn't be helpful to establish the reasonableness of an adult's actions until they get a bit older. But that's kind of a guess, because there are some 6th Amendment rights about having the right to testify that apply as well. Daria, what do you think?
Lady Grey said:Okay, but if a kid isn't considered competent to testify, but suing him is acceptable, shouldn't the child be able to testify in a lawsuit against himself so as to defend himself? And yes, I understand that laws vary from state to state, so in Washington, it sounds like this is the case. I am, however, making a generalized argument.
© 2012 Created by Offsprunger.
Powered by
