Judge rules 4-year-old can be sued

[.Shane.]

Not running people over with a bicycle is called "restraint" now? That is a bit different than just running out to street without looking both ways first. And, btw, I have a kid.

And a 4 year old hitting a person with a bike is "running people over"....

We're not talking about a 16 year old or even a 10 year old.

By age 5 most kids have not mastered all these types of skills. I've seen generally well behaved kids of that age do all kinds of inappropriate things. If you don't understand that a 4 year old might not get all this, then I can't help you.

 

[Evie]

Not really inconsistent with what I've seen in lots of other places - the exact age at which you are considered to know what you're doing varies, but it tends to be in the 4-to-7 window.

Nor do I see anything wrong with that. At 4-close-to-5 you should have enough of an inkling of right and wrong to know what you're supposed to do.

Of course she's not old enough to handle a lawsuit by herself, but presumably it's expected that her parents will actually be acting as her representatives, and footing any bill at the end of the lawsuit. Really, to all practical purpose, they are suing her parents (as her legal tutors), but over something she did (hence why the suite is nominally against her). If they wanted to sue the parents in name, they would have to sue over something the parents did.

If the judge had said "kids that age cannot be expected to know that running into people is wrong", then they could not have sued the parents for the kid doing that, either; only for things the parents did - such as failing to keep a close enough eye on the kid - because by definition a kid cannot be "doing something wrong" if the law recognize the kid shouldn't know its wrong.

(At least given my knowledge of legal systems, that seems the reasonable interpretation)

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think a 4 year old can know not to run a bicycle into an elderly woman, but a lawsuit? It's just a little kid!

The parents sure, if they were responsible for negligence. But the four year old?

 

[Xanikk999]

Since when have 4 year olds been held accountable under the law?

I thought there was an age a minor had to pass in this country to be faced with a trial? I'm pretty sure 4 years is under that if im not mistaken..

 

[Evie]

If she knows not to run a bicycle into an elderly woman, she is responsible for her actions. If she is responsible for her actions, she is responsible for any damage that may result from her actions. If she is responsible for the damage, then it makes sense to sue her to make sure she will take care of the obligations resulting from her responsibility.

4 years may be a bit young, but if so only by a year or three - in MOST jurisdictions I know of it just doesn't go far above 4, if it does.

 

[Xanikk999]

If she knows not to run a bicycle into an elderly woman, she is responsible for her actions. If she is responsible for her actions, she is responsible for any damage that may result from her actions.

If she is responsible for the damage, then it makes sense to sue her.

4 year old's do not know the consequences of their actions. They also don't understand that doing something like that can cause more damage than its worth for a few laughs. They aren't capable of logical reasoning so they shouldn't be subjected to being sued.

It depends on whether the parents were being negligent or not so if anything they should be sued.

 

[GhostWriter16]

4 year old's do not know the consequences of their actions. They also don't understand that doing something like that can cause more damage than its worth for a few laughs. They aren't capable of logical reasoning so they shouldn't be subjected to being sued.

It depends on whether the parents were being negligent or not so if anything they should be sued.

I agree, and whether the parents should be sued or not depends on whether there was negligence.

And just note, I am VERY harsh on young people. In my opinion, if you are old enough to premeditate murder and you do it, you should be publicly executed. If your murder was not premeditated, I think that the age should be 13 or lower for public execution. Even with my crazy extreme opinions on the responsibility of the young, four is too young.

 

[JollyRoger]

But this was TWO 4 year olds, so it was really more like age 8 or 9 when you add it all up.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But this was TWO 4 year olds, so it was really more like age 8 or 9 when you add it all up.

*Facepalm*

 

[Xanikk999]

*Facepalm*

You know he is trying to be witty and does so by promoting his own brand of satire. So whats the deal with the facepalm?

 

[Evie]

4 year old's do not know the consequences of their actions. They also don't understand that doing something like that can cause more damage than its worth for a few laughs. They aren't capable of logical reasoning so they shouldn't be subjected to being sued.

Citation needed, as they say. Yes, I've met four years old. I've met some who fit your description. I've met others who were far more mature than you describe. Why should the law automatically assume the former?

Moreover, the legal system is not so much concerned with whether or not someone can appreciate the consequences of their actions, but with whether or not they had the mental capacity to understand that what they were doing was wrong. If you were doing something wrong (though the definition of wrong is sometime made ludicrously broad), and that wrong something happens to have negative consequences, you are responsible for them - no matter how unforeseeable the consequences actually were. At least that appears to be the principle I've encountered so far.

 

[JollyRoger]

If the old lady had struck the 4 year old with her cane, then the 4 year old would have been able to sue her, so I do not see why the 4 year old should get a free shot at her.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

One thing that makes me wonder is that the article didn't explicitly state if the accident caused the womens death or how much it contributed to the death.

 

[Behind The Mask]

Perhaps I missed something, I admit I only briefly read over the article...

Why can't we assume this was just a truly dreadful accident?

I highly doubt this two kids where like, "Hey! Theres an old lady; bet'cha I can ramp her!"

Did I miss that bit?

 

[JollyRoger]

Negligence is not the same as intentional. If you didn't mean to back into my parked car, I'm still going to sue you for the damage.

 

[Xanikk999]

Citation needed, as they say. Yes, I've met four years old. I've met some who fit your description. I've met others who were far more mature than you describe. Why should the law automatically assume the former?

Moreover, the legal system is not so much concerned with whether or not someone can appreciate the consequences of their actions, but with whether or not they had the mental capacity to understand that what they were doing was wrong. If you were doing something wrong (though the definition of wrong is sometime made ludicrously broad), and that wrong something happens to have negative consequences, you are responsible for them - no matter how unforeseeable the consequences actually were. At least that appears to be the principle I've encountered so far.

So if a 4 year old found a gun and shot someone you would be in favor of the maximum penalty under the law? Is that what you are saying?

I highly doubt most 4 year olds are capable of the reasoning behind how/why to shoot someone and the real consequences of it.

 

[JollyRoger]

So if a 4 year old found a gun and shot someone you would be in favor of the maximum penalty under the law? Is that what you are saying?

I highly doubt most 4 year olds are capable of the reasoning behind how/why to shoot someone and the real consequences of it.

Who is saying anything about maxed out criminal sanctions? We are talking a civil lawsuit here. Even if a 4 year old shot someone, a civil suit would be different than a criminal suit and even in a criminal suit, the punishment would not be maxed out.

 

[.Shane.]

If the old lady had struck the 4 year old with her cane, then the 4 year old would have been able to sue her, so I do not see why the 4 year old should get a free shot at her.

Actually, I don't think the 4 year old could sue. As the parent, I'd sue on their behalf and I think that's what's reasonable here. The old ladies family would sue the parents as the responsible parties for the kids behavior.

 

[Evie]

What Jolly Roger said. You're comparing apples and oranges.

If a 4 year old found a gun, played with it, shot someone, then I would have no strong objection to a civil lawsuit naming the four years old as a defendant (not accused, that's criminal), nor would I be particularly concerned with the same 4 years old being found to be old enough to know that what they were doing was wrong. This is because the judge only has to determine which is more likely based on the evidence presented him (including, presumably, actually talking to the girl).

Make it a criminal trial instead, and I would have a much bigger case of raised eyebrow at the girl being found responsible for her actions, would it only be because the burden of proof moves from "most likely of all possible options" to "proven beyond reasonable doubt", which is a lot harder to make, and a lot easier to defend against.

As for sentencing, yeah, what JollyRoger said.

------------------------

.Shane. - As far as I can see, in practice, that's pretty likely to be the end result here: even if the girl is found responsible, it's likely that her parents will be responsible for the bill; and of course they'll be the ones who will handle the actual trial. But she has to be named as defendant because the suing party hold that racing bikes in the streets was a wrong action that resulted in negative consequences for them; and that's what SHE did, not what her PARENTS did.

(What her parents can be sued for, conceivably, is failing to educate her about it being wrong to race bikes in streets; and failing to watch her well enough and keep her from racing bikes in streets).

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually, I don't think the 4 year old could sue. As the parent, I'd sue on their behalf and I think that's what's reasonable here. The old ladies family would sue the parents as the responsible parties for the kids behavior.

They are suing the parents under a different theory than the child. The child likely has to be sued directly to keep one of the theories in play. I think the parents will end up having to pay under either theory, though its possible that a judgment against the child may only be able to be collected from the child - a tougher thing to do, but not impossible (say she gets an inheritance that the will drafter wasn't smart enough to pour into a trust).