A Manhattan Supreme Court judge recently ruled that a child, specifically, a 4-year old girl can be sued and held liable for negligence.
The controversial decision stemmed from a case filed by the family of an 87-year old woman, who died shortly after the said little girl struck her on the sidewalk while riding on her bicycle with training wheels.
Allegedly, Claire Menagh was walking in front of the building when she was struck by the 4-year old Juliet Breitman and her playmate who were racing under the supervision of their mothers. In the complaint filed, Menagh suffered serious injuries as a result and had to undergo surgery for her fractured hip. The octogenarian died 3 months later of unrelated causes.
The estate of Menagh sued the children and their mothers for having acted negligently and causing the crash. Although the attorney for the little girl claimed that Juliet was too young to be held liable for negligence, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan found otherwise.
Justice Wooten cited cases as far back as 1928 for his decision – and though he ruled that Juliet Breitman may be sued for negligence, he did not necessarily judge her to be liable. His ruling merely permitted that a lawsuit be brought against the girl, her playmate, and their mothers.
In his decision, Justice Wooten reasoned that while jurisprudence states that infants under the age of 4 are presumed incapable of negligence, as Juliet is over the age of 4 when the accident occurred, the rule does not apply. Further, he stated that any “reasonably prudent child” even under the supervision of a parent, should appreciate the danger of riding a bike into an old lady. He also wrote that, “A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior.” Wooten however noted that the child cannot be held accountable for the accident, if such risky behavior was encouraged by the parent.
Thus, as there is no indication the parents “encouraged” such risky behavior or that Juliet lacked the intelligence or maturity to understand the dangers of her actions, a complaint for negligence against her may prosper.
While the decision is controversial – the basis is sound. Under Civil and Tort Law, when a person causes injury or damage to another because he/she failed to act as a reasonably prudent person should do to protect another from foreseeable risks of harm, the negligent party can be held liable for negligence.
Proving negligence however, isn’t cut and dried and other factors may come into play (such as the victim’s own contributory negligence), so legal advice should be sought if you plan to file a claim for negligence or are accused of being negligent yourself.
Recent Comments