OK. I admit it. I can be dense.
But I think this tops all (for this week, anyway).
According to this New York Times story, a judge in New York has ruled that two children can be sued for negligence for running down an elderly woman two years ago while racing their bikes. The bikes were equipped with training wheels, the children were four years old at the time of the incident, and the children were both being supervised by their mothers when the incident occured.
Now I acknowledge that this was a terrible accident. The 87-year-old woman who was struck by the bike sustained a fractured hip. Surgery was required, and three weeks after the incident, the woman died. This is a terrible, terrible shame, and it never should have happened.
But is it reasonable to sue a child who was four years old when this happened?
Justice Paul Wooten of the State Supreme Court in Manhattan says it is. According to Wooten, “A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street.” He added that any “reasonably prudent child” should know that it’s dangerous to dash across the street… with or without a parent’s supervision.
Really? I’ll wager there are a LOT of four-year-olds who aren’t “reasonably prudent” by that definition.
To be honest with you, I can understand allowing the mothers to be sued. They knew their children weren’t expert at riding bicycles… even IF equipped with training wheels… So assuming that the family of the injured woman incurred expenses as a result of the accident, I wouldn’t argue if someone says that it is reasonable to allow them to recover those expenses. And although Wooten did allow the parents to be sued along with the children, he seemed to be unwilling to allow the moms to bear much responsibility. He said there was no evidence to suggest that mom “had any active role in the alleged incident, only that the mother was ‘supervising,’ a term that is too vague to hold meaning here”.
I wonder how much money the family can expect to recover from these (now) six-year-old children? I wonder if the judge will order their weekly allowance to be garnished?
Sheesh.
I’ve put on some weight while working as a nurse in a hospital setting. I wonder if I can sue, too?
This judge doesn't know the first thing about children. They should have had a child psychologist explain how a child thinks at that age. I have never agreed with having children tried as adults. It is a fact that their brains are not as developed as adults, even teenager's brains. It seems to me a symptom of an unjust society.
ReplyDelete