WTF? Judge says a 4 year old can be sued

[olevetonahill]

This is so ****ing stupid :rolleyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?no_interstitial

[OUthunder]

It's in the state of New York, nuff said.

[olevetonahill]

Dayum Yankees

[jumperstop]

Old people die, no need to try and make yourself feel better about your parents death by suing this poor little kid.

[olevetonahill]

Old people die, no need to try and make yourself feel better about your parents death by suing this poor little kid.

Oh Im sure the broken hip sped it up some But at 87 it dint need much more speed.

[yermom]

what if some 4 year old biker gang ran down your grandma?

what is the point of suing a 4 year old anyway? are they going to garnish her lunch money?

now, parents letting their little hellions run wild and kill old people, i can see them being liable...

[stoops the eternal pimp]

now, parents letting their little hellions run wild and kill old people, i can see them being liable...

this makes me imagine 2 four year olds on bikes with training wheels doing drive by's on retirement homes...

[yermom]

if you are going to break their hip, you might as well shoot them at that age!

[Sooner5030]

one less person collecting social security.

Somebody told those 4 year olds how much debt they inherited from the greatest generation.

[stoopified]

one less person collecting social security.

Somebody told those 4 year olds how much debt they inherited from the greatest generation.
Sadly,I laughed a little.It would be funnier if the debt load wasn't enormous and very real.

[Leroy Lizard]

Any damage to the bicycle?

[Frozen Sooner]

1. Just because someone can be sued doesn't mean that the plaintiff will win.
2. There's some underlying issues particular to NY State Law which are discussed here:
http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/10/new-york-judge-holds-4-year-old-can-be-found-negligent-in-bike-accident.html

[Blue]

1. Just because someone can be sued doesn't mean that the plaintiff will win.
2. There's some underlying issues particular to NY State Law which are discussed here:
http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/10/new-york-judge-holds-4-year-old-can-be-found-negligent-in-bike-accident.html

LOL. How can you defend sueing a four year old? Lawyers...:rolleyes:

[Leroy Lizard]

1. Just because someone can be sued doesn't mean that the plaintiff will win.

I think the mere fact that she can be sued is really problematic. How is she expected to defend herself in court? Sure, she can get a lawyer, but how is she expected to communicate her opinions on how she should be defended to her lawyer?

[olevetonahill]

Mike we aint Talking the ****in LAW here we talking the Stupidity of a Judge :P

[GKeeper316]

LOL. How can you defend sueing a four year old? Lawyers...:rolleyes:

the 4 y.o. and, by extention, the 4 y.o.'s parent, who was supposed to be supervising.

[Frozen Sooner]

I think the mere fact that she can be sued is really problematic. How is she expected to defend herself in court? Sure, she can get a lawyer, but how is she expected to communicate her opinions on how she should be defended to her lawyer?

Through her next friend. Her parents are expected to look out for her interests, same as if any minor was sued.

[Leroy Lizard]

Through her next friend. Her parents are expected to look out for her interests, same as if any minor was sued.

If the parents refuse, does the case get dismissed?

It's one thing to have a child as a witness, because her age can be taken into account when assessing the worth of her testimony.

It just sounds totally wrong.

[Frozen Sooner]

LOL. How can you defend sueing a four year old? Lawyers...:rolleyes:

I didn't sue her, nor do I advocate suing her. I'm saying that simply because the judge let it get to discovery doesn't mean that the plaintiff will win, or even that the suit will survive summary judgment.

I do find it odd that some of you don't seem to think there's any problem with mom just watching her kid run over a 80+ year-old woman. Obviously she didn't intend that result, but why should the old woman bear the costs of mom's carelessness? Which is what the case is about: to establish that the mother is liable (and thus recover under the mother's homeowner's policy), under NY law they may have to establish that the child was negligent.

Or should the old woman's family bear the expense of her two week hospital stay before she died? The taxpayers should? The hospital should?

[Leroy Lizard]

I didn't sue her, nor do I advocate suing her. I'm saying that simply because the judge let it get to discovery doesn't mean that the plaintiff will win, or even that the suit will survive summary judgment.

I do find it odd that some of you don't seem to think there's any problem with mom just watching her kid run over a 80+ year-old woman.

I have no problem with the parent being sued. Nor do most in here I suspect.

[Frozen Sooner]

If the parents refuse, does the case get dismissed?

It's one thing to have a child as a witness, because her age can be taken into account when assessing the worth of her testimony.

It just sounds totally wrong.

I personally think killing old people because you're too goddam lazy to keep your kid from running them over sounds a lot more wrong than that.

And if the parents refuse, that's their own idiot problem, because then they're going to be held vicariously liable under NY law (according to the blog, the accuracy of which I do not affirm or deny.)

[Frozen Sooner]

I have no problem with the parent being sued. Nor do most in here I suspect.

That's the deal, though: you have to establish the child's negligence before you can sue mom under NY law, according to the guy's blog. Trust me, that kid ain't ever paying a dime.

[Leroy Lizard]

I personally think killing old people because you're too goddam lazy to keep your kid from running them over sounds a lot more wrong than that.

Again, the problem is that the KID, not the parent, is being sued. It seems as if you have built something of a straw man here.

[GKeeper316]

I didn't sue her, nor do I advocate suing her. I'm saying that simply because the judge let it get to discovery doesn't mean that the plaintiff will win, or even that the suit will survive summary judgment.

I do find it odd that some of you don't seem to think there's any problem with mom just watching her kid run over a 80+ year-old woman. Obviously she didn't intend that result, but why should the old woman bear the costs of mom's carelessness? Which is what the case is about: to establish that the mother is liable (and thus recover under the mother's homeowner's policy), under NY law they may have to establish that the child was negligent.

Or should the old woman's family bear the expense of her two week hospital stay before she died? The taxpayers should? The hospital should?

froz... the people who are trying to figure out how a 4 y.o. can be "sued" are the same people that think guantanimo bay was a good idea. they dont know the law. they dont understand the rules of evidence or legal proceedure.

[Leroy Lizard]

That's the deal, though: you have to establish the child's negligence before you can sue mom under NY law, according to the guy's blog. Trust me, that kid ain't ever paying a dime.

Weird. I would think the parent's, not the child's, negligence is the issue here.

[Frozen Sooner]

Again, the problem is that the KID, not the parent, is being sued. It seems as if you have built something of a straw man here.

Who's going to pay Leroy? Sounds like the only straw man built here is that you think that a judgment-proof 4-year old is going to somehow have to give up her allowance for the next 50 years.

I'll run through it slowly:

In order to establish that mom is liable to old woman, you must establish that her child acted negligently while mom was supervising the child.
You cannot establish that the child acted negligently without an adversarial proceeding against the child, because you can't establish a party's negligence in a trial where they are not afforded due process.
Therefore, to hold mom liable, child has to be sued.

[Frozen Sooner]

Weird. I would think the parent's, not the child's, negligence is the issue here.

Parent didn't run anyone over. To hold someone liable for the actions of another, you first have to establish that the other did something wrong.

[Leroy Lizard]

In order to establish that mom is liable to old woman, you must establish that her child acted negligently while mom was supervising the child.

Suppose my pit bull gets out and attacks someone. Do I have to prove that the pit bull was negligent in order to establish my negligence? Or am I, as a pet owner, required to take precautions to ensure that my dogs don't hurt someone? Is it that much different, responsibility-wise, between being the guardian of a pet and a small child?

It just sounds weird to sue a four-year-old to establish the negligence of someone else. Just sue the parents, present the facts as they unfold (and have the child take the stand as a witness if so needed), and render a judgment.

As far as who must pay goes, who is the person named as the defendant and which person is the judgment rendered against? I ask seriously, no jive.

[Leroy Lizard]

Parent didn't run anyone over. To hold someone liable for the actions of another, you first have to establish that the other did something wrong.

Call the child to the stand as a witness.

[Frozen Sooner]

Suppose my pit bull gets out and attacks someone. Do I have to prove that the pit bull was negligent in order to establish my negligence? Or am I, as a pet owner, required to take precautions to ensure that my dogs don't hurt someone? Is it that much different, responsibility-wise, between being the guardian of a pet and a small child?

It just sounds weird to sue a four-year-old to establish the negligence of someone else. Just sue the parents, present the facts as they unfold (and have the child take the stand as a witness if so needed), and render a judgment.

As far as who must pay goes, who is the person named as the defendant and which person is the judgment rendered against? I ask seriously, no jive.

That's actually a decent argument, but that's not the way that New York law apparently sees it. The difference is likely that a child is a person and a pit bull is an animal The law presumes that persons aren't responsible for the actions of other persons unless certain conditions are met, while the law presumes that a person is strictly liable for the actions of their dangerous animals (which pit bulls are per se considered to be in some jurisdictions).

The child is the named defendant in the first action. The parent is the named defendant in the second action. Likely, the actions will be joined at trial and tried concurrently. A judgment will be entered against them as joint and severally liable. The parent's insurance company ends up paying it. The judgment against the child simply establishes they were negligent for the purposes of the parent's liability--the kid doesn't have any assets to execute against. Having a judgment means squat from a recovery standpoint if the defendant doesn't have any money or income.

Note: I should mention that the total judgment (excluding punitive damages, which seem fairly unlikely here) between both parties would be the same as if only one party was sued, and the satisfaction of the judgment against Mom by the insurance company satisfies both. The real fun begins when insurance company sues kid for contribution.

[Frozen Sooner]

Call the child to the stand as a witness.

Leroy, a court cannot adjudicate whether or not someone was negligent unless they are afforded due process of law. As a matter of NY law (again, according to the blog) mom can't be held liable unless child was engaged in negligent activity and she supervised and/or affirmed the child's activity.

[Scott D]

I'd like to sue Leroy's pitbull for not biting Leroy.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'd like to sue Leroy's pitbull for not biting Leroy.

Wrong assumption.

[Scott D]

Yes I know, I must sue you for your pit bull not biting you. Damn your negligence in not having harm come to you via your pet.

[Blue]

If you read the article, the old hussey died of natural causes 3 months later.

The old lady just broke a hip. And we all know old ladys break hips opening pickle jars; or trying to anyway.

[olevetonahill]

Yes I know, I must sue you for your pit bull not biting you. Damn your negligence in not having harm come to you via your pet.

But what if Limptards Pit Bull was a **** eating pit bull and ate the evidence?

[Blue]

froz... the people who are trying to figure out how a 4 y.o. can be "sued" are the same people that think guantanimo bay was a good idea. they dont know the law. they dont understand the rules of evidence or legal proceedure.

Thank you, Counselor. I will suggest you learn how to spell "procedure" before entertaining us with your legal expertise again, though.

You better run...JAG is on.

[Frozen Sooner]

froz... the people who are trying to figure out how a 4 y.o. can be "sued" are the same people that think guantanimo bay was a good idea. they dont know the law. they dont understand the rules of evidence or legal proceedure.

Don't think I've forgotten your thoughts on the legality of loan contracts.

[Frozen Sooner]

If you read the article, the old hussey died of natural causes 3 months later.

The old lady just broke a hip. And we all know old ladys break hips opening pickle jars; or trying to anyway.

I don't have a NYT subscription, so I can't read the article linked. The accounts I read I thought said she died of her injuries.

Ah. After registering and reading again, she died of unrelated causes. My apologies for misremembering.

The point of who pays for her hospital stay remains, and her fragility is irrelevant. That, at least, is well-settled law.

[cmoneyou]

If you read the article, the old hussey died of natural causes 3 months later.

The old lady just broke a hip. And we all know old ladys break hips opening pickle jars; or trying to anyway.

Hip fractures have a very high mortality rate at that age. I'm not suggesting that was the cause of death , but you shouldn't think of it as "just a broke hip" at that age.

[King Barry's Back]

what if some 4 year old biker gang ran down your grandma?

what is the point of suing a 4 year old anyway? are they going to garnish her lunch money?

now, parents letting their little hellions run wild and kill old people, i can see them being liable...

Jeez, that ruling is completely stupid. Kids are being kids. If there is any negligence, it is on the part of the parents who were not providing proper supervision. They are the ones that should be sued.

As you say, even if the kid loses, he doesn't have any independent assets and the parents will have to pay anyway. Why not just save the step and sue them directly?

[Frozen Sooner]

Jeez, that ruling is completely stupid. Kids are being kids. If there is any negligence, it is on the part of the parents who were not providing proper supervision. They are the ones that should be sued.

As you say, even if the kid loses, he doesn't have any independent assets and the parents will have to pay anyway. Why not just save the step and sue them directly?

Asked and answered already in the thread.

[Scott D]

not to mention, you have to understand. yermom is tormented regularly by 4 year old biker gangs.

[olevetonahill]

not to mention, you have to understand. yermom is tormented regularly by 4 year old biker gangs.

Thot that was Sicem :confused:

[Scott D]

Sicem gets tormented by girls selling books door to door.

[King Barry's Back]

1. Just because someone can be sued doesn't mean that the plaintiff will win.
2. There's some underlying issues particular to NY State Law which are discussed here:
http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/10/new-york-judge-holds-4-year-old-can-be-found-negligent-in-bike-accident.html

If you believe that a helpless four-yr old child should be sued, then God help you.

As I read the NY law -- it would seem to mean that a parent is only to be held responsible for the damages inflicted by his child under certain circumstances -- these would include providing the child a dangerous object, while supervising the child, or if the parent knows the child has a history of endangering the public.

Since the law seems clear that children under 4 yrs can NOT be sued, and their parents can not be held liable if not in one of those categories -- then wouldn't that mean that the law assumes that people walking on the street must bear some risk that small children are at play and might hurt them?

if so, good.

Reminds me of the case, I believe from England and thus made it over the pond in common law -- where a man was cutting down a tree next to his home.

When he cut the tree, it fell down across the road in front of his house.

At about that time, a man came riding by on a horse. His horse stumbled over the tree, injuring the rider.

The rider sued the homeowner for blocking the road, but the court held that the rider was responsible for avoiding obstacles in the road and the case was tossed. Brilliant! God, I'd love to see more jurisprudence like that, but I guess that would endanger too many legal careers so no judge is going dancing down the street of personal responsibility.

[Frozen Sooner]

Because you bear no responsibility at all for felling trees across the road, I guess.

You have an odd idea of what personal responsibility means.

[GKeeper316]

Don't think I've forgotten your thoughts on the legality of loan contracts.

ya pass the bar yet?

[Frozen Sooner]

ya pass the bar yet?

Won't take it for a year and a half. Don't need to pass the bar to recognize that a promise of future repayment in exchange for a credit to a bank account constitutes valid mutuality of consideration to support a contract.

[GKeeper316]

The rider sued the homeowner for blocking the road, but the court held that the rider was responsible for avoiding obstacles in the road and the case was tossed.

its about the same as traffic laws in oklahoma...

[SicEmBaylor]

Sicem gets tormented by girls selling books door to door.
They were magazines, and they would have shanked me.

[GKeeper316]

Won't take it for a year and a half. Don't need to pass the bar to recognize that a promise of future repayment in exchange for a credit to a bank account constitutes valid mutuality of consideration to support a loan.

not according to my dad... who already passed the bar and practiced for 14 years before he got out and started teaching business and finance law. (hes also got an MBA to go with his JD)

[Frozen Sooner]

not according to my dad... who already passed the bar and practiced for 14 years before he got out and started teaching business and finance law. (hes also got an MBA to go with his JD)

Yeah? Then either your dad is wrong or you misunderstood him.

I'll go ahead and rely on "I know what the **** I'm talking about" versus "My dad said so."

[olevetonahill]

not according to my dad... who already passed the bar and practiced for 14 years before he got out and started teaching business and finance law. (hes also got an MBA to go with his JD)

Man Yer Daddy is the Shisnit aint he. A Nuclear Weapons expert, A retired AF, dude, Gots all them degrees and is Now a Perfesser . I bet he even made a 1000 yard shot withOUT a spotter.:rolleyes:

You spew more bull**** than LAS :rolleyes:

[Frozen Sooner]

My dad is Williston. He says your dad is full of ****.

[olevetonahill]

My dad is Williston. He says your dad is full of ****.

:D ;)

[JohnnyMack]

Perry Mason and Leroid are my parents. They say you're all a bunch of slaptards.

[olevetonahill]

Perry Mason and Leroid are my parents. They say you're all a bunch of slaptards.

So whos yer Daddy ?

[Midtowner]

She might be the youngest person ever to declare bankruptcy.

[JohnnyMack]

Dean?

[GKeeper316]

if i go down to the bank and deposit $100, the bank is only required to keep $10 and can loan out the other $90. so they deposit that $90 into an account for the guy (let's say on a monday), they are then able to loan out $81 of that money. but lets say the guy that got the $90 loan leaves it in there until friday, when he decides to pull the money out... where did that $90 come from? since $81 of it was loaned out to some other guy...

that's how money is created... literally out of thin air.

[olevetonahill]

Dean?

That splanes alot :eek:

[GKeeper316]

Man Yer Daddy is the Shisnit aint he. A Nuclear Weapons expert, A retired AF, dude, Gots all them degrees and is Now a Perfesser . I bet he even made a 1000 yard shot withOUT a spotter.:rolleyes:

You spew more bull**** than LAS :rolleyes:

my dad's all of those things except a good shot. i can out-shoot him without even trying very hard. but i was a marine :P

[olevetonahill]

if i go down to the bank and deposit $100, the bank is only required to keep $10 and can loan out the other $90. so they deposit that $90 into an account for the guy (let's say on a monday), they are then able to loan out $81 of that money. but lets say the guy that got the $90 loan leaves it in there until friday, when he decides to pull the money out... where did that $90 come from? since $81 of it was loaned out to some other guy...

that's how money is created... literally out of thin air.

Does yer durnken, AF One in charge of Mom agree with that ?:pop:

[GKeeper316]

Does yer durnken, AF One in charge of Mom agree with that ?:pop:
no idea. i dont talk to her very much.

go kill a possum. ill show up to the tailgate tomorrow for some possum.

[Frozen Sooner]

if i go down to the bank and deposit $100, the bank is only required to keep $10 and can loan out the other $90. so they deposit that $90 into an account for the guy (let's say on a monday), they are then able to loan out $81 of that money. but lets say the guy that got the $90 loan leaves it in there until friday, when he decides to pull the money out... where did that $90 come from? since $81 of it was loaned out to some other guy...

that's how money is created... literally out of thin air.

Thanks for the lesson on the fractional reserve system. Most of us took Econ 1113.

Let me set you straight on something regarding consideration: whether or not you think money is worth anything, a promise by one person to perform a legal act or to refrain from performing an act they have a legal right to perform is consideration if they were not already obligated to do the act or refrain from the act. Period. End of story. If that act is simply changing an entry in a ledger, it's still consideration.

[Leroy Lizard]

Man Yer Daddy is the Shisnit aint he. A Nuclear Weapons expert, A retired AF, dude, Gots all them degrees and is Now a Perfesser . I bet he even made a 1000 yard shot withOUT a spotter.:rolleyes:

You spew more bull**** than LAS :rolleyes:

Well, until he claims to be an Obama supporter AND a Republican, let's hold off on that judgment for awhile.

[Leroy Lizard]

Froze,

Thinking more of the four-year old being sued.

Our discussion so far has assumed that the mother will provide guidance for the child in discussing the case with a defense attorney.

But what if the lawsuit against the child pits the mother against the child? How will the child then properly defend herself in court? The mother cannot be expected to provide support for a case in which a child's truthful testimony will damage her case, can she?

I am uncomfortable with the assumption that the mother will be compelled to bear the costs of defending herself and pay the penalties. That is not inherently true but only a matter of circumstance. Besides, a decision against someone is still a decision against them, whether they pay the price of losing or not.

This whole situation is eerie and seems loaded with potential problems. I guess my beef is that we are holding children responsible for actions for which, in my opinion, they are not capable of being held responsible. And the notions that "Well, the parents will end up paying anyway" doesn't come across as logically sound.

Does this just come down to "New York is one ****ed up state?"

[Frozen Sooner]

Froze,

Thinking more of the four-year old being sued.

Our discussion so far has assumed that the mother will provide guidance for the child in discussing the case with a defense attorney.

But what if the lawsuit against the child pits the mother against the child? How will the child then properly defend herself in court? The mother cannot be expected to provide support for a case in which a child's truthful testimony will damage her case, can she?

I am uncomfortable with the assumption that the mother will be compelled to bear the costs of defending herself and pay the penalties. That is not inherently true but only a matter of circumstance. Besides, a decision against someone is still a decision against them, whether they pay the price of losing or not.

This whole situation is eerie and seems loaded with potential problems. I guess my beef is that we are holding children responsible for actions for which, in my opinion, they are not capable of being held responsible. And the notions that "Well, the parents will end up paying anyway" doesn't come across as logically sound.

Does this just come down to "New York is one ****ed up state?"

It kind of comes down to "bad facts make bad law." In this particular case, you've got the fact that someone was injured through no fault of their own because of the actions of another, and the other fact that they may not be able to recover because of an oddity in state tort law.

As the article I think mentions, a child under four is presumptively not negligent. They're just immune from suit.

The problem lies in where you draw the line. Is it five? Six? Seven?

I keep reiterating that simply allowing the suit to go forward in no way means that the child will be found negligent. To make out a prima facie case of negligence, you have to show that someone owed a duty of care, that they breached that duty, that they were the proximate cause of the injury, and that there were damages. Where I think the plaintiff ends up losing this case is in proving breach. The general test for breach is the standard of a reasonable person, and in this case it would be a reasonable 4 year old. Children are cut a lot of slack in breach analysis unless they're engaged in an "adult" activity (like driving a car or something else that imputes adult responsibility.) HOWEVER, whether a child is in breach or not is, as a general rule, a question of fact to be submitted to a jury.

As for whether or not it would be in the parent's best interest to defend the suit with the child, there's no question it would be. If you win on the issue of the child's negligence, then you win the whole enchilada.

If there is a conflict between the child's interests and the parent's interests, the courts can appoint an advocate trained to represent the interests of a child. Happens all the time in custody cases.

Please make note, by the way, that I've never made the assertion that it's OK because the parents pay anyway. I've said that they WILL pay if the kid is found negligent, but what I'm actually saying is that in order for parents to pay, the kid has to be sued first.

Anyhow, don't fret TOO much over this. All this was was a judge unwilling to say that as a matter of law a four year old could never be negligent. He wasn't saying that this kid was or anything, and the only reason he did was likely so that they could get it in front of a jury so the estate had a chance at recovery. The jury isn't likely to find against a rather sympathetic defendant, and I frankly don't think they should.

[Leroy Lizard]

As the article I think mentions, a child under four is presumptively not negligent. They're just immune from suit.

Did you state that correctly. I think you meant the opposite, no?



If there is a conflict between the child's interests and the parent's interests, the courts can appoint an advocate trained to represent the interests of a child. Happens all the time in custody cases.

True, but in this case the child is being named as a defendant, not simply a witness. Once named as a defendant, I assume that a whole lot of protections must kick in. Sure, the court could appoint counsel to the child, but the child cannot responsibly choose whether to act on the advice of the counsel.

One more question: When a person is declared legally insane or (say) mentally retarded, they can be declared as unfit to stand trial. Right? Why wouldn't a four-year-old be given the same protections? Or is this a matter of distinction between civil and criminal trials?


Please make note, by the way, that I've never made the assertion that it's OK because the parents pay anyway. I've said that they WILL pay if the kid is found negligent, but what I'm actually saying is that in order for parents to pay, the kid has to be sued first.

Question: Will a judgment be rendered against the child? If so and the child loses, are the parents assessed the damages as a matter of law, or are we just banking on that happening?


Anyhow, don't fret TOO much over this. All this was was a judge unwilling to say that as a matter of law a four year old could never be negligent. He wasn't saying that this kid was or anything, and the only reason he did was likely so that they could get it in front of a jury so the estate had a chance at recovery. The jury isn't likely to find against a rather sympathetic defendant, and I frankly don't think they should.

True, but I'm looking at this from a more general perspective on what it means to be adequately defended in court and what responsibilities does the law assign young children.

I will say this much: You know your ****.

[My Opinion Matters]

Holy sh*t, some of you might be experts on law, but you sure don't know dick about four year olds.

[Frozen Sooner]

No, I meant exactly what I said. A child under the age of four is immune from suit. This kid is four.

Your contention about a mentally retarded person being unfit to stand trial isn't really true. A retarded person can be made to answer in tort, as can an insane person. You're thinking of constitutional protections for criminal defendants, not civil defendants (like you said). Even there, courts don't really like to say that someone is SO incompetent that it rises to the level where they can't stand trial. Virginia just executed someone who's legally retarded. Insanity/incompetency defenses just don't work, particularly post-Hinckley.

If the child is liable, the parents won't be liable as a matter of law, no. The child's negligence is an element that must be established to show the parents' liability. (Again, under NY Law, according to the blog.) It IS entirely possible that the child could be found liable and the parents absolved.

[Okla-homey]

Here's the bottom line people. People can and do sue other people over most any grievance you can possibly imagine. But well over 95% of those lawsuits are settled before trial.

Here, you have a couple of wealthy moms who reside on East 52d in Manhattan who were letting their kids have a bicycle race on a sidewalk and one of those kids ran into an old lady who fell and broke her hip.

This case will not be tried. It will settle for some amount that will approximate the old lady's medical bills arising from the accident. And I think that's fair.