4 year old being sued

[gingersmom]

From todays New York Times-

 

 

4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case

By ALAN FEUER

Published: October 28, 2010

 

 

Citing cases dating back as far as 1928, a judge has ruled that a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence.

 

The ruling by the judge, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, did not find that the girl was liable, but merely permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward.

 

The suit that Justice Wooten allowed to proceed claims that in April 2009, Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, who were both 4, were racing their bicycles, under the supervision of their mothers, Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, on the sidewalk of a building on East 52nd Street. At some point in the race, they struck an 87-year-old woman named Claire Menagh, who was walking in front of the building and, according to the complaint, was “seriously and severely injured,” suffering a hip fracture that required surgery. She died three months later of unrelated causes.

 

Her estate sued the children and their mothers, claiming they had acted negligently during the accident. In a response, Juliet’s lawyer, James P. Tyrie, argued that the girl was not “engaged in an adult activity” at the time of the accident — “She was riding her bicycle with training wheels under the supervision of her mother” — and was too young to be held liable for negligence.

 

In legal papers, Mr. Tyrie added, “Courts have held that an infant under the age of 4 is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence.” (Rachel and Jacob Kohn did not seek to dismiss the case against them.)

 

But Justice Wooten declined to stretch that rule to children over 4. On Oct. 1, he rejected a motion to dismiss the case because of Juliet’s age, noting that she was three months shy of turning 5 when Ms. Menagh was struck, and thus old enough to be sued.

 

Mr. Tyrie “correctly notes that infants under the age of 4 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence,” Justice Wooten wrote in his decision, referring to the 1928 case. “Juliet Breitman, however, was over the age of 4 at the time of the subject incident. For infants above the age of 4, there is no bright-line rule.”

 

The New York Law Journal reported the decision on Thursday.

 

Mr. Tyrie had also argued that Juliet should not be held liable because her mother was present; Justice Wooten disagreed.

 

“A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street,” the judge wrote. He added that any “reasonably prudent child,” who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there. The crucial factor is whether the parent encourages the risky behavior; if so, the child should not be held accountable.

 

In Ms. Menagh’s case, however, there was nothing to indicate that Juliet’s mother “had any active role in the alleged incident, only that the mother was ‘supervising,’ a term that is too vague to hold meaning here,” he wrote. He concluded that there was no evidence of Juliet’s “lack of intelligence or maturity” or anything to “indicate that another child of similar age and capacity under the circumstances could not have reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman.”

 

Mr. Tyrie, Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn did not respond to messages seeking comment.

 

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

 

Correction: October 29, 2010

 

 

An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Claire Menagh died three weeks after the accident. She died three months later.

[QuirkyKapers]

Saw it.... Is there more to it than that? It just seems so crazy!

[mommaduck]

insane.

[MamaSheep]

Wait...they're suing the 4 year old, not the parents? What are they suing FOR? Bubblegum?

[Mabeline]

insane.

 

:iagree: i wonder what the punishment would be if the little girl lost the case? Crazy!

[Gwenhwyfar]

and what exactly is the 'estate' hoping to get from this five year old girl? are they in need of a little pink piggy bank? a few barbie dolls? maybe even some lego? :001_rolleyes:

[mommaduck]

:iagree: i wonder what the punishment would be if the little girl lost the case? Crazy!

The punishment would be that the parents, as guardians, would owe the estate. I'm wondering who managing the estate is that they are so desperate as to sue a 4yr old :glare: It's a frivolous lawsuit and should be tossed out of the court.

[jenL]

I saw this today, and my sister and I were dumbfounded. For one, what the heck will they sue for? Future earnings? Second, how many 4 year olds on training wheels have full control of their bikes? The judge is completely clueless as to the nature of children. It sounds like a horrific accident to me that has gone completely out of control.

 

Granted, with all that said, I was not there; I did not see the reactions of the kids, the mothers, or any bystanders. As someone else mentioned there has to be more to this. It still does not justify suing a preschooler though, imo.

[mommaduck]

I saw this today, and my sister and I were dumbfounded. For one, what the heck will they sue for? Future earnings? Second, how many 4 year olds on training wheels have full control of their bikes? The judge is completely clueless as to the nature of children. It sounds like a horrific accident to me that has gone completely out of control.

 

Granted, with all that said, I was not there; I did not see the reactions of the kids, the mothers, or any bystanders. As someone else mentioned there has to be more to this. It still does not justify suing a preschooler though, imo.

Precisely! And you they won't learn unless you let go.

[GWOB]

It's times like this I really wish there was a cure for stupid.

[Dana]

Although if you're in your late 80s and walking on the sidewalk, you should be able to expect that you're not going to get knocked over by racing children. There's got to be some serious back story here...just like the McDonalds coffee. It may not be a frivolous suit (although I question what's going on that the parents aren't being sued instead).

[kalanamak]

I have walked every block of 52nd St and there is no place for kids on bikes. The mothers were either fools or rogues. I suspect the latter.

[cin]

It's times like this I really wish there was a cure for stupid.

 

 

YOU! Out of the Gene Pool!

 

If only they were too stupid to reproduce :glare:

[Cera]

I am in no way agreeing with suing a 4 yr old but a busy NYC sidewalk is probably not the place to have small, unstable children racing bikes. With no backstory my assumption would be that the parents were either idiots or had an entitled attitude that led them to believe the sidewalk was "theirs."

 

My kids bike on the sidewalk but I have drilled into their heads that it is their job to watch out for littler kids and old people. I love my kids but expect them to act responsibly on public property so everyone can enjoy it.

[GWOB]

:lol: Ok. Perhaps the mothers were drunk or smoking crack while "supervising" their kids, but really?! Sueing a 4-year-old? Yes, it really stinks that a lady was hurt and eventually died from a horrible accident. But it was an accident! Can you honestly prove negligence in a 4-year-old? Now, if the suit was brought against the parents because they were not properly supervising their children, I would be much more sympathetic. But really? A 4-year-old? My kids, at less than 2 feet away from me, have bumped into countless people. I am constantly on their tails to "be aware". What if I was in the grocery store with my brood and one of them bumped into someone, causing them to fall and seriously injure themself? Nevermind that I told them at least 4000 times to be aware of their surroundings. Are they at fault for being kids? Am I at fault for not being closer? Accidents happen with kids. Sometimes they are tragic. but they are accidents!

[2cents]

I think there probably is a lot more to this case than the news (love to sensationalize stories) are revealing. I personally think that an elderly woman should be able to walk along the street without fear of being run over by a tricycle. IMO, for that to happen, the child was not being supervised properly. 87 year old people do not easily jump out of the way and they don't heal quickly either. Maybe the suit is asking for medical bill recoupment (which can add up to significant amounts quickly). It surprises me that without knowing the whole story people could consider this another frivilous lawsuit.

[FaithManor]

I'm just tired of everyone in the world suing for everything. It would be really nice if people would grow up!

 

Who knows what the back story is but I smell a rat, a rat that managed to pass the New York bar exam!

 

We've got a rat like that near us and he runs ads all the time. "Are you an unhappy adult? Maybe something happened when you were born and it's the doctor's fault or the hospital's fault! Call _____Free_____We'll see that you get your share!" Really, I'm pretty certain the ad should say, "We'll see that we get our share and maybe there will be something left for you when it is over!"

 

If we had a nuclear war, the survivors would be cockroaches, fruit flies, rats, at least two stupid morons who want to sue each other, the lawyer above referenced, one really incompetant judge to hear the case, and Jerry Springer so he can invite them all on his show.

 

Oh my, can anyone tell that dh is working really late and I'm getting mighty sick of it, compounded by having consumed ONLY ONE cup of coffee today, and I had to make my shopping run so fast that I didn't get coffee, much less cheesecake at Barnes and Nobles today???????? I'm really, cynical and crabby tonight.

 

Faith

[Mommy22alyns]

Boy, I hope they feel proud of themselves for picking on a freakin' FOUR year old. :glare: Ridiculous.

[GWOB]

I think there probably is a lot more to this case than the news (love to sensationalize stories) are revealing. I personally think that an elderly woman should be able to walk along the street without fear of being run over by a tricycle. IMO, for that to happen, the child was not being supervised properly. 87 year old people do not easily jump out of the way and they don't heal quickly either. Maybe the suit is asking for medical bill recoupment (which can add up to significant amounts quickly). It surprises me that without knowing the whole story people could consider this another frivilous lawsuit.

 

You raise good points. However, the suit was brought against a 4-year-old. That, in my opinion, is frivilous, ridiculous, and stupid. Now, if the suit was brought against the parents, I would have a smidge more sympathy. Again, if the parents, who were supervising their children on the sidewalk in a residential area of the city, were found to be negligent (i.e. drunk, smoking crack, or otherwise giving parents a bad name), then they should be responsible for medical costs. But that is not the case. The plaintiffs are suing (sueing?) a 4-year-old. That's just idiotic in my book. Are they going to sue God next? That's been done before.

[Gwenhwyfar]

It surprises me that without knowing the whole story people could consider this another frivilous lawsuit.

 

i don't think people are really saying that - the lawsuit itself *may* have merit, we don't know.

 

however.

 

naming a five year old as one of the people being sued? THAT is ridiculous.

[Kates]

The lawsuit may have merit, but it's ridiculous to sue a 4yo. I'm sorry, but I've never yet met a 4yo who a) has sufficient control of a bike to stop or swerve for granny and b) has the foresight to think ahead to the point of looking out for others when they're racing down the sidewalk on something with wheels. They're 4. (Good grief, I've met 14yo's who should possess those qualities, but don't.)

 

In most states, the age for liability is 12, not 4. (Homeowners/renters ins. in most states covers anything that a child under 12 does, as they're not seen as being fully aware and capable of negligence; over 12, you're on your own.) Sue the parents, fine! They should have been keeping closer watch over the children and not letting them ride on what is apparently a crowded NYC sidewalk. (Never having been there, I couldn't say.) A 4yo loses focus quite easily...sorry, but this one is gonna be reviewed and thrown out by someone, even if the current judge doesn't have the sense to do so.

 

And what, pray tell, are they hoping to get out of a 4yo???

[gingersmom]

My kids have ridden their bikes with training wheels in NYC on the sidewalk. I never for a moment thought I would be sued.

 

In Central Park their are bikers who will plow you down if you are in their way.

 

I used to live in a building on the Upper East Side and their was a women in the building next door with a scooter (electric wheelchair type thing). She drove it on the sidewalk like a crazed maniac.

 

I never thought of suing her but maybe its not too late. :001_smile:

[Tweed]

When my brother was 9, he was riding his bike around a car blocking a sidewalk and hit an elderly lady breaking her hip. My grandparents were sued because they were babysitting him, my parents were sued, the neighbor was sued because my brother was running a letter to the mailbox for him when this happened. This was in the early 80's. I don't believe my brother was actually sued. Interestingly enough the people whose car was blocking the sidewalk (a cop) weren't sued. Anyway, it was a sad incident and everyone was pretty traumatized all the way around. I'm pretty careful about my kids riding their bikes on sidewalks today.

[Mejane]

Although if you're in your late 80s and walking on the sidewalk, you should be able to expect that you're not going to get knocked over by racing children.

 

I have walked every block of 52nd St and there is no place for kids on bikes. The mothers were either fools or rogues. I suspect the latter.

 

:iagree:I'd have no problem with the woman's relatives suing the parents.

[Mejane]

I'm just tired of everyone in the world suing for everything. It would be really nice if people would grow up!

 

 

 

I tend to agree with you about most cases being frivolous, but in this case an elderly woman was run down and died as a result. If it were my mother, I'd probably sue, too, especially as it sounds as though the parents aren't taking responsibility.

[Tap]

I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if it is the 'chain' that the law suit has to go through.

 

The victim sues the assailant. If the judge ruled that the assailant was too young to sue, then they would probably have grounds to sue the parents. But, as long as the judge interprets the law to mean that they can sue the kids....then the suit has to proceed with the victim suing the assailant, not the parents. I would guess that it is the legal process in that state.

 

I would also guess that the parents could be sued in civil court after the child's case proceeds.

[mommaduck]

I tend to agree with you about most cases being frivolous, but in this case an elderly woman was run down and died as a result. If it were my mother, I'd probably sue, too, especially as it sounds as though the parents aren't taking responsibility.

I believe it stated that she died from unrelated causes.

[Mejane]

I believe it stated that she died from unrelated causes.

 

You're right. I worked with the elderly for years, though, and broken hips can lead to or exacerbate all kinds of health issues. I'd be interested to know what the cause of death was.

[mommaduck]

You're right. I worked with the elderly for years, though, and broken hips can lead to or exacerbate all kinds of health issues. I'd be interested to know what the cause of death was.

I'm sure. And they would have to show a connection. However, this legal case sounds like, without having read the legal documents themselves, they are suing for the initial injuries and resulting care. My guess is that a relative, possibly one that either is in charge of the estate or is to inherit from the estate (if not both), signed off on the forms claiming responsibility for payment, particularly if the woman was unable to (just as I signed off when my husband was injured). They would be suing on her behalf through the estate as they got stuck with her bill.

Edited October 30, 2010 by mommaduck

[cindergretta]

Whether or not it is a "frivolous" suit would depend on information we may not have. BUT - sue the parents, not the children. Suing children is about the dumbest thing I have heard of!!

 

I studied early childhood development in college. A 4 or 5 year old will walk IN FRONT OF A SWING and not realize it will hit them. They do not see what is coming next. (Some might, most won't.) It is a developmental issue, not one of intelligence or wrecklessness. :glare:

[wapiti]

In most states, the age for liability is 12, not 4. (Homeowners/renters ins. in most states covers anything that a child under 12 does, as they're not seen as being fully aware and capable of negligence; over 12, you're on your own.)

One thought, I can't really say without seeing the terms of the policy, but it's possible the child is being sued in order for the plaintiff estate to recover under the parent's homeowners/renters insurance policy. Normally I'd guess that only the parents/policyholders would need to be sued, but who knows what the policy says. Just an idea.

[Parrothead]

:lol: Ok. Perhaps the mothers were drunk or smoking crack while "supervising" their kids, but really?! Sueing a 4-year-old? Yes, it really stinks that a lady was hurt and eventually died from a horrible accident. But it was an accident!

I tend to agree with you about most cases being frivolous, but in this case an elderly woman was run down and died as a result.

The article said the lady did not die from the accident. I believe "unrelated causes" is the quote.

 

I think there probably is a lot more to this case than the news (love to sensationalize stories) are revealing. I personally think that an elderly woman should be able to walk along the street without fear of being run over by a tricycle. IMO, for that to happen, the child was not being supervised properly. 87 year old people do not easily jump out of the way and they don't heal quickly either. Maybe the suit is asking for medical bill recoupment (which can add up to significant amounts quickly). It surprises me that without knowing the whole story people could consider this another frivilous lawsuit.

:iagree: to a point. Yes, an elderly lady should be able to walk down the sidewalk without worrying about being knocked down by a cyclist. But is a 4-year old on training wheels a cyclist?

 

The thing we don't know is if the old lady walked down steps into the children's path. Or if the children being 4 were not totally aware of their surroundings. The only way I could see this judge not being called an idiot and the suite against a 4 year old as being frivolous is if the children intentionally ran into the lady.

 

Hopefully the child will choose to have a jury trial and the defense will pack the jury with mother's of young children. Otherwise this becomes case law and children between between the ages of 4 and 12 should look out. The lawsuits will start flying.

 

And what adult, talking about the judge here, hasn't heard of the child that runs out into the street without looking while chasing a ball, dog, Frisbee, etc. It makes me wonder if he has children.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Parrothead

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't understand the point of suing the child and not the parents?

[WagsWife]

I am in no way agreeing with suing a 4 yr old but a busy NYC sidewalk is probably not the place to have small, unstable children racing bikes. With no backstory my assumption would be that the parents were either idiots or had an entitled attitude that led them to believe the sidewalk was "theirs."

 

My kids bike on the sidewalk but I have drilled into their heads that it is their job to watch out for littler kids and old people. I love my kids but expect them to act responsibly on public property so everyone can enjoy it.

 

I agree with this. Suing a four year old is insane...I can see suing the parents for not having control over their kids.

[NavyWifeandMommy]

imo, unfortatate accident and the judge is dumb. So are the people who want to sue the child. the US is just too sue happy.

[Gwenhwyfar]

so i'm curious... is there really any point to suing someone unless they happen to be rich? i mean, what good is a big lawsuit win if the person is just an average joe working an average job? you can't get blood from a stone...

[Melinda in VT]

The parents are being sued. From the original article as quoted in the OP:

 

Her estate sued the children and their mothers

 

The defense attorney attempted to get the girl (but not the boy) dismissed from the case because of her age.

 

I do think the judge has an unrealistically high view of the self-control and good judgment of four-year-olds. Fortunately, he's not ruling on the case itself, only on whether the case can proceed.

 

In my limited experience, it seems like a broken hip is the beginning of the end for many elderly people, so although the article states that the cause of death was unrelated to the accident, I think it likely that had the woman not broken her hip she would likely not have died when she did.

[Gwenhwyfar]

ok so i'm imaging this little five year old girl in pigtails, wide eyes peeking up over the edge of the witness stand, feet swinging away, asking the judge if his wig is as itchy as the hat her mom makes her wear in the winter. :p

[2cents]

ok so i'm imaging this little five year old girl in pigtails, wide eyes peeking up over the edge of the witness stand, feet swinging away, asking the judge if his wig is as itchy as the hat her mom makes her wear in the winter. :p

 

I seriously doubt this case would ever see a courtroom. My guess is that it will be settled in a mediation. As for suing the children, it is probably protocol to technically sue ALL involved parties. The children were most likely just included on the noticing (along with their parents). I think it may be part of a ploy to divert attention away from the real issues. BTW, I'm wondering if NY has sidewalk laws. Some areas have restrictions about what is allowed on a walkway. Maybe bikes (of any kind) were not even allowed on that particular sidewalk. Perhaps these parents had been warned before? Lots of questions don't get answered in a short news story. :)

[JennyD]

This is such a strange case. Perhaps the child has a trust fund? But even if the case proceeds, the standard for recovery is whether the child behaved 'unreasonably,' and what on earth does that mean for a 4yo?

 

As far as the parents are concerned, this is my nightmare. Actually, no, my nightmare is my kids getting mowed down by the adult cyclists (not to mention the parks department Taylor Trucks) who zoom down the shared path near our house. But a close second is my kids running into someone with their scooters, as I frantically race behind them with the baby strapped to me. I am constantly riding herd on them (Stay to the right! Look up! Watch where you're going!) but even so my 2yo ran over some poor man's foot the other day.

 

This was in today's paper:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/nyregion/30bigcity.html?hp

[at the beach]

so i'm curious... is there really any point to suing someone unless they happen to be rich? i mean, what good is a big lawsuit win if the person is just an average joe working an average job? you can't get blood from a stone...

 

You can if the stone has insurance. But maybe it's not about getting rich. Maybe it's about recovering losses. Perhaps the woman did not have enough insurance coverage to cover all the medical bills and so they were looking to cover her out of pocket expenses. Also, if her health insurance determined that the cause of the medical bills was due to an accident that was someone else's fault, then quite possibly another insurance company (the insurance company of the children and parents, if they have insurance) should be responsible for paying those medical claims. And unrelated causes means nothing. A fall and a broken hip is the beginning of the end for many elderly. Personal injury lawsuits often involve money being shifted from one insurance company to another.

 

Lots of folks have the opinion the US is too sue happy. Until they end up splat in the middle of the road after they are run over through no fault of their own and are out of work, have no health insurance, have no money to pay the bills, and are suddenly facing losing their home. What are they supposed to do? Nothing? And just because a suit is filed does not mean it will end up going to trial. In fact, it probably won't.:leaving:

[Gwenhwyfar]

You can if the stone has insurance. But maybe it's not about getting rich. Maybe it's about recovering losses. Perhaps the woman did not have enough insurance coverage to cover all the medical bills and so they were looking to cover her out of pocket expenses. Also, if her health insurance determined that the cause of the medical bills was due to an accident that was someone else's fault, then quite possibly another insurance company (the insurance company of the children and parents, if they have insurance) should be responsible for paying those medical claims. And unrelated causes means nothing. A fall and a broken hip is the beginning of the end for many elderly. Personal injury lawsuits often involve money being shifted from one insurance company to another.

 

Lots of folks have the opinion the US is too sue happy. Until they end up splat in the middle of the road after they are run over through no fault of their own and are out of work, have no health insurance, have no money to pay the bills, and are suddenly facing losing their home. What are they supposed to do? Nothing? And just because a suit is filed does not mean it will end up going to trial. In fact, it probably won't.:leaving:

 

i never said anything about "getting rich"... "recovering losses" isn't gonna happen either if the other person doesn't have any money.

 

insurance stuff though - okay, that i don't know anything about... we have insurance on our vehicles, but that's it. i've never dealt with health insurance or home insurance or life insurance or whaaaaaatever. we don't have that sort of stuff. i guess i could see it going along if it's really the big insurance companies that are doing the money thing...that makes sense.

[Mejane]

The article said the lady did not die from the accident. I believe "unrelated causes" is the quote.

 

 

 

 

Yes, mommaduck and I talked about this above somewhere.

 

It's hard to prove a connection, but breaking a hip can lead to so many complications in the elderly that it's almost impossible for me to believe she died only three months later of something completely unrelated, kwim? My mil died of congestive heart failure three months after breaking her hip. Definitely related.

[Teachin'Mine]

I have walked every block of 52nd St and there is no place for kids on bikes. The mothers were either fools or rogues. I suspect the latter.

 

 

:iagree: There is absolutely no reason the mothers should have allowed them to race on any sidewalk in Manhattan. 52nd street is very busy during the day with banks, office buildings, doctors offices, apartments, etc.. IMO other than just riding their bicycle very slowly beside their mother as she walks, they shouldn't have even been on their bicycles there. That's what Central Park and other areas are for. How sad that this happened. I know they say that the 87 yo died of unrelated causes, but older people have a much higher risk of infections and other complications after fractures, and their general well being is definitely adversely affected. So it's not unreasonable to think that her death was "caused" by this accident.

 

At the same time, it's sad that the family is taking this to court. I hope that the children's parents have learned from this, and are counseling their children appropriately.

 

Here's a run down of some of the major buildings on East 52nd Street - from Wikipedia:

 

East 52nd Street

 

[edit] Fifth Avenue (Manhattan)

 

 

 

• The Street between Fifth and Madison is signed "Place de Cartier" because of the Cartier SA store at Fifth Avenue (south)

• Olympic Tower (south)

• Austrian Cultural Institute Building for Austria[15]

• Omni Berkshire Place Hotel[16]

• Hanover Bank Building 30-story, 119 m 389 ft (119 m) completed in 1962

 

[edit] Madison Avenue (Manhattan)

 

 

 

• Park Avenue Plaza Building, 45 story 175 m 574 ft (175 m) building completed in 1981 above the Racquet and Tennis Club (north)[17]

 

[edit] Park Avenue (Manhattan)

 

 

 

• Seagram Building, 38-floor 157 m 515 ft (157 m) building completed in 1958 that is home to the Four Seasons Restaurant[18]

• 345 Park Avenue, 44-story 193 m 634 ft (193 m) building completed in 1969 (south)

 

[edit] Lexington Avenue (Manhattan)

 

 

 

• 52nd between Lexington and Third Avenue is signed Israel Bonds Way (the Development Corporation for Israel which issues the bonds is headquartered at the intersection in the Grolier Building).

• Grolier Building 33-story 126 m 414 ft (126 m) building completed in 1958[19]

• 599 Lexington Avenue, 50-story 199 m 653 ft (199 m) building completed in 1986 (north)[20]

• 150 East 52nd Street, 35-story 119 m 390 ft (120 m) building completed in 1983[21]

 

[edit] Third Avenue (Manhattan)

 

 

 

• 875 3rd Avenue 29-story 122 m 399 ft (122 m) building completed in 1983[22] (north)

• MacMillan Building 31-story 111 m 364 ft (111 m) building completed in 1966[23]

• Hungary Consulate

• Zambia Mission to the United Nations

 

[edit] Second Avenue (Manhattan)

 

 

 

• Thailand Consulate and Mission to the United Nations

 

[edit] First Avenue (Manhattan)

 

 

 

• 52nd Street is two-ways east of First Avenue since it dead ends on a bluff above the FDR Drive.

• Southgate Apartment

• 450 East 52nd - home to celebrities such as Greta Garbo and John Lennon

 

[kalphs]

:001_huh:

Ridiculous!

[justamouse]

I have walked every block of 52nd St and there is no place for kids on bikes. The mothers were either fools or rogues. I suspect the latter.

 

Exactly. I mean--I cannot even IMAGINE letting them ride on 52nd (let alone other streets).

 

Seriously, I cannot wrap my head around why these parents allowed this. New bikes? Great. Haul them to the park. Can't? Why did you get them bikes?

 

I mean, I live in a town now and there are certain things that I know I'm not going to be able to do and those are my consequences of living in a town. When you live in NYC you *must* realize that as a parent you are not going to be able to provide the same childhood a kid in the suburbs has (not implying that the suburbs are better, just different).

 

 

Lots of folks have the opinion the US is too sue happy. Until they end up splat in the middle of the road after they are run over through no fault of their own and are out of work, have no health insurance, have no money to pay the bills, and are suddenly facing losing their home. What are they supposed to do? Nothing? And just because a suit is filed does not mean it will end up going to trial. In fact, it probably won't.:leaving:

 

*nods* yes. Exactly.

[2cents]

I checked out that street on Vpike. It is super busy! I can't imagine letting a child ride a bike there after looking at the pictures. Crazy!

 

http://www.vpike.com/?place=East+52nd+Street+new+york

[cindergretta]

I checked out that street on Vpike. It is super busy! I can't imagine letting a child ride a bike there after looking at the pictures. Crazy!

 

http://www.vpike.com/?place=East+52nd+Street+new+york

 

Based on all the people saying children shouldn't be allowed to ride bikes on this street, I can see why the children are being sued. They should have known better than to ride their bikes on such a busy street!

 

Oh wait! They're kids!!! They didn't understand that they shouldn't. So maybe the parents should have known?? Oh, OK! Then sue the parents and leave the kids out of it. And yes, I see that the parents are part of the lawsuit. But I simply cannot, for any reason whatsoever, wrap my mind around suing little tiny (not-yet-school-aged) children. :001_huh:

 

If this goes anywhere, look out parents everywhere! Keep your dc in your homes b/c if they should happen to act like a child in public, they are liable for it. <sigh>

 

ITU being the victim of an accident or even a crime. But sometimes cruddy things happen and they are just an accident. In this case, it sounds like the parents were seriously lacking in judgement, but that isn't always the case. Often, it is just an accident. Our vehicle was broken into and *everything* was stolen out of it. After insurance, it still cost us a fortune. It really stinks. But there wasn't anyone to sue. The people that broke into it were never even caught. Sometimes there isn't anyone to "pay" for accidents, injustices, crimes, etc. Some things are part of living in a society with other people. When there is clear negligence, by all means - SUE. That's what it's there for. But suing children is beyond the pale. :glare: