Four-year-old to be sued in NY...

[Octavia]

if a child intentionally harms someone, the child shouldsuffer the consequences.

OK. How young would you go? A two year old smacks another two year old in the face, deliberately, with a shovel because the second child took her pail. Intentional. Should the child be sued? What if the child is not yet two. We have a ten month old who can sit up and swing a shovel. She is angry her bottle was just taken out of her mouth by her mother who wants her to eat lunch. She hits out at her friend in anger over the loss of her bottle. Lawsuit?

Deb/AGBF

Personally or legally? My own view is that kids as young as your examples aren't capable of forming the necessary intent, and proving intent would be very difficult even for slightly older kids. But AFAIK, my state doesn't have a minimum age for intentional torts. Other states might.

 

[yssie]

To the many replies addressed to me:

I don't know anything about four year olds - I don't have kids of my own and I don't have siblings or cousins of that age. Which gives me a different - but equally relevant - viewpoint.

What I DO have is a grandmother who is the centre of our family, who has been part of every significant memory I have, who helped raise me when my dad was working overseas. Who is now able to live by herself and walk down a street without an escort, and yet is frail enough that if knocked down would likely sustain serious injury.

What is the point of feeling out for blood? Well, that's how I'd honestly feel, there doesn't need to be a *point* to it.

I'd be hurt, and sad, and furious, and not the least bit likely to say "oh, it was just an accident!" and blithely 'absolve' the guilty parties. I might have to outwardly, because suing a child is a ludicrous proposition, but you can bet I wouldn't truly feel it - I'd want to point my finger at someone and say "it's his/her fault"! And THAT'S the infuriating part of this - the real guilty party cannot be usefully blamed, because they don't even *get* why what they did was so terrible. As I said before, I'm sure the children were told not to race down the road on their bikes, and they disobeyed - wilfully and deliberately, and these are the results of their disobedience.. and they don't get it, and they won't anytime soon, and they'll probably throw tantrums over having their bikes and barbies taken away because that's all they can understand.

And I've still lost my grandmother.

As I said: infuriating all round.


ETA: the question of a one year old, or a young toddler, is different because they are not even capable of understanding "no" vs "yes", let alone deliberately disobeying. The four year old IS capable of this differentiation - the four year old knows that when mummy and daddy say "no", that means it's "wrong" to do (like race your bike down the sidewalk), even if she cannot make the connections as to *why* the answer is "no".
But this tangent is irrelevant.

 

[AGBF]

To the many replies addressed to me:

I don't know anything about four year olds - I don't have kids of my own and I don't have siblings or cousins of that age. Which gives me a different - but equally relevant - viewpoint.

What I DO have is a grandmother who is the centre of our family, who has been part of every significant memory I have, who helped raise me when my dad was working overseas. Who is now able to live by herself and walk down a street without an escort, and yet is frail enough that if knocked down would likely sustain serious injury.

What is the point of feeling out for blood? Well, that's how I'd honestly feel, there doesn't need to be a *point* to it.

I'd be hurt, and sad, and furious, and not the least bit likely to say "oh, it was just an accident!" and blithely 'absolve' the guilty parties. I might have to outwardly, because suing a child is a ludicrous proposition, but you can bet I wouldn't truly feel it - I'd want to point my finger at someone and say "it's his/her fault"! And THAT'S the infuriating part of this - the real guilty party cannot be usefully blamed, because they don't even *get* why what they did was so terrible. As I said before, I'm sure the children were told not to race down the road on their bikes, and they disobeyed - wilfully and deliberately, and these are the results of their disobedience.. and they don't get it, and they won't anytime soon, and they'll probably throw tantrums over having their bikes and barbies taken away because that's all they can understand.

And I've still lost my grandmother.

As I said: infuriating all round.


ETA: the question of a one year old, or a young toddler, is different because they are not even capable of understanding "no" vs "yes", let alone deliberately disobeying. The four year old IS capable of this differentiation - the four year old knows that when mummy and daddy say "no", that means it's "wrong" to do (like race your bike down the sidewalk), even if she cannot make the connections as to *why* the answer is "no". But this tangent is irrelevant.

If you don't know anything about four year olds, how did you get the information to reach the conclusion that they are capable of understanding right and wrong?

AGBF

 

[yssie]

To the many replies addressed to me:

I don't know anything about four year olds - I don't have kids of my own and I don't have siblings or cousins of that age. Which gives me a different - but equally relevant - viewpoint.

What I DO have is a grandmother who is the centre of our family, who has been part of every significant memory I have, who helped raise me when my dad was working overseas. Who is now able to live by herself and walk down a street without an escort, and yet is frail enough that if knocked down would likely sustain serious injury.

What is the point of feeling out for blood? Well, that's how I'd honestly feel, there doesn't need to be a *point* to it.

I'd be hurt, and sad, and furious, and not the least bit likely to say "oh, it was just an accident!" and blithely 'absolve' the guilty parties. I might have to outwardly, because suing a child is a ludicrous proposition, but you can bet I wouldn't truly feel it - I'd want to point my finger at someone and say "it's his/her fault"! And THAT'S the infuriating part of this - the real guilty party cannot be usefully blamed, because they don't even *get* why what they did was so terrible. As I said before, I'm sure the children were told not to race down the road on their bikes, and they disobeyed - wilfully and deliberately, and these are the results of their disobedience.. and they don't get it, and they won't anytime soon, and they'll probably throw tantrums over having their bikes and barbies taken away because that's all they can understand.

And I've still lost my grandmother.

As I said: infuriating all round.


ETA: the question of a one year old, or a young toddler, is different because they are not even capable of understanding "no" vs "yes", let alone deliberately disobeying. The four year old IS capable of this differentiation - the four year old knows that when mummy and daddy say "no", that means it's "wrong" to do (like race your bike down the sidewalk), even if she cannot make the connections as to *why* the answer is "no". But this tangent is irrelevant.

If you don't know anything about four year olds, how did you get the information to reach the conclusion that they are capable of understanding right and wrong?

AGBF

Watching my new nephew's reactions when threatened with time-outs
Babysitting my cousins an eon ago.
Watching my friends with their nephews and nieces.
Okay, there are more young kids around me than I thought.

I was very careful NOT to say they understood right vs. wrong and the reasoning behind it.
They understand "yes" vs "no", and they are capable of making the direct single connection between a parent saying "yes" = "okay", but "no" = "wrong/not okay".
"Sit down and eat your dinner" = "yes". And if he doesn't stop screaming, he gets a warning for timeout. Kid learns that continued screaming = "no, not okay", because parents say so.
"Don't touch the socket" = "yes". And if he does poke at it, parents have heartattacks and kid probably goes in timeout for ten minutes. Kid learns that touching the socket = "no, not okay", because parents say so.
"Don't race your bike down the street" = "yes". And if they do race, and they hurt someone, they get - what? Timeout for ten minutes?


Do you truly disagree that a normally mentally developing 4yo is capable of making the connection above in bold?

 

[Pandora II]

A four year old is not capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong. A parent can say 'no' or 'don't do xyz' but all children of that age will either push to see what happens if they do xyz when they've been told not to do, and their wish to do what they want will far over-ride their remembering they were told 'no' or that this might have consequences.

It's the reason why parents feel that they spend years and years saying nothing but 'no' and 'don't'... endless repetition is needed to arrive at a point where the child can reason through things on their own and obey directions properly. This is generally around age 7.

It would also be wrong to punish the children in this case for longer than a few days max. At age 4 the recommendations I have read are to do time-outs for a max of 5 minutes. Any more and the child will no longer understand why they are doing the time out.

If you tell your 4 year old not to race his bike, he may well not race it right then, but he will not necessarily think that the same rule applies once you reach the next street or 10 minutes later. So saying they are being wilfully or deliberately diosobedient is not something you can apply to a child that age.

 

[yssie]

A four year old is not capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong. A parent can say 'no' or 'don't do xyz' but all children of that age will either push to see what happens if they do xyz when they've been told not to do, and their wish to do what they want will far over-ride their remembering they were told 'no' or that this might have consequences.

It's the reason why parents feel that they spend years and years saying nothing but 'no' and 'don't'... endless repetition is needed to arrive at a point where the child can reason through things on their own and obey directions properly. This is generally around age 7.

It would also be wrong to punish the children in this case for longer than a few days max. At age 4 the recommendations I have read are to do time-outs for a max of 5 minutes. Any more and the child will no longer understand why they are doing the time out.

If you tell your 4 year old not to race his bike, he may well not race it right then, but he will not necessarily think that the same rule applies once you reach the next street or 10 minutes later. So saying they are being wilfully or deliberately diosobedient is not something you can apply to a child that age.

Now this is interesting. I would not have guessed this.

Dare I say that I have exactly this problem with the husky breeds that wind up in our shelter... the labs and retrievers and shepherds *get* that "sit" always means sit very quickly, the northern mixes take longer to understand that - they'll "sit" on command but not realise that the word "sit" is not specific to that particular time and location..

 

[fieryred33143]

Yssie-I don't think you need to be a parent or whatever to have an opinion. I was just a bit put off by calling children who were innocently playing "miscreants." Not all children are evil creatures out to run into the elderly, ruin fancy dinners, and spread their germs everywhere. This was a child just playing that ended badly.

What should the outcome of this case be? What should be this child's punishment?

I would be devastated if this happened to my grandmother but I would also know that it was an accident. I think we live in a really sad world when we can't recognize what accidents are and will proudly send a child to court over it.

Luckily a 4 year old doesn't know enough to completely lose faith in humanity.

 

[LadyBlue]

Yssie-I don't think you need to be a parent or whatever to have an opinion. I was just a bit put off by calling children who were innocently playing "miscreants." Not all children are evil creatures out to run into the elderly, ruin fancy dinners, and spread their germs everywhere. This was a child just playing that ended badly.
What should the outcome of this case be? What should be this child's punishment?

I would be devastated if this happened to my grandmother but I would also know that it was an accident. I think we live in a really sad world when we can't recognize what accidents are and will proudly send a child to court over it.

Luckily a 4 year old doesn't know enough to completely lose faith in humanity.

Fiery, I'm not a mom, but I was an au pair in NYC that took care of a kid from 3 to 5 years old from 6.30am to 8.30 pm, Monday to Friday, living together, traveling to Miami by ourselves for vacation. Meaning I was not a mom but I experience a lot with her.

I can tell you she knew when No was No, and when she did not want to obey she was force to obey. I mean, there was no way I did not hold her hand all the way to the playground and if she did not want to we will stand up until she realize she had to hold my hand. NYC it's a very dangerous city for everybody to walk around, taxies driving like crazy, people walking like crazy and kids running like nuts. I mean, kids are kids, but you as a parent or caregiver has the obligation to don't let the kid run or bike on a sidewalk. The river side walk is full of elderly and people with dogs (there is the dog playground) If you want to take your kid there to bike you HAVE to be over them a 100% of the time, not just for others safety but for your kids safety. Just hearing that this parents let the kids race in bikes in the sidewalk of NYC makes my want to scream. That is NOT acceptable, kids should not be allow to do that. It was a terrible accident, but in my opinion it was an accident that could had been prevented by the parents. I think this case should be used to make Parents more conscious to not let kids run, or bike on the streets. It’s not safe for anybody.

 

[fieryred33143]

I don't disagree that the parents were responsible here (or rather, irresponsible). I just don't agree that a child should be made to go to court over this.

I am confused as to where a child should be allowed to play if not on the sidewalks? I grew up in NYC. We played on the sidewalks which included riding bikes. We did not have a backyard being that we lived in an apartment. The park was far from us but I do remember going to the park a few times.

 

[LadyBlue]

Hi fiery, I live in Manhattan and that is my only experience. Kid's don't play on the sidewalks here. I don't know how NYC was when you were kid since I only have been here for 5 years. But you only see kids in strollers or holding the parents hands. No kids on leash or playing on sidewalks. That’s a big NO-NO. I honestly think it would be very irresponsible to do that in a city like this. Parents usually carry the bikes to the parks and then play there cautiously. I mean, NYC or at least Manhattan streets are not kid friendly at all.

 

[iota15]

If a four year old doesn't realize knocking someone over is bad, does a six year old really get that going to court is as serious and traumatic as we think it is?

The six year old doesn't have to sit through the entire hearing, and like many have mentioned, it's unlikely the child will be held at fault anyway.

The six year old sits in a chair next to an older gentleman/gentlewoman (judge), tells her story with her parents in the gallery, answers questions and then leaves. No lawyer in her right mind is going to get agressive with a six year old on the stand.

Is this really that terrible an experience for a six year old? especially given that the bereaving family is probably trying to access insurance money (rather than money directly from that child)?

I don't know - it sounds like it could be kind of fun for a six year old, with the exception of the fact everyone keeps telling her to behave and she has to wear her "sunday's best". I'm not sure this is something so traumatic that we need to protect a child from.

Plus, with everyone saying, the parent's are responsible, forget suing the child... well, the child will still have to take the stand if the parent's are sued. Same experience for the child - the intracacies of which she probably doesn't understand and/or care anyway. Plus, not every action/indiscretion by a young child means the parent's failed to supervise them properly and are thus responsible.

It's also very easy to claim that you wouldn't pursue a claim because it was just an accident and children will be children. An accident/ negligence, by definition, means no one intended it, adult or otherwise... but consequences did arise.

With Pandora's example of the snowball - what if the snowball inadvertently contained a rock, hit little baby Daisy and caused a severe brain injury? You really wouldn't have done anything?

What if, rather than teenagers, a four year old threw the rock snowball. Accident because, well, who knew it contained a rock... and the child might not have even seen baby Daisy in her tucked-away pouch.... and well, children will be children - they throw snowballs, you know. You wouldn't put that child on the stand to access her parent's house insurance?

Not every action/indiscretion by a young child means the parent's failed to supervise them properly, and are thus, responsible for the child's action. In a perfect world, a parent would have perfect and full control I don't believe the law expects parents to be in perfect control of their children at all times.

 

[AGBF]

If a four year old doesn't realize knocking someone over is bad, does a six year old really get that going to court is as serious and traumatic as we think it is?

The six year old doesn't have to sit through the entire hearing, and like many have mentioned, it's unlikely the child will be held at fault anyway.

The six year old sits in a chair next to an older gentleman/gentlewoman (judge), tells her story with her parents in the gallery, answers questions and then leaves. No lawyer in her right mind is going to get agressive with a six year old on the stand.

Is this really that terrible an experience for a six year old? especially given that the bereaving family is probably trying to access insurance money (rather than money directly from that child)?

I don't know - it sounds like it could be kind of fun for a six year old, with the exception of the fact everyone keeps telling her to behave and she has to wear her "sunday's best". I'm not sure this is something so traumatic that we need to protect a child from.

Plus, with everyone saying, the parent's are responsible, forget suing the child... well, the child will still have to take the stand if the parent's are sued. Same experience for the child - the intracacies of which she probably doesn't understand and/or care anyway.

It's also very easy to claim that you wouldn't pursue a claim because it was just an accident and children will be children. An accident/ negligence, by definition, means no one intended it, adult or otherwise... but consequences did arise.

With Pandora's example of the snowball - what if the snowball inadvertently contained a rock, hit little baby Daisy and caused a severe brain injury? You really wouldn't have done anything?

What if, rather than teenagers, a four year old threw the rock snowball. Accident because, well, who knew it contained a rock... and the child might not have even seen baby Daisy in her tucked-away pouch.... and well, children will be children - they throw snowballs, you know. You wouldn't put that child on the stand to access her parent's house insurance? Parents aren't expected to be in perfect control of their children at all times. Just because a parent has a duty to supervise doesn't mean a parent is not allowed to glance away for a fraction of a second while the child plays in the snow.

A snowball that inadvertently contains a rock and is thrown by a four year-old would be one of the wonders of the world! Something tells me you do not have children!

Deb/AGBF

 

[iota15]

I may. I may not.

The point being - children can cause great harm inadvertently... (unless that proposition is being contested).

 

[dragonfly411]

It just baffles me that people really would pursue something like this. It's a child. Children make mistakes, it is part of growing up. They are not criminals for it. Really and truly some of these arguments are mind boggling, and depressing.

 

[CNOS128]

It just baffles me that people really would pursue something like this. It's a child. Children make mistakes, it is part of growing up. They are not criminals for it. Really and truly some of these arguments are mind boggling, and depressing.

Nobody is saying she's a criminal. There haven't been criminal charges brought. This is a civil suit.

 

[AGBF]

It just baffles me that people really would pursue something like this. It's a child. Children make mistakes, it is part of growing up. They are not criminals for it. Really and truly some of these arguments are mind boggling, and depressing.

I'm sorry, but that's not the issue. Expecting a four year-old to have the cognitive ability to make the correct decision is bizarre. It is something one would expect the know-nothings of the early Middle Ages to think a child could do. Or the people of a stone-age culture thriving in isolation today in a geographically remote spot visited by anthropologists from our civilization. It is certainly not thinking informed by the research done in the 19th and 20th centuries by psychologists like Anna Freud, Jean Piaget, and Selma Fraiberg.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Bliss]

Hi fiery, I live in Manhattan and that is my only experience. Kid's don't play on the sidewalks here. I don't know how NYC was when you were kid since I only have been here for 5 years. But you only see kids in strollers or holding the parents hands. No kids on leash or playing on sidewalks. That’s a big NO-NO. I honestly think it would be very irresponsible to do that in a city like this. Parents usually carry the bikes to the parks and then play there cautiously. I mean, NYC or at least Manhattan streets are not kid friendly at all.

+1!!! My thinking (and who knows what actually happened) is that the moms got distracted talking and the kids decided to race. No sane mom would let her 4 year 9 month old child RACE her bike down a Manhattan sidewalk. No way. Does a nearly 5 year old child know right from wrong? Yes, absolutely. This wasn't her first bike ride. But should she be sued? Absolutely not.

But it raises interesting questions. Teen drivers, like the one who hit a dear PSer's DH because he was speeding around a parking lot trying to splash his friends, do horrible things. He did a really stupid horrible thing that lead to an innocent person having to get multiple surgery, loss of wages and untold pain and suffering. The point being, kids, teens and adults do really stupid things - like texting while driving, without malice behind their intentions. Sometimes it's a horrible lapse in judgment that results in tragic accidents. I think a nearly 5 year old kid should have way more leeway in her lapse of judgment. What in the world does a kid that age know about consequences? Her parents were the ones who failed her and the elderly woman. Riding bikes on the sidewalk is illegal in Manhattan anyway for this very reason - way too dangerous. Sue the heck out of the parents, but leave the kid alone. She will probably feel horrible later in life anyway...

 

[dragonfly411]

It just baffles me that people really would pursue something like this. It's a child. Children make mistakes, it is part of growing up. They are not criminals for it. Really and truly some of these arguments are mind boggling, and depressing.

I'm sorry, but that's not the issue. Expecting a four year-old to have the cognitive ability to make the correct decision is bizarre. It is something one would expect the know-nothings of the early Middle Ages to think a child could do. Or the people of a stone-age culture thriving in isolation today in a geographically remote spot visited by anthropologists from our civilization. It is certainly not thinking informed by the research done in the 19th and 20th centuries by psychologists like Anna Freud, Jean Piaget, and Selma Fraiberg.

Deb/AGBF

Perhaps I should have worded that differently. Children have accidents.... things happen... they are not perfect, and as children are still in a learning phase of life and do not know that the results of an action may result in something bad like that happening. This is a child who probably doesn't even fully understand what death is.

 

[AGBF]

This is a child who probably doesn't even fully understand what death is.

A child who has absolutely no concept of what death is.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Pandora II]

Had the snowball contained a rock or if it had hit Daisy I would have pressed charges, however the chances of the teenagers in question or their parents having house insurance round here is practically zero. I'd hazard a guess that they and probably all their parents are on welfare and it wouldn't be worth pursuing a claim. I would however apply to the government scheme.

Let's say I was in a wealthy area and the same thing had happened I would have acted the same way - a rock in the snowball or an injury to Daisy I would have pressed charges and if she had been left with extensive injuries I would pursue a claim because it would be worth doing and because these were teenagers and knew exactly what they were doing.

If it was a 4 year old, I would first want to ascertain whether someone else had prepared said snowball with rock deliberately or if it had been accidently scooped up by the child. The chances of a 4 year-old being able to throw it with sufficient force to cause injury is doubtful, but let's say that it did... then I would consider it a very unfortunate accident. We do have free healthcare here so it wouldn't cost me anything to access the best care available in the case of a serious injury.

The government also runs a compensation scheme if you are a blameless victim and injured or killed. The perpetrator does not even need to have been caught for the claim to be settled. In the case of someone who dies as the result of the injury the payment is £11k GBP. In the case of injury the amount awarded depends on the level of injury, it's impact on your ability to work, the cost of any changes that need to be made to your home as a result of the injury, the cost of any specialist treatment that you need that can't be provided by the National Health Service etc as well as a sum for compensation for the injury. I don't know if you have a similar scheme in the USA.

 

[Laila619]

I'm lost, why wasn't the woman being minded and kept out of the way of children learning to ride bikes? If anyone should be sued, it should be the woman's family for not setting up adequate care for their fragile loved one and for frivolous lawsuits.

What? Kept out of the way of children learning to ride bikes?! The poor woman absolutely had the right to be on the public sidewalk.

 

[Liane]

As I understand it, the judge's ruling is just saying that he won't make a new bright-line rule saying that you cannot, under any circumstances, ever sue a four-year-old child for anything. Whether the case ends up going before a judge or a jury, it's entirely possible (and probable, given that the parents are more likely to take the heat for this) that the kid's going to be found not liable. Also, the kid was closer to five than four; IIRC, she turned five a few days after the incident.

So it's not that the judge is saying "this kid was negligent." It's more like "kids of this age can conceivably be negligent under certain circumstances, which may or may not be the actual circumstances of this case, and the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to try and make that argument if they can." Which seems reasonably moderate to me, given the (admittedly very few) five-year-olds I know, so I can't get too worked up about it.

 

[House Cat]

It is my sincere hope that the parents of this four year old countersue for the mental damage that this lawsuit is causing their child.


I'm certain there is scientific fact that shows that a four year old's brain isn't developed enough to comprehend how her actions relate to this woman's death months later.

I'm also certain that there is scientific fact that shows the trauma of a courtroom battle (basically, trauma of this level) inflicted upon a four year old child will change this human forever.