A dumb child sued for murder.

[Thunder]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376

That says it all right there. A child murder an old lady. Now court will be in sessions.

[jmarkross]

The child will never be tried, of course. This judge should be arrested and incarcerated in an insane asylum. Period.

[Thunder]

These days, children are way smarter than the past. I want this child to be punished. Why should we treat anyone with certain age any different? The child knew what she did.

[jmarkross]

Four-year-olds are incapable of negligence. The woman has a responsibility as the adult to be cognizant of children around her--as are ALL adults. It is the price of civilized society.

[Midtowner]

This is actually kind of black letter Torts stuff. Funny enough, one of the first cases you study in law school involves a young child, much like the one here who drives a tricycle into a man and breaks his leg and is later found to be negligent. Public policy favors the victim getting paid over the culpable being excused for his conduct. At trial, it will be an issue for either the judge or the jury (depending on whether it's fact or law and I'd have to crack open Westlaw to figure that out) to see whether the child was sufficiently aware as to the dangers of running his bike into someone. If he knew, for example, that running his bike into someone could hurt them, then he'll be liable. And why shouldn't he be?

[Kerry]

Regardless of how this turns it - the lady will still be dead right? Rule number 1 - protect yourself. If you are 87 years old walking the streets of New York City probably isn't a good idea.

[kevinpate]

The child in the story can be taken to court for a determination of whether the children racing their bikes are liable for an accidental injury to a pedestrian. Te death followed a few months after a hip surgery, necessary due to the accidental injury.

The article has nothing to do with a murder nor a criminal trial.

I'm thinking that locally our own age of presumed incapacity is higher than four years, but I could be mistaken.

[PennyQuilts]

Frankly, and this isn't a legal opinion, I would be more inclined to find the parents of that child negligent to allow her to race her bike in an area where people walk. The whole thing is just sad.

[Thunder]

I think the punishment for this girl is complete grounding until age 16. That means, no television, no phone, no radio, no outside playing, and any fun activities. No school activities. It must be all work at school, then straight home to do chores. Maybe no birthdays and holidays. Ya know, strict punishment similar to adults in prison. I personally don't look at age 4 as an excuse.

[Midtowner]

Thunder, this is just about cash. No crime has been charged here. Civil torts are entire different category of laws and remedies than criminal acts.

To be clear, this isn't a case about "murder" as murder is a specific type of homicide crime which requires malice aforethought. This case is about wrongful death--a tort. The only thing you get with a tort is cash damages, sometimes injunctive relief, whatever it takes to theoretically make you whole. Never jail time. For wrongful death, you have to prove negligence. That means that it must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence (jury is at least 51% sure) that the defendant had a duty not to do whatever it was that he did, that he breached that duty, that he was the proximate cause of that breach and that there were damages.

The theory here is that the Plaintiff will be made whole for the loss of their mother.

I'm sure that there are other folks named in the complaint besides the 4-year-old.

[kevinpate]

If I recall correctly, the adults were not contesting whether they could be found liable. the issue at hand was whether their bright line rule of "under age 4" could be extended to a child who was age four. All the judge really did was say the bright line is at age 4 and the child's advocate didn't make an adequate showing for extending the bright line any higher.

[Midtowner]

It makes sense. Thanks.

[USG'60]

I think the punishment for this girl is complete grounding until age 16. That means, no television, no phone, no radio, no outside playing, and any fun activities. No school activities. It must be all work at school, then straight home to do chores. Maybe no birthdays and holidays. Ya know, strict punishment similar to adults in prison. I personally don't look at age 4 as an excuse.

Rue the day that you become a parent. Surely you jest.

[Kerry]

Rue the day that you become a parent. Surely you jest.

It's Thunder - he do jest.

[jmarkross]

I think the punishment for this girl is complete grounding until age 16. That means, no television, no phone, no radio, no outside playing, and any fun activities. No school activities. It must be all work at school, then straight home to do chores. Maybe no birthdays and holidays. Ya know, strict punishment similar to adults in prison. I personally don't look at age 4 as an excuse.

Why not flogging?

[PennyQuilts]

I can't imagine charging a four year old child for this sort of thing. I think that is ridiculous. If you had a four year old go after someone with a knife, that would be one thing - there is no denying they intended it and probably need mental health treatment. But to charge a four year old with negligence? Jeeze.

[Midtowner]

He hasn't been charged with anything.

[PennyQuilts]

He hasn't been charged with anything.

Sorry - I meant a tort complaint. Wasn't the question related to whether that was a possibility?

[jmarkross]

He hasn't been charged with anything.

For the record...'twas a girl-child..Juliet...