Comments on: “4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case”

By: Jackie Chiles

Jackie Chiles — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:45:47 +0000

The procedural posture of the case has nothing to do with this point.
You responded to another readers’ comment that the NYT stated the death was unrelated to the incident by implying that the Times statement was not worthy of belief because it had not procured the medical records and had them reviewed by an expert. My comment was intended to point out that – based on the statements made in the order regarding the allegations of the complaint, not any findings of fact that would be inappropriate in deciding a motion to dismiss – the estate does not appear to claim that the incident caused the elderly woman’s death.

Plaintiff’s lawyers do not need discovery to ascertain what injuries the victim (or those claiming through the victim) supposedy suffered and generally overstate, not understate, allegations of damage. If the complaint does not include such a claim, one can either conclude that plaintiff’s counsel did not do the expected medical investigation or did so and concluded that alleging that the incident caused death was not justified. Unless there is an independent reason to believe that counsel for the estate is incompetent, the Times is justified in relying on the complaint’s failure to attribute the death to the accident. There is no need for the Times to review the chart and to imply otherwise is unjsutified.

By: Eric T.

Eric T. — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 19:36:31 +0000

Or maybe they did their homework, know that there is no relationship between the two events and have more regard for their ethical obligations than other plaintiff’s attorneys.

It was a motion to dismiss at the outset of the lawsuit. Discovery has not been done. The extent of the injuries were not at issue before the court. The only issue before the court is whether the Complaint is legally sufficient to proceed, which is to say, can the 4 year old be found to be negligent given her age. It is not material to the court, at this stage, whether the injury is a broken pinky or death.

You should not mistake a cursory mention of something for a conclusionary finding.

By: Jackie Chiles

Jackie Chiles — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:08:50 +0000

The court’s order describes the complaint as alleging that the collision caused “severe injuries” and does not mention any claim that the accident caused the woman’s death. I guess the lawyers for the estate just aren’t as smart as Turkewitz and didn’t know they should obtain the medical records related to the woman’s death and have them reviewed by an expert. Or maybe they did their homework, know that there is no relationship between the two events and have more regard for their ethical obligations than other plaintiff’s attorneys.

By: Insomniac

Insomniac — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:23:56 +0000

They’ll get a writ of attachment and seize the kid’s bicycle…

By: jen

jen — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 01:03:27 +0000

She’s was not even old enough to be in kindergarten…

What did the 87 year old lady die from? Maybe that explains why she stepped in front of 2 toddlers on bicycles w/ training wheels…

By: Eric T.

Eric T. — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:33:22 +0000

The New York Times says her death was unrelated to the accident. So the little girl didn’t kill her.”

Are you really under the impression that, in the one day between publication of the decision in the New York Law Journal and the NYT running the story, that the NYT miraculously procured all of her medical records and had them reviewed by an expert?

By: tomboy

tomboy — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:56:39 +0000

The New York Times says her death was unrelated to the accident. So the little girl didn’t kill her. I think they are getting some pretty bad legal advice. Sometimes unfortunate accidents just happen and it’s nobody’s fault.

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:58:15 +0000

The kids had nothing to do with her death.

NY Times, “She died three months later of unrelated causes.”

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:14:42 +0000

You people don’t understand: the wicked must be made to pay for their crime. That means the insurance company.

Bob

By: Mannie

Mannie — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:48:53 +0000

Bill Alexander 10.29.10 at 1:24 pm

What I don’t know, and the article doesn’t mention, is whether the grandmother contributed to the accident. Did she step out in front of the kids roaring down the sidewalk, or was she standing there and they ran her down? Makes a lot of difference to me.

It should make a lot of difference to the jury, too. I’m sure it will be argued.