Watch out world: your 4 yr old can now be sued!

Yep, as of Oct 1st, when Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, found 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 judge did not find that the tyke was liable, merely that she can be sued.

The relevant facts are as follows... In April of 2009, Jacob Kohn and Juliet Breitman, both 4, were racing their bicycles on the sidewalk of East 52nd St, while being watched by their mothers, Rachel Kohn and Dana Breitman. At some point in their race, they struck an 87-year-old woman, Claire Menagh, who was walking in front of the building and was subsequently “seriously and severely injured,” suffering a hip fracture that required surgery. She died three months later of unrelated causes, and her estate then brought a suit against the kids and their parents.

The Breitmans lawyers argued that the girl was not “engaged in an adult activity” at the time of the accident and was too young to be held liable for negligence. The Kohns did not try to dismiss the action against them. But, the judge found that while "infants under the age of 4 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence" Juliet was 3 months shy of her 5th birthday, and there is no bright line rule for those over the age of 4.

He went on to say “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. Judge Wooten state that the crucial factor is whether the parent encourages the risky behavior; if so, the child should not be held accountable. Here, however, Mrs. Breitman was not cheering her tyke on as she crashed into an elderly woman.

I find it a bit scary that 4 year olds can be held liable. But it seems a sign of the times, our kids have to grow up faster than ever before. Liable at 4 and potentially sexting or drinking by 12... it's a scary, scary world these days.

Obama Streaker Update

So apparently the Obama streaking does not count. WHAT? According to SiFy news, Alki David does not want to pay unless the White House acknowledges that Obama saw Mr. Rodriquez's nasty bits. Really? REALLY? You want the WHITE HOUSE to acknowledge that the PRESIDENT saw a naked man? First and foremost, the White House is not going to comment, and good for them for not descending to your asinine level Mr. David; second - pay the man the million dollars, he was naked within 10 ft of the president.

Apparently instead, in exchange for an undisclosed sum, Juan Rodriguez has agreed with Alki David to try to streak again, in front of another undisclosed head of state. David apparently spoke with Rodriguez directly, and told the NY Post "Mr. Rodriguez agreed that he was not able to complete all the criteria of the challenge. But he came so very close, and his personal story about why he decided to take such a risk for his family, moved me to provide him with a generous consolation prize."

My thoughts are - you're settling with him Mr. David, you're settling with him so he doesn't sue for the promised $1 million AND damages. However, David has said that despite the "failed attempt," (his words) he has agreed to pay all Rodriguez's sister's hospital bills, Rodriguez's rent for the next year and will provide him with an additional undisclosed amount of cash. This is not too bad, because the rent is supposedly $1,600 a month, and medical bills can get quite, quite costly, so hopefully Rodriguez recovers a couple hundred thousand. It's the least, the very least, Mr. David can do.

Additionally I think Mr. David should pay all of Rodriguez's legal bills. But that may just be me, the rest of you may feel that Rodriguez should pay for his own stupidity.

This week in stupid lawsuits: Paris Hilton vs Hallmark

This just in, Paris Hilton and Hallmark have finally settled their lawsuit over the use of the catchphrase "that's hot."

Hilton recently sued the Kansas City greeting card maker for portraying her as a waitress in a diner handing a patron a plate and using her "trademark" "that's hot" line. I find the lawsuit completely ridiculous in that Hilton is far from the first person to ever utter the phrase, which she unsuccessfully tried to claim as a tradmark in 2007.

Hallmark argued the card was in the "public interest," which is laughable since Hilton hasn't been of public interest (minus recently being declared persona non grata in Japan) since before her suit was filed in 2007.

The terms of the settlement are unknown and not released by either party, but Hilton had been demanding $500,000. The only word out of Hallmark is the settlement was from the Judge, in that it was a "mutually acceptable conclusion," which hopefully means Hallmark won't be producing any more Hilton cards. And hopefully no one else will for that matter.

This week in stupid lawsuits: Stupid attempts at class actions.

Now I'm sure you've all heard that there's a company out there threatening to sue McDonald's, because Happy Meal toys trick kids into wanting Happy Meals and Happy Meals are BAAAAAAAD for them. And while I do think better parenting would fix the solution, that's not even the winner for stupid lawsuits in the food category.

The winner, would be Ms. Payton McClure, of NYC, who is trying to get a class action together against General Mills, and more specifically, Fruit Roll Ups. Ms. McClure claims to be a lifelong consumer of Fruit Roll Ups and has recently discovered, SHOCKINGLY! ... that these snacks are not actually health food? WHO KNEW?

According to her complaint, Ms. McClure alleges that General Mills failed to properly disclose that its fruit products contain partially hydrogenated oil. Excuse her? Has she ever actually SEEN a Fruit Roll Up ... strawberries don't naturally come like that m'dear, it takes some processing. And second of all, I'm pretty sure General Mills discloses the ingredients of their product every time they produce a nutrition label, which is on every little last box out there, courtesy of the FDA.

The complaint stated that use of the oil cause marketing over the past 6 years to be "false and misleading." General Mills is alleged to have advertised that its fruit snacks were "nutritious," "healthy to consume," "naturally flavored," "low fat," and "a good source of Vitamin C," and thus deserved premium prices.

Ms. McClure it's called advertising. They are TRYING to sell you their product. They are not going to say "See this gummy like fruit-ish product, it's mostly oil and byproducts" ... Instead they say it's "nutritious and healthy to consume" which it is, it really only needs a comparison snack, such as "potato chips" or "a stick of butter." And actually, I don't even think that's fair to potato chips, since I've seen even those advertised as healthy recently.

My favorite advertising for Fruit Roll Ups is THIS video, which clearly shows all of the supposed outrageous lies General Mills has been telling Ms. McClure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other winner for stupid lawsuits this week comes in the form of a law firm, as opposed to an individual. Kershaw, Cutter, and Ratinoff (who previously filed a suit regarding Farmville... that's right, as if the facebook app didn't get enough coverage in life) has decided to try and drum up a class action suit against the iPhone4.

For what you may ask? Have they been exploding? And causing traumatic harm to users and those that happen to be nearby? Have they been proven to be an actual cause of cancer? Are people getting iPhone4 shaped lumps in their heads?

No, not exactly. Kershaw, Cutter, and Ratinoff want to commence a class action against Apple and the iPhone4 based on dropped calls and spotty service. Which to me, if not most people, would seem like a reasonable risk in a cell phone. Not to mention that pretty much every iPhone4 buyer out there purchased his or her phone, sight unseen! Go figure... a new device might have some bugs that need to be worked out. Could this be reasonably common with new consumer technology? NO! It must needs be deviousness on the part of Apple! SUE! SUE! SUE!

Well, that's it for me this week. Be sure to let me know if you hear of other stupid lawsuits going on out there in the big, bad world of lawsuit happy hipsters.