PDA

View Full Version : Judge rules that 4-year-old can be sued


Killercowz
29-10-10, 21:12
http://l1.yimg.com/a/i/ww/news/2010/10/29/training.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?no_interstitial

Alpharaider47
29-10-10, 21:18
Only in America... my god what has this country come to? What's sad is that it doesn't even surprise me...

TheRCroft
29-10-10, 21:26
Only in America... my god what has this country come to? What's sad is that it doesn't even surprise me...

Indeed, it only happens in America. :rolleyes:
" “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." :confused: I mean, this is so mindless, it turns out to be funny. When would a 4 year old child think that she shouldn't running with her bike?

Alpharaider47
29-10-10, 21:29
^^ Yeah a 4 year old really has enough grasp on the world to understand all of that, their minds are driven by rational thought :rolleyes: Kids will be kids, I believe that they do stupid things because they don't know any better or haven't yet stopped to consider the consequences. Hell I bet the judge did the same crap when he was a kid...

Lara's home
29-10-10, 21:29
lol

Spong
29-10-10, 21:32
...they do stupid things because they don't know any better or haven't yet stopped to consider the consequences...

And what better way to teach them and knock them out of their consequence-free bubble than a date in court?

I'm all for it :tmb:
The sooner kids are shown that life isn't all sunshine & puppies, the better.

Lara's home
29-10-10, 21:34
And what better way to teach them and knock them out of their consequence-free bubble than a date in court?

I'm all for it :tmb:
The sooner kids are shown that life isn't all sunshine & puppies, the better.

The worst part is that I can't tell whether you are serious or not.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
29-10-10, 21:40
I hope they take her to the cleaners! :p

Beans-Bot
29-10-10, 21:45
And what better way to teach them and knock them out of their consequence-free bubble than a date in court?

I'm all for it :tmb:
The sooner kids are shown that life isn't all sunshine & puppies, the better.

yes, let's ruin the concept of childhood to teach kids the concept of right and wrong in the harshest way possible. :D

I sincerely hope you're joking. Don't have kids, please, if you aren't.

TheRCroft
29-10-10, 21:48
^^ Yeah a 4 year old really has enough grasp on the world to understand all of that, their minds are driven by rational thought :rolleyes: Kids will be kids, I believe that they do stupid things because they don't know any better or haven't yet stopped to consider the consequences. Hell I bet the judge did the same crap when he was a kid...

I couldn't have said it better. If even the adults don't think about the consequences of their acts sometimes, would a child think?
That's the world we have, if only they keep focusing on real crimes, instead of being worried about a kid who didn't think on the consequences(which is completly normal) :rolleyes:

Alpharaider47
29-10-10, 21:50
And what better way to teach them and knock them out of their consequence-free bubble than a date in court?

I'm all for it :tmb:
The sooner kids are shown that life isn't all sunshine & puppies, the better.
Yes, a 4 year old is going to understand court as well :rolleyes:
You can wait until they're a little older to do that you know. How about 9 or 10? Let them live care free for a bit before you destroy their view of the world.

TRfan23
29-10-10, 22:01
^ Yeh but sometimes you gotta be a little harsh. I mean when I found out that Santa didn't exist when I was 9. I went mad LOL.

lara c. fan
29-10-10, 22:03
And what better way to teach them and knock them out of their consequence-free bubble than a date in court?

I'm all for it :tmb:
The sooner kids are shown that life isn't all sunshine & puppies, the better.

The kid won't even know what the hell's going on... And besides, how would she pay?

voltz
29-10-10, 22:09
Well say all you want guys, but when an 87-year old woman goes out like the way she did, sometimes even a kid deserves to get sued.

Alpharaider47
29-10-10, 22:10
^ Yeh but sometimes you gotta be a little harsh. I mean when I found out that Santa didn't exist when I was 9. I went mad LOL.
Certainly, but at 4 years old?

Well say all you want guys, but when an 87-year old woman goes out like the way she did, sometimes even a kid deserves to get sued.

She died three months later of unrelated causes.

Ward Dragon
29-10-10, 22:12
Well say all you want guys, but when an 87-year old woman goes out like the way she did, sometimes even a kid deserves to get sued.

I don't understand what it means to sue a 4-year-old because she doesn't have any money anyway, so it's not like she could pay anything even if she lost the lawsuit :confused:

But it sounds like the parents are actually the ones being sued, and that makes sense to me considering they let their kids race down a sidewalk and run into someone, injuring that person pretty badly according to the article.

Zebra
29-10-10, 22:12
If anything the parents should get sued. I mean, sure, you can't always supervise your child 100% of the time but if you're unfortunate enough to have something like this happen during those 5% of unsupervised time, I guess you can't do much about it. I can't believe, however, how distorted this judge's idea of what a 4-year-old should be capable of is.

voltz
29-10-10, 22:13
She died three months later of unrelated causes.

who cares. The kid made her a cripple.

I don't understand what it means to sue a 4-year-old because she doesn't have any money anyway, so it's not like she could pay anything even if she lost the lawsuit :confused:

Her parents have money, plus if they have done a better job of supervising their kid, they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

Alpharaider47
29-10-10, 22:14
If anything the parents should get sued. I mean, sure, you can't always supervise your child 100% of the time but if you're unfortunate enough to have something like this happen during those 5% of unsupervised time, I guess you can't do much about it. I can't believe, however, how distorted this judge's idea of what a 4-year-old should be capable of is.

See, this I can agree with.

Bongo Fury
29-10-10, 22:14
The kid won't even know what the hell's going on... And besides, how would she pay?

I doubt the child has any money. I'm guessing that the parents may be on the hook for any judgment against the child. because the child can legally be sued and is clearly at fault it just might be easier to get a judgment this way rather than going after the parents directly. otherwise i don't see the point.

Alpharaider47
29-10-10, 22:16
who cares. The kid made her a cripple.





Where does it say the woman was crippled? :whi:

Chocola teapot
29-10-10, 22:17
WHAT ON EARTH?

This is ****ing rediculous.

:vlol:

voltz
29-10-10, 22:17
Where does it say the woman was crippled? :whi:

Well what do you call hip surgery? Plus you have to factor in age, healing, 3 months possibly bed-ridden, etc....

moodydog
29-10-10, 22:18
seems fair that the parents get sued...
as for the 4 year old... Would she even know what a court is?
That Judge is so stupid!
I thought people under the age of 13 cannot be named in the news... or is that just in Britain.

voltz
29-10-10, 22:35
That Judge is so stupid!

Actually, that judge was smart enough not to give her a free pass card. That spells "Balls" in my book.

TRexbait
30-10-10, 00:31
This judge REALLY doesn't understand children... at all.
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.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.” Children don't really think too much of all the dangers, they may have it in the back of their minds but usually just shrug it off. For the judge to think that a child of four years old is mature enough to "appreciate the danger" of doing a great many things is being ridiculous. Some people need to remember what they were like when they were children and realize that they didn't always consider absolutely all of the possibilities of their actions.

Now, that the parents get sued, seems about right. Parents should realize the carelessness of children, and should try to predict at least a few of the possibilities of their children's actions. To predict that they'll hit somebody, maybe not exactly, but to notice the possible dangers to their kids for going very fast on bikes is not too much to ask.

Alpharaider47
30-10-10, 00:33
This judge REALLY doesn't understand children... at all.




Children don't really think too much of all the dangers, they may have it in the back of their minds, but usually just shrug it off. For the judge to think that a child of four years old is mature enough to "appreciate the danger" of doing a great many things, then he's being ridiculous. Some people need to remember what they were like when they were children, and realize that they didn't always consider absolutely all of the possibilities of their actions.

:tmb:

Shark_Blade
30-10-10, 01:13
The title reminds me of Judge Turpin (in Sweeney Todd) where he sentenced a young boy to death by hanging because he he steals. Ridiculous!


sJ958ob_nKc

Tommy123
30-10-10, 05:35
not surprising....

Tombraiderx08
30-10-10, 05:42
You know you're a mean old woman when you're going to go out of your way to sue a toddler. I'm sure the little kid had a good reason for running her over :vlol:

Ward Dragon
30-10-10, 10:17
You know you're a mean old woman when you're going to go out of your way to sue a toddler. I'm sure the little kid had a good reason for running her over :vlol:

She's dead. Her family is suing the kids and their parents (I assume the parents would pay if any money was awarded to the victim's family).

tampi
30-10-10, 10:27
The old woman is responsible. IMO

She should be conscious of her little skill to avoid accidents.
Therefore should be more careful in everything she does.
Obviously, it does not matter. :o

Rai
30-10-10, 11:32
^ Tampi the woman was 87, even if she was aware of the children, her reactions would be much slower than that of anyone else and those children would have been riding quite fast. In being hit, she presumable lost her balance. An 87 year old would be very vunerable to injuries.

I can understand the parents being held responsible, becasue as parents it was their job to ensure the safety of the children (there were two 4 year olds involved) and of any pedestrians.

But for the child as well to be included in the case is ridiculous. As if a child that age would understand the real dangers of hitting someone while on a tricycle, even if her mum told her to slow down. How is she to even understand what being sued means, and to go to court would be bewildering for her.

voltz
30-10-10, 11:48
Well chalk it up as a learning experience for her. ;)

Paddy
30-10-10, 11:54
^ Tampi the woman was 87, even if she was aware of the children, her reactions would be much slower than that of anyone else and those children would have been riding quite fast. In being hit, she presumable lost her balance. An 87 year old would be very vunerable to injuries.

I can understand the parents being held responsible, becasue as parents it was their job to ensure the safety of the children (there were two 4 year olds involved) and of any pedestrians.

But for the child as well to be included in the case is ridiculous. As if a child that age would understand the real dangers of hitting someone while on a tricycle, even if her mum told her to slow down. How is she to even understand what being sued means, and to go to court would be bewildering for her.
Pretty much agreed with this.

Ikas90
30-10-10, 12:09
Sigh. Judges are judgmental.

SkyPuppy
30-10-10, 12:24
it's about time

tampi
30-10-10, 13:02
^ Tampi the woman was 87, even if she was aware of the children, her reactions would be much slower than that of anyone else and those children would have been riding quite fast. In being hit, she presumable lost her balance. An 87 year old would be very vunerable to injuries.

I can understand the parents being held responsible, becasue as parents it was their job to ensure the safety of the children (there were two 4 year olds involved) and of any pedestrians.

But for the child as well to be included in the case is ridiculous. As if a child that age would understand the real dangers of hitting someone while on a tricycle, even if her mum told her to slow down. How is she to even understand what being sued means, and to go to court would be bewildering for her.

That is precisely.
Why a woman 87 years with impaired motor skills go to a place where children move with bikes?
Who accompanied the woman?
If she was alone, why is it there near the risk?

In my opinion women should not have been there about a potential risk.
She was 87. Or should have been protected, with or take sufficient care to avoid injury.

This is like people watching a WCR and placed right on the curve where more danger can be.


I know that my opinion can be shocking.

But I'm tired of seeing similar situations.
People with diminished capacity and family members such people turn away or take unnecessary risks.


I don't know. We don't know the real situation.

CiaKonwerski
30-10-10, 15:26
That judge must be on some serious drugs. I took a Law class last year and I was told that you cannot really charge kids younger than ( I do not remember the age). But there is an age where kids fully understand the difference between right and wrong. These kids are 4 years old and most likely did not deliberately try to mow the old woman down. This is just absurd, personally I find our whole Justice system screwy as hell.

Mr.Burns
30-10-10, 15:28
I don't understand what it means to sue a 4-year-old because she doesn't have any money anyway, so it's not like she could pay anything even if she lost the lawsuit :confused:

But it sounds like the parents are actually the ones being sued, and that makes sense to me considering they let their kids race down a sidewalk and run into someone, injuring that person pretty badly according to the article.


The suit against the kids is on principle, I agree that it should be against the parents as they're the ones "supervising" and they have financial support. Either way, it's idiotic. Crap happens, but then again, this is the same country that allowed two fat teenagers to sue McDonalds for making them fat when they ate there several times a week. :rolleyes:

@CiaKonwerski: The judge allowed the suit because of a precedent set by a case back in the 1920's. Those tend to override the basic tennents of the law.

Ward Dragon
30-10-10, 15:46
That judge must be on some serious drugs. I took a Law class last year and I was told that you cannot really charge kids younger than ( I do not remember the age). But there is an age where kids fully understand the difference between right and wrong. These kids are 4 years old and most likely did not deliberately try to mow the old woman down. This is just absurd, personally I find our whole Justice system screwy as hell.

Civil court is a lot more lenient in terms of letting people sue for whatever they want and having a lower burden of proof compared to criminal court.

The suit against the kids is on principle, I agree that it should be against the parents as they're the ones "supervising" and they have financial support. Either way, it's idiotic. Crap happens, but then again, this is the same country that allowed two fat teenagers to sue McDonalds for making them fat when they ate there several times a week. :rolleyes:

The article implied that the parents are named in the lawsuit as well, so I assume they will be the ones covering any costs.

@CiaKonwerski: The judge allowed the suit because of a precedent set by a case back in the 1920's. Those tend to override the basic tennents of the law.

The law only means what the court interprets it to mean.

Mr.Burns
30-10-10, 15:49
The law only means what the court interprets it to mean.

And precedents in certain circumstances, can override a law. Law is subjective, I'm very much aware of that, Jen.

trlestew
30-10-10, 15:53
...I think I learned something today.

The law is jacked up on so many levels :| Oddly enough, my high school is mostly based on law. Wonder what they would say when they find out about this.

Ward Dragon
30-10-10, 15:53
And precedents in certain circumstances, can override a law. Law is subjective, I'm very much aware of that, Jen.

But it's not overriding the law, it's interpreting the law based upon what has been established in the past. If the law doesn't explicitly say that a four year old can't be sued, then it's up to the court to decide whether the law means that or not.

Uzi master
30-10-10, 17:21
You know you're a mean old woman when you're going to go out of your way to sue a toddler. I'm sure the little kid had a good reason for running her over :vlol:

the woman died a few months later...

(of a different reason though)

lunavixen
31-10-10, 06:17
but aren't children under the age of 11 protected by dolli incapax? or does this not apply in America?
how many four years olds could possibly understand that tear-assing down the street on a bike could be dangerous, how many kids that age are going to remember that, not too many kids would have that much cognitive memory, how many parents would tell their kids not to run into anybody, it seems more accidental than negligent to me

patriots88888
31-10-10, 06:48
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.

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.”

I'm sorry but this is all too ridiculous. It's as if the judge is implying that this 4 year old set out to intentionally hurt this elderly woman... which according to the first quoted paragraph, is totally false. There isn't even remotely any indication of devious, malicious, or harmful intentions. What circumstances? It was 2 young children having a friendly bicycle race. There wasn't anything mentioned in the article that I could see that indicated that this was a busy and crowded section they were riding on. Regardless of that, I don't agree that a child of age 4 is capable of awareness to negligent actions (I believe the age of reasoning is still age 7). It was clearly an accident, and a very unfortunate one at that. To sue a 4 year old child (whether as some form of principle or not) is beyond comprehensible and just plain asinine at that.

But it's not overriding the law, it's interpreting the law based upon what has been established in the past. If the law doesn't explicitly say that a four year old can't be sued, then it's up to the court to decide whether the law means that or not.

No need to complicate what should be very easy to interpret. It was a 4 year old involved in an accident in which she could have just as easily been injured herself. The only person here who should be held accountable (and as such, liable) is the one who was providing the supervision... which in this case was her mother. Any other assumptions, suppositions, or otherwise is plain nonsense.

I'm so tired of those who preach principles in law... it makes it all too easy to overlook what should be obvious.

Ward Dragon
31-10-10, 19:10
I'm so tired of those who preach principles in law... it makes it all too easy to overlook what should be obvious.

That's the problem with the law. If it's so obvious, then the law should say it explicitly instead of being an over-complicated mess that only a lawyer could understand.

Now it appears that there actually is no law about a minimum age for a person to be sued. The article only references past cases and notes that cases were thrown out if the child was younger than 4, so that's the age limit the judge went by when he said that the lawsuit can move forward.

tampi
31-10-10, 19:22
What is obvious is that the relatives of the elderly womam want to get as much money as possible.

Since they could not get a good inheritance, now want to blame a 4 year old boy or his family.

And the judge, worse than all of them. :ohn:

Bongo Fury
31-10-10, 21:44
What is obvious is that the relatives of the elderly womam want to get as much money as possible

and why not? the ages of the people involved really don't need to be a factor into their motivation. somebody was wronged and somebody else is responsible.

tampi
01-11-10, 09:40
and why not? the ages of the people involved really don't need to be a factor into their motivation.


Oh, Ok, then. We all are like cardboard boxes.
Justice:confused:

somebody was wronged and somebody else is responsible.

So there is no possibility that this woman is responsible for herself?
Recklessly?

Bongo Fury
01-11-10, 21:38
Oh, Ok, then. We all are like cardboard boxes.
Justice:confused:
some cardboard boxes are guilty of negligence and run the risk of getting sued i guess. if you screw up, sometimes you have to pay for it. i don't see how the mother and child both can not be responsible here.



So there is no possibility that this woman is responsible for herself?
Recklessly?
no. she was just walking down the street.

Paddy
01-11-10, 21:50
She was 4 years old ffs. The parents should be the ones obviously held responsible. They shouldve done a better job supervising their kid.

Love2Raid
01-11-10, 21:58
This whole thing is just beyond ridiculous. It was a bloody accident, they happen. I have collided with several people as well on my little bike when I was a kid. But none of them died because they weren't weak old women who shouldn't be walking outside without a walking aid in the first place.

What happened to common sense?

Paddy
01-11-10, 21:59
This whole thing is just beyond ridiculous. It was a bloody accident, they happen. I have collided with several people as well on my little bike when I was a kid. But none of them died because they weren't weak old women who shouldn't be walking outside without a walking aid in the first place.

What happened to common sense?

Exactly :tmb: thats what it comes down to.

Bongo Fury
01-11-10, 22:25
What happened to common sense?

most places where i have lived have had by-laws against having bicycles on the sidewalks rather than by-laws against old ladies. i wonder if there is anything similar where this occured.

tampi
01-11-10, 22:40
some cardboard boxes are guilty of negligence and run the risk of getting sued i guess. if you screw up, sometimes you have to pay for it. i don't see how the mother and child both can not be responsible here.



no. she was just walking down the street.
yes
Yes
Responsible of what?
If everyone is a cardboard what does the mother here?
Why not put inside all the entire families cardboards?

And just walking down the street disclaims she/her of some responsibility?
That's cool


most places where i have lived have had by-laws against having bicycles on the sidewalks rather than by-laws against old ladies. i wonder if there is anything similar where this occured.

Yes they finally have a pact on the vehicle.......::)

Love2Raid
01-11-10, 22:54
most places where i have lived have had by-laws against having bicycles on the sidewalks rather than by-laws against old ladies. i wonder if there is anything similar where this occured.

Perhaps. But I think we need some pictures in this thread. The girl was 4 years old, she was probably on something like this:

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/4505/driewieler.jpg

Where else should she ride her bike then, on the street? Where I live, a kid on one of those is classified as a pedestrian. They belong on the sidewalk.

The girl should have been more careful, but she most likely will be from now on. She didn't do it on purpose. The old lady should have been more careful as well. She was apparently very frail. She could have tripped over a stone and gotten in the same situation. A lawsuit is ridiculous.

Bongo Fury
01-11-10, 23:45
Perhaps.
come on now. it was in Manhattan. the odds are pretty good that two kids racing bicycles on the sidewalk is going to be in violation of something.

The girl should have been more careful, but she most likely will be from now on. She didn't do it on purpose. The old lady should have been more careful as well. She was apparently very frail. She could have tripped over a stone and gotten in the same situation. A lawsuit is ridiculous.
if it being done on purpose or not doesn't matter. It's a question of negligence. And if the old lady was as frail and feeble as everyone seems to think then surely she didn't just leap out of the bushes into the path of the bicycle. They would have been able to see her well in advance if they were paying attention. The old lady may never have seen the kids though, because she could have been hit from behind. The article doesn't say.

Solice
02-11-10, 03:16
http://l1.yimg.com/a/i/ww/news/2010/10/29/training.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?no_interstitial

What do you call a lawyer at the bottom of the ocean?

...a good start

Avalon SARL
02-11-10, 04:15
This is silly...

In the end, the parents are the ones who will hold responsibility for letting the kid act like that
Kids just enjoy being naughty :D :jmp: and that's why they are funny

Love2Raid
02-11-10, 13:24
come on now. it was in Manhattan. the odds are pretty good that two kids racing bicycles on the sidewalk is going to be in violation of something.
True. >_>

if it being done on purpose or not doesn't matter. It's a question of negligence. And if the old lady was as frail and feeble as everyone seems to think then surely she didn't just leap out of the bushes into the path of the bicycle. They would have been able to see her well in advance if they were paying attention. The old lady may never have seen the kids though, because she could have been hit from behind. The article doesn't say.
Okay then. In that case it's still silly to sue the child. It was 4 years old at the time, kids that age don't really understand this. Why don't we let them raise a pet on their own? No, we make sure to keep an eye on things, because we know there is a high chance that it will forget to feed the pet or clean it's cage or whatever, i.e. it will be neglected.

I still think nothing good will come from this. Parents will keep their children inside to prevent this from happening to them, they will get fat while playing on their computers and develop diabetes and cardiovascular disease. :pi:

interstellardave
02-11-10, 14:01
Common sense dictates that a 4 year old can't be sued. This sounds like a legal technicality anyway, as it's the parents who are held responsible, ultimately... I mean, what are they going to do to a 4 year old? Give her a 6-month time out? Garnish her wages from selling lemonade? LOL... ridiculous.

Ward Dragon
02-11-10, 15:35
Common sense dictates that a 4 year old can't be sued. This sounds like a legal technicality anyway, as it's the parents who are held responsible, ultimately... I mean, what are they going to do to a 4 year old? Give her a 6-month time out? Garnish her wages from selling lemonade? LOL... ridiculous.

I've been thinking about this and I think the reason the children are included in the lawsuit is so that the parents can't say, "It's not my fault, the kids acted on their own," and absolve themselves of responsibility by putting all of the blame on the kids. This way they're in it together because all the victim's family has to prove is that the kids ran the old woman over and the parents didn't try to stop the bike race before that happened. By including the children in the lawsuit, the victim's family is acknowledging that the children actually committed the act and therefore that undermines a possible defense the parents might have and makes them focus instead on their own roles supervising (or lack of supervision more like).

lara c. fan
02-11-10, 15:40
It is quite ridiculous...

I remember when I was about 5, me and my brother's were just going down our grandparent's driveway (Slight hill), and an old guy came along and threatened to take us to court next time because we were going faster than 5 miles an hour... :p

SpongeBob Lover
03-11-10, 02:57
*facepalm*

lunavixen
03-11-10, 08:34
i've reread the article to me it reads nothing more than an accident, how many kids will know how long it takes to stop a bike when its going fast? a lot of adults can't even do it in cars and they are a lot more dangerous

tampi
03-11-10, 11:50
Perhaps the best is to blame the child exactly like an adult.
There we find the true intention of the plaintiffs and the defendant.



A funnny vision touch:p


http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8973/sinttulo1qt.jpg (http://img135.imageshack.us/i/sinttulo1qt.jpg/)

Twilight
12-11-10, 03:10
Can't blame the kid for lazy parenting.
When I was 4 my parents didn't BS with me, they told me straight up "Look both ways before crossing the street or you'll get hit by a car and die."
It didn't ruin my childhood, didn't "take away my innocence", or any of that crap.