Jump To Navigation

Blog Post

Twelve-Year-Old Gets Throat Slit by Glass-Coated Wire used in Kite Fighting, Sues NYC and Property Owner

Posted by: Joseph Stanley
November 18, 2009
Topic: Personal Injury News

The attorneys of a twelve-year-old boy who was severely injured after his throat was slit on glass-encrusted kite string have filed a lawsuit against NYC and the owners of the co-op where the accident happened.

Jared Kopeloff was skateboarding around his family’s home, which is located adjacent to a park in Flushing, NY, when his throat was slit by a glass-encrusted kite string that had apparently floated from the park and lodged itself between two co-ops creating a dangerous and probably invisible trap.  The kite string caused a severe and almost fatal gash from ear-to-ear which resulted in 400 to 500 stitches and the loss of two lymph nodes (http://www.articles4news.com/news/world/skaters-throat-slashed-by-kite-wire.html).  The lawsuit was filed in the Queens County Supreme Court several days ago. 

            Kite fighting is an activity made popular and brought to the United States by the book and movie, “Kite Runner” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419887/).  The basic idea is that two or more individuals, usually children, will fly kites with the goal of cutting the line of the competitor’s kite.  The winner will then claim the loser’s kite as a reward.  In order to cut the line, however, the kite wire needs to be either encrusted with glass or reinforced by metal. 

            There have been a number of serious injuries and deaths stemming from kite fighting and the glass-coated wires that are used in the sport; however they all appear to have happened outside the United States.  In 2006, for example, Pakistani authorities banned kite fighting “after seven people were fatally slashed by glass-coated or metal-reinforced kite strings” during Basant, an annual festival that heralds spring and is marked by flying colorful kites (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/01/05/2003343437).  

            The lawsuit blames the City of New York for permitting kite fighting to take place in its parks and also finds fault with the co-op owner for failing to remove the string after it floated over from the park.  Unfortunately for the boy and his attorney, proving the case will be very difficult.

            Our firm handles premises liability cases every day.  In order to prevail against the co-op owner, plaintiff’s attorney would have to prove that the owner failed to maintain his property in a reasonably safe condition by allowing a dangerous and defective condition to exist, which caused the plaintiff to suffer injuries.  Part of this legal standard requires plaintiffs to prove the landowner had either actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. 

            Actual notice is pretty straightforward.  To prove actual notice the plaintiff must show that the property owner was notified of the dangerous or defective condition sometime prior to the accident and preferably in writing.  Most premises liability cases do not fall within the actual notice category as tenants do not usually complain in writing about maintenance issues.  Typically, requests for maintenance and repairs are carried out informally with a simple phone call.  This usually results in a he-said-she-said case, whereby the tenant says he called the landlord on a number of occasions about a particular problem and the landlord, of course, claims he or she doesn’t know anything about it.

            Constructive notice, on the other hand, has been held by the New York courts to mean a property owner should have known of a dangerous or defective condition on the property and is at fault because he or she failed to rectify the problem.  Generally, the dangerous condition must have existed long enough for the property owner to discover it through reasonable inspection.  Herein lies the problem in the present case. 

            It is possible, and I’m sure the defendant will argue, that the glass-coated kite string could not have been discovered by a reasonable inspection.  The string was probably barely visible to the naked eye.  Obviously the poor boy who had his throat slit did not see the string as he was skateboarding.  Likewise, even assuming the presence of the kite wire could have been discovered by a reasonable inspection there would have to be evidence that it existed for a long enough period of time for the building owner to discover and rectify it.  Thus, the question becomes, how do you prove when the kite string blew over from the park and lodged itself between the two buildings?

            If this case were being handled by our firm we would start by asking all tenants of the co-op whether kite strings frequently blow over from the neighboring park.  If so, we would ask them whether they have noticed glass-coated or metal-reinforced wires.  From there, we would need to find out whether the property owner was ever notified and whether that complaint was made in writing.  Unless the facts of this particular case are very good, it is likely that the plaintiff will not succeed against the co-op owner.  Ideally, the plaintiff’s attorney would get a sworn statement from someone saying they made a written complaint to the property owner about the particular kite string that injured the plaintiff and the property owner never removed it.  The odds of getting this ideal case are very low. 

The problems become even worse when analyzing the case against New York City.  In some ways, a case like this is unprecedented and in that respect it is very interesting.  Most kite flying regulations in most cities are enacted by local councils and do not set specific restrictions on the types of wire being used.  Likewise, most regulations and ordinances do not explicitly prohibit kite fighting.  Here is a link to a good example of how most council members in most cities will likely view the idea of placing tighter restrictions on kite flying: http://www.link757.com/2009/09/norfolk-says-law-kite-flying-full-hot-air. 

The same notice issues arise in the case against New York City.  Plaintiff would have to prove that the city had either actual or constructive notice that kite fighting was going on in this particular park and that it posed a danger to local residents.  Even assuming they knew about the activity, plaintiff would also have to prove that the city basically did nothing in response to the complaints.  If the city took “reasonable” steps to prevent flying kites with glass-encrusted wires, it would be enough of a defense.  The reasonableness of a city’s actions has always been interpreted very leniently by courts. 

Thus, the plaintiff in this case clearly faces an uphill battle to prove either part of his lawsuit.  The positive aspect of this case, however, is that it brings public attention to the clearly dangerous activity of using glass-coated wires to fly kites.  As the only other documented injuries come from outside the U.S., most people probably had no idea that some kite wires were coated with glass or reinforced with metal.  Due to the increasing popularity of this activity in the United States it will likely force county legislators to enact stricter regulations and begin stronger enforcement in an effort to prevent accidents like this from happening in the future.