Holy crap, I don't know what's more freakout-able: that two 4-year-olds riding their training wheel bikes on an East Side sidewalk, knocked over an 87-year-old neighbor, who died three
weeks months later from complications related to hip fracture surgery.
Or that the woman's estate [update after NYT correction: first her, then her son] would sue not just the parents, but the 4-year-olds, for negligence.
Or that there is apparently nothing newer than a 1928 case--an era, DT reader DT points out, when Science brought us "thriving state-run eugenics programs"--that the judge used to determine that a 4-year-old is a "reasonably prudent child" and thus mentally and developmentally capable of even acting with something like "negligence."
Or that the judge's decision to let the case proceed against the kid [the other kid apparently did not contest] said that there's no evidence at all 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," No evidence beyond that fact that the kid is four years old, of course.
I'll have to go with D, All of the above.