Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unless the hosts were available and can show unequivocally that they responded immediately after the child started choking, a talented attorney could convince a jury that there was negligence. At least enough of a chance of a bad verdict to make settlement worth considering by the defendants.
It doesn't take "talent" to convince jurors of much these days.
Unless the EMTs are certain to arrive within 4-5 minutes of the 911 call being placed, the precise timing of the call will have made no difference in the outcome. That's all the time you have to clear an obstructed airway; any longer than that, and either death or profound brain damage is going to be the outcome.
Marshmallows are very difficult to clear out of airways. They are like glue. Heimlich maneuver does not really work to clear a marshmallow out.
I am normally the one that would think frivolous lawsuit, but I am actually on the parents' side on this one. I remember hearing how dangerous marshmallows were for children when I had small kids. I had the kindergarten class stop serving them on occasions for part of a snack. I think the Hosts need to be super careful when kids are involved with what they serve at a party that kids are running around.
I realize she was 11 years old, but when you have a group of kids it is a grown-up's responsibility to be sure everyone is safe. This was preventable.
I don't think so. That calling part falls under the Good Samaritan Law. They sought medical assistance, so they can't be sued for not preventing the death. Offering a snack is hardly negligent behavior on the part of the homeowners. And the child was 11, not 2, so what about the decedent's responsibility to chew her food properly? Choking is uncommon in people older than toddlers unless they aren't chewing well.
I don't think that the Good Samaritan Law applies here. That is usually invoked when, for instance, someone is injured on the street and a passerby, i.e., a complete stranger, gives help. In this case, the hosts arguably had a greater duty of care than a mere passerby, since they invited the children into their home and thereby assumed a duty to reasonably insure their safety.
No, offering a commonly found snack to children is not per se negligent behavior, but there was a duty on the part of the hosts to supervise the party, and to render immediate aid if there was a problem.
Marshmallows are very difficult to clear out of airways. They are like glue. Heimlich maneuver does not really work to clear a marshmallow out.
I am normally the one that would think frivolous lawsuit, but I am actually on the parents' side on this one. I remember hearing how dangerous marshmallows were for children when I had small kids. I had the kindergarten class stop serving them on occasions for part of a snack. I think the Hosts need to be super careful when kids are involved with what they serve at a party that kids are running around.
I realize she was 11 years old, but when you have a group of kids it is a grown-up's responsibility to be sure everyone is safe. This was preventable.
Seriously? Really? Come on. 11 year olds have cell phones. I had my first kiss at 11. They often can stay home alone. Many of them can do a load of laundry or make basic meals. And you would restrict marshmallows? Seriously?
An 11 year old can trip and hit their head on the side of the coffee table. Do you still have padding on any sharp edge for an 11 year old too?
My 9 year old daughter just had a friend over for dinner. I gave them hot dogs. Wow, I live dangerously!
I don't think that the Good Samaritan Law applies here. That is usually invoked when, for instance, someone is injured on the street and a passerby, i.e., a complete stranger, gives help. In this case, the hosts arguably had a greater duty of care than a mere passerby, since they invited the children into their home and thereby assumed a duty to reasonably insure their safety.
No, offering a commonly found snack to children is not per se negligent behavior, but there was a duty on the part of the hosts to supervise the party, and to render immediate aid if there was a problem.
I'm sure at least one of the parents was at the party. According to the video, the plaintiffs, ie. Azriel's parents, are accusing the homeowners i.e., the parents of the birthday boy/girl that "they failed to properly supervise the children and prevent them from wandering off" or some such nonsense. I will reiterate that this child was 11 years old. She wasn't a toddler being guided onto a flight at a busy airport; she was a preteen who was eating at a birthday party, probably in the presence of multiple preteens. Exactly what were the parents expected to do; follow every child into every room to be sure that they chewed and swallowed responsibly? Don't get me wrong; it is very sad that the child passed away, but the parents are suing out of grief. Sometime bad things happen. It doesn't automatically make the bad event someone else's fault.
As for not rendering aid quickly enough, exactly how quickly was aid rendered? That wasn't answered in the article or video. A person can die from oxygen deprivation in 4 minutes. And even if the homeowners called 911 the instant she choked, the ambulance probably would not have gotten there in time. It's not illegal not to know the Heimlich maneuver. Ignorant, yes. Illegal, no.
I don't think that the Good Samaritan Law applies here. That is usually invoked when, for instance, someone is injured on the street and a passerby, i.e., a complete stranger, gives help. In this case, the hosts arguably had a greater duty of care than a mere passerby, since they invited the children into their home and thereby assumed a duty to reasonably insure their safety.
No, offering a commonly found snack to children is not per se negligent behavior, but there was a duty on the part of the hosts to supervise the party, and to render immediate aid if there was a problem.
I'm sure at least one of the parents was at the party. According to the video, the plaintiffs, ie. Azriel's parents, are accusing the homeowners i.e., the parents of the birthday boy/girl that "they failed to properly supervise the children and prevent them from wandering off" or some such nonsense. I will reiterate that this child was 11 years old. She wasn't a toddler being guided onto a flight at a busy airport; she was a preteen who was eating at a birthday party, probably in the presence of multiple preteens. Exactly what were the parents expected to do; follow every child into every room to be sure that they chewed and swallowed responsibly? Don't get me wrong; it is very sad that the child passed away, but the parents are suing out of grief. Sometime bad things happen. It doesn't automatically make the bad event someone else's fault.
As for not rendering aid quickly enough, exactly how quickly was aid rendered? That wasn't answered in the article or video. A person can die from oxygen deprivation in 4 minutes. And even if the homeowners called 911 the instant she choked, the ambulance probably would not have gotten there in time. Not knowing the Heimlich maneuver isn't illegal. Ignorant, yes. Illegal, no.
I know (personally) of a case where the teenager was at a potluck party. She had a severe peanut allergy. One salad had unrefined peanut oil as part of the dressing. It was made known she had a peanut allergy at the party so she would know what to eat or not eat. The person who made that salad did not realize unrefined peanut oil was in the dressing they used.
The girl died.
Seriously.
So sad. I mean, heart breaking.
But the parents didn't sue. It was a terrible accident and the maker of the salad was going to have to live with the mistake and hurt from it. Members of the family reached out to the salad maker to try and ease her pain. But it is something she still lives with, and it's been hard for her. Let alone the party goers who witnessed it all!
That's how people handle this. Not sue people. Just cause your kid is dead doesn't mean you deserve a pay out. So painful and sad. But............
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't get me wrong; it is very sad that the child passed away, but the parents are suing out of grief. Sometime bad things happen. It doesn't automatically make the bad event someone else's fault.
