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.
If that hazard happened due to cracking earth/whatever within the last month or so and the city hasn't had a chance to deal with it, that's one thing. If there were numerable reports to the city that this is a hazard and a citizen has witnessed and reported many people tripping on it, that's another.
I think issues like this is what is wrong with our current society. Generally, when I'm walking, I look to see where I am walking. If I trip on something, it is nobody's fault except my own because I didn't look where I was stepping. The idea that some moron (yes, moron) doesn't watch where they are going and then they have the audacity to complain to the city about their own stupidity, is just wrong. We have turned into a society of "how can I blame someone else?".
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,607 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50630
Quote:
Originally Posted by headingtoDenver
I think issues like this is what is wrong with our current society. Generally, when I'm walking, I look to see where I am walking. If I trip on something, it is nobody's fault except my own because I didn't look where I was stepping. The idea that some moron (yes, moron) doesn't watch where they are going and then they have the audacity to complain to the city about their own stupidity, is just wrong. We have turned into a society of "how can I blame someone else?".
The enormous majority of people who get injured by faulty equipment or other failures don't sue. They may not even report it, they just go to the ER and deal with it. Or they go to the funeral home and deal with it.
Do you think it's not the job of the municipality or the business to try to correct something that seems to consistently injure someone? A poorly marked or difficult to manage intersection where crashes occur regularly, for instance?
It's hard to think you really believe that when a hazard is well-known that takes extra vigilance on the part of the public to avoid shouldn't be addressed.
It's not a 3 inch "rise", which a pedestrian should be able to handle safely.
It's a 3 inch "step up" which is very easy to overlook and not predictable on a sidewalk.
If that hazard happened due to cracking earth/whatever within the last month or so and the city hasn't had a chance to deal with it, that's one thing. But if there were numerous reports to the city that this is a hazard and a citizen has witnessed and reported many people tripping on it, that's another.
Remember that scene in Jaws, after the Kitner boy was eaten by a shark on July 4? He and his mom were at the beach, where there are known risks. Sunburn, drowning, sharks or stingrays, etc. After he is killed, the mother approaches Chief Brody and slaps him across the face. She said I just found out you knew, you knew that shark was out there and yet my boy is dead. You knew. Chief Brody had kept the beaches open even though he knew a huge man eating shark was in the waters, because the business owners in the town didn't want to forego their July 4th weekend profits. The president of the Chamber of Commerce said, don't worry, Brody, she's wrong. And then Chief Brody says no she isn't.
So that's it. When you know there is a risk of serious injury or death but continue to operate because you don't want to lose profits.
Let me tell you, ClaraC. Don't go to ANY beach on earth. There are or could be sharks. There are or could be stinging jellyfish you may not see and could get stung. There is the chance you'll encounter bacteria, even perhaps flesh-eating or otherwise lethal bacteria. The salt in the air could negatively affect your breathing. You could be blinded by the sun reflecting off the water. You could get bitten by some insects, and they could be carrying a fatal or (perhaps worse, a) debilitating disease. Other people at the beach could have infectious diseases and you may encounter them and become infected. Water fowl could contaminate various parts of the beach, leading to your illness or death. A tsunami could storm the beach and sweep everything in its path away, killing you and thousands more. And there's more, but I think my message is clear: DON'T GO TO A BEACH!
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,607 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50630
Quote:
Originally Posted by SocSciProf
Let me tell you, ClaraC. Don't go to ANY beach on earth. There are or could be sharks. There are or could be stinging jellyfish you may not see and could get stung. There is the chance you'll encounter bacteria, even perhaps flesh-eating or otherwise lethal bacteria. The salt in the air could negatively affect your breathing. You could be blinded by the sun reflecting off the water. You could get bitten by some insects, and they could be carrying a fatal or (perhaps worse, a) debilitating disease. Other people at the beach could have infectious diseases and you may encounter them and become infected. Water fowl could contaminate various parts of the beach, leading to your illness or death. A tsunami could storm the beach and sweep everything in its path away, killing you and thousands more. And there's more, but I think my message is clear: DON'T GO TO A BEACH!
Now, about that computer you're using . . .
Hey, I'm not the one who slapped Chief Brody! ;D
I'm really surprised that you don't see this difference. It's one thing for the beach to be open in good faith, with the police chief understanding all the hazards but not actually knowing one of them is there, which they've kept out of the news because they want to shield that information from the public. So the public will come spend their money but not realize what the business owners know - that they are in serious danger. You didn't see the mayor's family in the water, I'll tell you that.
I love beaches and will continue to go. I do appreciate the flags on the beaches that warn when riptide currents are unusually high, though, for sure.
So, instead, some kid crawls under the pole and gets pushed into the ground (and maybe suffocates) when some heavier kid comes down the pole with speed. Yeah, that's a solution.
For those who see in every accident a need for a fix, the only solution is all children--3 feet apart from each other--strapped into soft padded chairs wearing straitjackets. And they toy with applying that to adults as well.
Haha, your posts make good points and are funny as hell to boot! In a way to a less extreme scenario society is already on the way to that-- I couldn't believe the first time I saw that some parks were taking out sandboxes and replacing it with "safety padded flooring"-- my dd in so many words but not using swear words reacted with a "wtf?? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SAND?" I suppose soon municipal entities will have bulldozers remove sand from the beach and replace it with a giant foam surface that is hypoallergenic and twice a day workers spray it with anti-bacterial spray.
They should have had their restaurant inspected for safety problems. Most businesses do this. Someone should have noticed that a small person or child could get pinched between the table and wall when the restaurant was revolving. I do feel the business is liable, not the parents. The parents were simply dining out at a restaurant. They had no idea there was a "booby trap" in the restaurant. It's certainly not their fault as they appeared to be doing nothing out of the ordinary.
I'm surprised their insurance company didn't catch it on their audit.
In quasi-legal terms, the reasonable person, in this case the parents of the child, do not expect a restaurant to have a deathtrap for that child that is not enclosed or barred (as in the case of a kitchen, where knives, hot stoves and ovens, could harm a child); a restaurant is supposed to serve food to a family, not have something out in the sitting-and-eating area that could kill a small child. Nor should the reasonable person expect that their child's running ahead of them by a few ft. should cause his death; the child was not heading for the kitchen or out into a busy street or into the elevator. I think the parents have cause for legal action; what will happen in the courts is anyone's guess.
In quasi-legal terms, the reasonable person, in this case the parents of the child, do not expect a restaurant to have a deathtrap for that child that is not enclosed or barred (as in the case of a kitchen, where knives, hot stoves and ovens, could harm a child); a restaurant is supposed to serve food to a family, not have something out in the sitting-and-eating area that could kill a small child. Nor should the reasonable person expect that their child's running ahead of them by a few ft. should cause his death; the child was not heading for the kitchen or out into a busy street or into the elevator. I think the parents have cause for legal action; what will happen in the courts is anyone's guess.
You're right. A restaurant shouldn't have something out in the open, in the main area, that is essentially a deathtrap.
But many people here cannot differentiate; and some people anti-lawsuit and think nobody should ever be allowed to sue, for any reason.
You're right. A restaurant shouldn't have something out in the open, in the main area, that is essentially a deathtrap.
But many people here cannot differentiate; and some people anti-lawsuit and think nobody should ever be allowed to sue, for any reason.
Nice try at a thinly veiled attempt to suggest those who don't agree with your opinion are not able to differentiate- patronizing in a parental sounding tone. Remember your opinion is one, and others have different conclusions or thoughts that doesn't make yours superior except I guess in your mind it does.
None of us here btw have gone to view the layout of the restaurant in its varying stages of rotation, also none of us were there to be say with 100% certainty, I suspect some of us here if we were to view the restaurant and have more of a in person intimate familiarity with how it's set up, how exactly it works, etc might end up changing our opinion..
You're right. A restaurant shouldn't have something out in the open, in the main area, that is essentially a deathtrap.
But many people here cannot differentiate; and some people anti-lawsuit and think nobody should ever be allowed to sue, for any reason.
I think your error is in thinking of the facility as a restaurant. It is that, but is also a sightseeing venue. I don't think one should have the same expectation of one as the other. Sightseeing locations are often dangerous. Ever considered the dangers in visiting the Grand Canyon? How about the risk of walking across the Golden Gate Bridge? In the former people die every year. In the latter you are a few feet from traffic going 55 mph. You think that's safe? Yes, there's a railing. Good luck if you think that's going to protect you from flying debris from a nearby car collision.
So, yes, if the parents simply randomly picked this as a place to eat, they may have legitimacy on their side, even though picking a restaurant at random seems unwise. I mean, what would they have done if the random selection had produced a strip club--take the kids in anyway? That's probably not what happened; it is far more likely that they decided to go to a restaurant/sight-seeing venue. In that case, one can argue they should have been more attentive, because such venues cannot remove all danger. The only way to even begin to do so is to greatly reduce the sight-seeing value. But if they did that, the couple would not have wanted to go. Kind of a catch-22.
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.
