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.
You are correct - 5 year olds do not behave like adults, therefore they shouldn't be taken to adult type restaurants.
The minute this child got down from his seat and started wandering around one of the parents should have gotten up out of their chair to go get him. But I see this all the time in public places including nice restaurants. It's like the parents feel once they are out in public, the child is no longer their responsibility.
It is not up to the restaurant to insure it is child proof. That is the parent's responsibility and I'm sure the only people who think the restaurant should be sued are the exact parents I am talking about. "People who think they deserve to lose every penny they will be forced to cough up." If that happens, I hope this and other nice restaurants stop allowing children altogether. It would be a much nicer dining experience for those of us who want to enjoy our meal without being subjected to little kids running around, crying, etc. while the parents sit idly by doing nothing about it.
Pretty sure there isn't a person on CD that hasn't had a nice restaurant meal ruined by bratty kids and the parents who won't control them.
I think what has happened is that many kids spend the majority of their waking hours in daycare these days and many parents get so used to others watching their kids just don't key into that.
When Mothers only spend limited time with their kids, they don't develop that "I brought you into this world and I can take you out," "sit down and I mean this instant," influence.
Parents don't want to cause a ruckus in the few hours a week they spend with them, so they just put up with things and expect the rest of the world to do the same.
I have warned IC about the danger of roofs collapsing on your child. Has happened and will happen again. So to properly supervise your child she must keep the kid out of buildings with roofs.
A plane coming through the roof is just another indication of the problem with roofs.
Common sense also goes a long way in protecting a young child from injury.
Quote:
Lower levels of adult supervision are associated with higher odds of more severe injury in young children. Proximity is the most important supervision dimension for reducing injury risk.
Name calling doesn't change the fat that it was the parent's responsibility, not the restaurant's, to keep the kid safe.
The design could have changed. It is still their responsibility.
That an employee was locked into a freezer has nothing to do with parent's keeping their kids under control in the restaurant.
I realize that blaming the restaurant would help relieve the parent's of the horrible guilt they feel, and a jury may award them a sizable sum for their loss.
Nonetheless, they brought the kid to a huge moving mechanical restaurant and then let him climb around while they ignored him.
No amount of name calling or finger pointing changes that.
Your post is pretty much nonsense. I am sure the family feels guilt and "why did I not" etc. But this is a serious design flaw and it will almost certainly be found so in the court. And the plantiff will; run out a half dozen different experts all of whom will testify that it was an unacceptable risk.
And they will testify to that because it was as the kids death demonstrated. And from some of the pictures the way it appears to be constructed it could very well have killed me or someone else with a similar handicap. My handicap is not their fault and my tripping is not their fault. But creating a place I can fall that would potentially kill me is their fault.
It is also unclear that the kid was unsupervised in any significant way or that he was wandering around or any of that. When I was raising daughters a kid within 10 feet was clearly supervised. In fact a kid within two steps was supervised. And mom could throw stinkeye and get instance compliance from much further away than that.
I've agreed with all your posts except this one. Parents have a reasonable expectation of safety in their own home and I don't know any parents, including myself, who watched their children 24/7 while they were in their own home. What are you supposed to do while you're cooking dinner and the kids are playing in their room?
Perhaps after a window washer left my high rise I MIGHT have double checked the windows but then again maybe not.
And that last comment right there establishes parental, not building design, responsibility.
It is also unclear that the kid was unsupervised in any significant way or that he was wandering around or any of that. When I was raising daughters a kid within 10 feet was clearly supervised. In fact a kid within two steps was supervised. And mom could throw stinkeye and get instance compliance from much further away than that.
According to witnesses, he probably was. One expressed surprise that the kid could have gotten in the space that he unfortunately got caught in. This suggests that he might have been unsupervised for some time.
But they didn't, and now he's dead. Do you consider that an acceptable consequence of having a child wander a few feet away from his parents at a restaurant?
Uh......well, yeah! Having kids carries responsibility. Not acting responsibly carries consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Until more information is released, we don't know whether he accessed an open gap, or climbed over the back of a booth and into the little space.
Climbing over restaurant furniture is wildly inappropriate behavior, and yes, the parents would be at fault for enabling the child to do so by not supervising him.
That's what I'm waiting for: FACTS. I wish we knew what actually happened. I suppose until a witness comes forth, we will have to guess.
Your post is pretty much nonsense. I am sure the family feels guilt and "why did I not" etc. But this is a serious design flaw and it will almost certainly be found so in the court. And the plantiff will; run out a half dozen different experts all of whom will testify that it was an unacceptable risk.
And they will testify to that because it was as the kids death demonstrated. And from some of the pictures the way it appears to be constructed it could very well have killed me or someone else with a similar handicap. My handicap is not their fault and my tripping is not their fault. But creating a place I can fall that would potentially kill me is their fault.
It is also unclear that the kid was unsupervised in any significant way or that he was wandering around or any of that. When I was raising daughters a kid within 10 feet was clearly supervised. In fact a kid within two steps was supervised. And mom could throw stinkeye and get instance compliance from much further away than that.
I'm not sure what your handicap, how it would result in you falling behind the booths, or the effectiveness of your stink eye, but we can argue until the cows come home and it is still the parents' not the restaurant's responsibility to keep their kid safe.
I know. I know. There is a pinch point and there was some redesign several years ago and the courts may award a sizable sum to the parents.
It is still the parent's responsibility.
They knew this was a revolving restaurant. This was hardly a surprise.
According to witnesses, he probably was. One expressed surprise that the kid could have gotten in the space that he unfortunately got caught in. This suggests that he might have been unsupervised for some time.
What that suggests is the witness was surprised the small space was large enough for the child to fit into, not that he was unsupervised for some time.
Study is for children less than five and considers presence to be touching or within reach of a child.
Acutally silly when you think about it. If you are holding the kids hand he is likely safer than if not...but it is going to get awkward when he starts dating.
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.
