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.
No, the floor didn't turn off, and that was the whole problem. While they were working on getting him out - which was doable, the booth became more and more tightly wedged until finally his skull cracked. Awful.
A waiter jumped over flight of stairs to turn the mechanism off, at some risk to himself, which isn't mentioned in the lawsuit.
The article just mentioned said the official police statements say the rotation automatically shut off when he became trapped. Were you there?
"Police had said the boy wandered away from his family’s window table at the restaurant atop the Westin Peachtree Plaza hotel and got his head stuck between tables. They also said the rotating floor shut off automatically when he was struck."
I can almost hear it now: "Mr. Holt, this is Ignatz Bacigaplonski. I am a personal injury lawyer. I read the article about how your son died. I believe I can get a huge cash settlement for you. I will only take 33% of that settlement for representing you in the matter. Will you allow me the privilege of representing you and your family?"
Yes, one of my prejudices is showing. I really doubt that the family considered the death of their son to be a "cash cow" until contacted by an ambulance chasing "attorney at law"!
As it happened in April, it took awhile to find a lawyer to do so.
The article just mentioned said the official police statements say the rotation automatically shut off when he became trapped. Were you there?
"Police had said the boy wandered away from his family’s window table at the restaurant atop the Westin Peachtree Plaza hotel and got his head stuck between tables. They also said the rotating floor shut off automatically when he was struck."
It could be a fact to find at trial depending on the hotel’s position but I have a feeling that if the family is wrong on this their case will be severely diminished.
It’s strange that the first reports were wrong rather than what’s alleged months later in the lawsuit... Obviously, someone was wrong here and I’m not entirely convinced it was the police. I’m always suspicious of tort claims like this. I just think that sometimes, accidents happen and maybe no one is so negligent that victims deserve multi-million dollar payouts. It seems people have managed to use this restaurant for decades without any deaths, unclear on injuries relating to the rotation but no articles I’ve seen mention previous similar cases in any way - injuries or deaths.
As I said, it may be a matter of the peculiar thinking of Air Force safety: Looking at a situation and deliberately attempting to conceive of how many ways someone can screw it up.
That's usually an ultimately futile exercise because of Heinlein's Third Law: "It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are too ingenious."
However, we do try.
Your Air Force training is interesting. The Air Force flies planes. Planes can crash. Perhaps every plane needs not only an ejection seat (to save the pilot), but also a deployable "landing cushion" that can be dropped by the same lever that ejects the pilot. Oh, but you have to assure the landing cushion lands under the plane, so weights have to be attached and it must be tethered to the plane. Oh, but people could be crushed on the ground by the landing cushion, so you have to deploy "gentle sweepers" that will 1)make it to the ground before the plane and 2)gently guide people out of the way of the landing cushion. Then you have to assure those gentle sweepers don't land on someone, so you have to devise a device that gets to the ground faster than the gentle sweeper, alerts the person on the ground to watch out, and points the correct direction. Then you have to hope your plane can get off the ground with all these safety devices. 'Course, if the plane is grounded, perhaps that's the safest outcome.
We prioritize. It is impossible to put barriers everywhere something bad can happen. There seems no way to put a barrier where people are suggesting one is needed. That impossibility probably mitigates (to some extent) some of any remaining proprietor liability.
No, the floor didn't turn off, and that was the whole problem. While they were working on getting him out - which was doable, the booth became more and more tightly wedged until finally his skull cracked. Awful.
A waiter jumped over flight of stairs to turn the mechanism off, at some risk to himself, which isn't mentioned in the lawsuit.
The issue wasn't the floor rotating against the glass, it was a partition wall that was moving and the child decided to kiss the wall while the wall was moving to partition off an area. His skin created a suction effect which pulled his face behind the round couch. The child squeezed in between two round couches in order to get there.
Your Air Force training is interesting. The Air Force flies planes. Planes can crash. Perhaps every plane needs not only an ejection seat (to save the pilot), but also a deployable "landing cushion" that can be dropped by the same lever that ejects the pilot. Oh, but you have to assure the landing cushion lands under the plane, so weights have to be attached and it must be tethered to the plane. Oh, but people could be crushed on the ground by the landing cushion, so you have to deploy "gentle sweepers" that will 1)make it to the ground before the plane and 2)gently guide people out of the way of the landing cushion. Then you have to assure those gentle sweepers don't land on someone, so you have to devise a device that gets to the ground faster than the gentle sweeper, alerts the person on the ground to watch out, and points the correct direction. Then you have to hope your plane can get off the ground with all these safety devices. 'Course, if the plane is grounded, perhaps that's the safest outcome.
I don't know what that nattering is about.
Quote:
We prioritize. It is impossible to put barriers everywhere something bad can happen. There seems no way to put a barrier where people are suggesting one is needed. That impossibility probably mitigates (to some extent) some of any remaining proprietor liability.
I don't see that as impossible at all in this case.
The "nattering" is that you keep bringing up your Air Force training as some kind of certification of safety expertise (or credential of being really focused on safety). Maybe you are. But the Air Force itself uses machines that pose threats to bystanders every single day of the week. If we took your alleged safety principles to heart, we'd impose so many demands for safety equipment on the planes that they would never get off the ground. So, based on that, I don't agree that your principle (which isn't even followed in the Air Force) transfers beyond your personal preferences--even if I might share them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
I don't see that as impossible at all in this case.
Maybe, maybe not. But the assumption that if there's a danger, a barrier will fix it, is just that--an assumption. Just like there's no way to certainly protect bystanders from a falling plane (every safety device would need another safety device), there may be no way to certainly protect people from the operation of that restaurant.
The "nattering" is that you keep bringing up your Air Force training as some kind of certification of safety expertise (or credential of being really focused on safety). Maybe you are. But the Air Force itself uses machines that pose threats to bystanders every single day of the week. If we took your alleged safety principles to heart, we'd impose so many demands for safety equipment on the planes that they would never get off the ground. So, based on that, I don't agree that your principle (which isn't even followed in the Air Force) transfers beyond your personal preferences--even if I might share them.
Maybe, maybe not. But the assumption that if there's a danger, a barrier will fix it, is just that--an assumption. Just like there's no way to certainly protect bystanders from a falling plane (every safety device would need another safety device), there may be no way to certainly protect people from the operation of that restaurant.
There is no way to protect people from all dangers and hazards. However, that does not excuse the failure to attempt to protect people from those hazards that one is reasonably aware of. You could use your logic to take seat belts and air bags out of automobiles.
There is no way to protect people from all dangers and hazards. However, that does not excuse the failure to attempt to protect people from those hazards that one is reasonably aware of. You could use your logic to take seat belts and air bags out of automobiles.
Attempting to protect people from hazards they would be reasonably aware of-- yes that's true but Im not at all convinced that this would fall into that "hazard one should be reasonably aware of"---
As badly as I feel for the boy and his parents , emotions of that shouldn't influence reason-- and I am not close to being convinced that a 5 inch crevice behind a booth would not be included in that category of believing or should be aware it could entrap a human being of any size. It's not as if there was for example a large aquarium w tropical fish and a space between the aquarium and booths where people would be expected to wander over to look, and a space large enough to suck in a human body.
Iow I am not at all convinced as many are not that a tiny crevice behind a booth would cause a reasonable doubt to the owners it was capable of killing somebody. When my dd was that age I was pretty careful and protective , albeit not perfect as nobody is, and I don't believe I would have seen a tiny space behind a booth as a dangerous hazard-- although at the same time I also wouldn't let her play back there or peek her head inside or reach her hand in etc
Last edited by mondayafternoons; 11-21-2017 at 02:33 PM..
The issue wasn't the floor rotating against the glass, it was a partition wall that was moving and the child decided to kiss the wall while the wall was moving to partition off an area. His skin created a suction effect which pulled his face behind the round couch. The child squeezed in between two round couches in order to get there.
I know he wasn't near the glass.
The child squeezed between the round wooden booth and the wall, I believe.
The back of the booth had been fully exposed while they were there, and then while they were leaving it was coming up to the partition and was impassable.
As I understand it.
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.
