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.
So our local McDonalds had an outdoor playscape in the early 1990s. One of the features was a little two story playscape, with the top platform being about 5.5 feet above the ground. The top platform had a roof and guardrails spaced so kids could see out but not fall out. Well done. But in the center of this was a fireman's pole. Kids loved it. You could climb up there and grab the pole and slide down just like a fireman. But injuries happened. Kids tried to climb UP when a kid was sliding down. Some kids lost grip and fell. After a number of injuries, mostly just scuffs, corporate told them to take out the firepole.
So they did. They removed the firepole. But left the gaping hole.
As it was configured, a parent new to the playscape couldn't see from their vantage point that there was a hole in the second floor. Just suddenly, little ones who were believed to be safe up there would fall through.
??? Yes, a child was severely injured and sued and won. What was this management thinking?
They should have just tore down the entire playground and had a flat surface with no allergens and had the children sit in place forever.
Status:
"This too shall pass. But possibly, like a kidney stone."
(set 9 days ago)
35,949 posts, read 18,257,705 times
Reputation: 51029
Quote:
Originally Posted by movingthru
They should have just tore down the entire playground and had a flat surface with no allergens and had the children sit in place forever.
No. I'm a huge fan of active kids, and was ok with the firepole as it was. I think I would have configured the bottom of the pole to make it where kids couldn't climb up easily - maybe make the pole end about a foot off the ground so kids weren't tempted to climb up. But yeah, we were sad when the fire pole was taken out.
And astonished that the manager of that restaurant thought removing the pole but leaving the hole was a good idea.
No. I'm a huge fan of active kids, and was ok with the firepole as it was. I think I would have configured the bottom of the pole to make it where kids couldn't climb up easily - maybe make the pole end about a foot off the ground so kids weren't tempted to climb up. But yeah, we were sad when the fire pole was taken out.
And astonished that the manager of that restaurant thought removing the pole but leaving the hole was a good idea.
But fire poles are dangerous. You yourself said that some kids fell or misused it. I think they need a flat, non-allergenic surface that is soft and continuous which the kids can sit quietly on in place without moving or touching each other.
Do you have expertise with large rotating machinery? How many hazard analysis have you done?
Exactly.
Negative, I am not a hazard analyst. However if there was something I deemed as an obvious hazard as the boys parents assert, then I would take steps to prevent my kid from reaching it.
Status:
"This too shall pass. But possibly, like a kidney stone."
(set 9 days ago)
35,949 posts, read 18,257,705 times
Reputation: 51029
Quote:
Originally Posted by movingthru
But fire poles are dangerous. You yourself said that some kids fell or misused it. I think they need a flat, non-allergenic surface that is soft and continuous which the kids can sit quietly on in place without moving or touching each other.
In your world, maybe, not mine.
In my world I want reasonable care to be made when a danger is evident.
You are still missing the point, the military does not and cannot mitigate all risks, they do work hard at identifying potential risk and potential for accidents. The risk of working with ordinance is, it can explode, there are strict procedures for handling them that are designed to prevent accidental detonation. Even with the lengthy experience, countless review boards, modified procedures, an unforeseen accident will still happen, and they know it but they do what they have to do. Take a walk down the tool aisle at Home Depot, all of the tools pose potential risk, power tools have safeties designed into them and warning stickers plastered all over them, and still people will get injured and try to sue them. The restaurant in question was a giant machine with moving parts, did anyone consider the risk for an accident between people and the machine? That's a question the jury will need to know to come to a fair verdict.
No, I think you're missing the point. For 41 years nothing seems to have happened. Now, in 2017, one child is killed. The child is running around, away from their parents, and wanders into danger. Now some say the danger was foreseeable, the restaurant is liable, perhaps even the whole rotating design should be scrapped. The point of such hindsight thinking is that there is no end to it. Anytime anything happens, someone is going to propose a "fix" to prevent that thing from ever happening again. If we took that logic to the military, no one would ever leave the barracks. If we took that logic to planes planes would be so heavy they'd never leave the ground. Someone above said accident investigation has led the US to have a virtually accident-free airline industry. Notice they said "virtually." [One correction, the crash at SFO was only 1-2 years ago, so even the claim is incorrect. Even if we treat the claim as correct,] They had to put in the qualifier because it is impossible to eradicate all accidents. Even lying in bed you could choke on your saliva, if it were to go down the wrong pipe. And who's going to pass legislation, or slap a warning sign on your neck, to prevent it?
So, yes, accident investigation is helpful. But sometimes the result of the investigation should be "Nothing should change." And, I believe this is such a case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowtired14
As far as my imagination, this is a court of public opinion and not a court of law, I have no more facts than you have so at best we can only imagine how this case will play out. We're all sitting here on a forum imaging ourselves as jurors, but we have no facts or evidence other than a news report so all of our imaginations need to be vivid enough to continue this conversation.
I was not imagining how the case will play out. The issue to me isn't "Will the family win a lawsuit?" I admit they probably will, simply because jury members have hearts. The issue to me is "Is the restaurant really at fault?" I've seen courts operate long enough to know that something prevailing in the courts is not evidence of something being true. If you disagree, just look at all the people freed after a decade in prison, and all the people exonerated that we know are guilty because key evidence (e.g., a confession) was withheld from the jury, and then tell me "winning in court" is the same as "being in the right."
Last edited by SocSciProf; 11-22-2017 at 10:42 AM..
Reason: Clarification
In my world I want reasonable care to be made when a danger is evident.
You mean like when there's a 3 inch rise in a sidewalk? I agree. What human could survive such conditions? We were not made to live in times like this.
That definitely is not a snail's pace. It is fast enough that the back of a bench could go from passable for a child, to stuck, to crushed in a minute or less. The benches shouldn't have been positioned such that they are passable then impassable. There should have been a minimum distance between wall and bench so that the average person doesn't become stuck.
But.... If you make it to close to the wall/trap point someone sitting in the bench table could get there hand caught. As it moves.
For 41 years nothing seems to have happened. Now, in 2017, one child is killed.
Yep. The intelligent response is "if everyone else could figure out how to not die except for one person ...then probably the one person is the problem." Instead, people just go "one person died!!!" and lawyers are like "I will heroically make sure you are compensated and also take 30% off the top!! Fear not, good citizen!"
So our local McDonalds had an outdoor playscape in the early 1990s. One of the features was a little two story playscape, with the top platform being about 5.5 feet above the ground. The top platform had a roof and guardrails spaced so kids could see out but not fall out. Well done. But in the center of this was a fireman's pole. Kids loved it. You could climb up there and grab the pole and slide down just like a fireman. But injuries happened. Kids tried to climb UP when a kid was sliding down. Some kids lost grip and fell. After a number of injuries, mostly just scuffs, corporate told them to take out the firepole.
So they did. They removed the firepole. But left the gaping hole.
As it was configured, a parent new to the playscape couldn't see from their vantage point that there was a hole in the second floor. Just suddenly, little ones who were believed to be safe up there would fall through.
??? Yes, a child was severely injured and sued and won. What was this management thinking?
That they would try to remove all risk of being alive
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.
