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.
Tragic death, but children in restaurants should be sitting on chairs, not exploring. A rotating restaurant is a giant machine with obvious risks.
As sad as I feel for the parents and the poor child, I think a counter suit by the restaurant against the parents for letting their child wander is not without merit.
I cannot even believe this comment.
I've never heard of a rotating restaurant being risky before. It's not like it's some carnival ride. And the child wasn't wandering off, either.
And lastly, a restaurant or place of business can't sue a parent for "letting a child wander". That's not a basis for a real lawsuit.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 23 days ago)
35,722 posts, read 18,073,030 times
Reputation: 50773
This pic says it all. It's an aerial view of the restaurant. In the left part of the photo, are those circular booths, like the one he got trapped behind. I'm not sure what compelled him to crawl back there, but it wasn't "to get a better view", which is what I was picturing before. I was picturing he was up against the glass looking down, as many patrons would be doing.
He's behind a couch against a wall, where there's a 5" gap. And then, as the circular booth rotates around the curved wall, it encounters a vertical brace every several feet or so, maybe an inch in width. That inch made a difference between 5" where he was able to fit himself into, to 4" that crushed him.
Sad, sad, but I can't imagine the restaurant could have possibly predicted a person could get back into that tiny little space. Or would want to.
I think the restaurant is responsible. They presented an attractive nuisance to the child; a space where the child could squeeze into so as to look out on the incredible view; and made it unsafe because it was rotating and became smaller. Why didn't the designers/architects think that a small child might not run up behind the booth and get stuck and crushed due to the rotating wall? The restaurant owners were the ones who had directed the design and building; there should not have been any spaces inside the restaurant where a child could die just by standing in it; at least no such spaces that were open to the public. The child's parents had no reason to suspect that their youngster could be killed; they did not know the dimensions of the space where the child stood or the frequency of rotation. When the restaurant was being designed, couldn't someone look at the plans and think, hey, what if a little kid runs up to the window behind the booth to look out at the view or just to see what's in that space?
Now if the restaurant had signs up that cautioned parents to keep kids away from certain spots, i.e. behind the booths, then the parents' responsibility comes into play; but I don't think that's the case.
In any event, it's a horrible tragedy and even more awful in that the parents saw their child die that way.
Tragic death, but children in restaurants should be sitting on chairs, not exploring. A rotating restaurant is a giant machine with obvious risks.
As sad as I feel for the parents and the poor child, I think a counter suit by the restaurant against the parents for letting their child wander is not without merit.
The point is that there was a hazard that could have been prevented by the restaurant. The restaurant is liable. Period.
Tragic death, but children in restaurants should be sitting on chairs, not exploring. A rotating restaurant is a giant machine with obvious risks.
As sad as I feel for the parents and the poor child, I think a counter suit by the restaurant against the parents for letting their child wander is not without merit.
You didn't read the article carefully. The family was exiting the restaurant and were with the child. The child was in close proximity to the parents.
If there "obvious risks" to a rotating restaurant than:
1. Warnings need to be posted;
2. The restaurant needs to be made safe from this kind of incident; or
3. Such restaurants should be closed.
There is no excuse for this tragedy. Its a question of the owners and employees of the restaurant not taking the time to discover these types of dangers. The law allows one to be held responsible for what they know and what they should have known.
My prediction is this case won't go anywhere near trial. The restaurant and its insurer will pay handsomely to prevent a public trial.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 23 days ago)
35,722 posts, read 18,073,030 times
Reputation: 50773
I posted about 3 posts up, a picture of the table and how far it was away from the wall. 5 inches. Even the plaintiff says 5 inches. Less than the length of a dollar bill. Who could imagine a child would squeeze in there.
This isn't a child who was walking around the restaurant trying to get a good view out the window.
This is a child who, for whatever reason, squeezed himself tightly behind the curved booth and against the moving wall.
If I were on the jury I don't think I'd side with the plaintiff.
Look at that picture, and say that's an obvious risk. My guess is, they couldn't even clean behind that booth. You could barely get a hand in back there to clean out dust.
You didn't read the article carefully. The family was exiting the restaurant and were with the child. The child was in close proximity to the parents.
If there "obvious risks" to a rotating restaurant than:
1. Warnings need to be posted;
2. The restaurant needs to be made safe from this kind of incident; or
3. Such restaurants should be closed.
There is no excuse for this tragedy. Its a question of the owners and employees of the restaurant not taking the time to discover these types of dangers. The law allows one to be held responsible for what they know and what they should have known.
My prediction is this case won't go anywhere near trial. The restaurant and its insurer will pay handsomely to prevent a public trial.
The parents' description of events is different from what the media reported initially. We will have to see how that plays out.
I am sure there will be a settlement. I am not convinced the restaurant should have known that a child would crawl behind one of the booths and get his head stuck.
The parents' description of events is different from what the media reported initially. We will have to see how that plays out.
I am sure there will be a settlement. I am not convinced the restaurant should have known that a child would crawl behind one of the booths and get his head stuck.
I also WONDER whether this is a restaurant expecting kids. Here is a link to the lunch menu (they were having lunch): Lunch Menu - Sun Dial Restaurant Yes, kids can eat steak tartare and blackened trout, but the menu seems designed for upscale adults, not 5 year olds. As far as I can tell, there's no kids menu.
So, someone is mistaken. Even if the family were leaving the restaurant, that doesn't mean the parents are no longer responsible for their child's whereabouts. And, I don't think "behind a booth that backs up against a wall" is an attractive nuisance.
This is a sad outcome. And there probably will be a settlement. But I am not sure the restaurant is really liable, regardless of what public relations may require them to say or do.
Finally, FYI, the restaurant has been closed a month. I wonder whether the workers are being paid. I doubt it. One tragedy, maybe not even their fault, and restaurant workers may be out of luck.
I also WONDER whether this is a restaurant expecting kids. Here is a link to the lunch menu (they were having lunch): Lunch Menu - Sun Dial Restaurant Yes, kids can eat steak tartare and blackened trout, but the menu seems designed for upscale adults, not 5 year olds. As far as I can tell, there's no kids menu..
Unless the restaurant expressly prohibited children, then the child had a right to be there. Besides, lots of people take their children to nice restaurants to expose them to a certain kind of fine dining and social etiquette. It's not like they were trying to host a kid's birthday party there with lots of other five year olds. They were just taking their one child there.
I've witnessed an incident much like this at our local mall. Second story has metal rails. A small toddler and his parents were watching a Christmas show being held below. The little one leaned near the rail and his head got lodged. Security was right there. The parents had to calm him while the maintenance team used a device to remove the bar. The little one was then taken to the hospital. His parents were fined for the fee to repair the rail. To this day they have yet to have any low guard put around that area. I still flinch when I see little ones get near those bars. Most parents are super cautious with their kids anyways. I do question the safety of the space between the bars...There has got to be some building code on that.
My concern in this article is how the building code allows for this space without a guard plate to prevent this from happening.
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.
