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.
I'm sorry but parents do not watch their kids these days!!! I blame the parents. How many other deaths has this restaurant had due to this situation over the years???
Depending on state laws - there could be some level of negligence attributed to all parties and the parents could still collect. It just depends.
I remember we discussed this a lot last year when it happened in POC and there were some who felt there was a design flaw and others who blamed the parents entirely. The truth and fault could like somewhere in between.
Could be. I think the general public reacts emotionally to these things, and that's totally normal. What is interesting to me is that in this thread we have a lot of people only going by what the lawsuit claims six months later. The police report made at the time is very different. Some of it might seem like minor details to some people...that the rotation did or did not stop as it would when anything was stuck, much less a child's head. That the child's family was still dining and allowed their child to wander off...and that can be a danger in any normal restaurant, or were they leaving and the child was a few steps ahead of them? I'm curious how this will play out considering the differences between the police report and the suit. It's a tragedy either way.
Could be. I think the general public reacts emotionally to these things, and that's totally normal. What is interesting to me is that in this thread we have a lot of people only going by what the lawsuit claims six months later. The police report made at the time is very different. Some of it might seem like minor details to some people...that the rotation did or did not stop as it would when anything was stuck, much less a child's head. That the child's family was still dining and allowed their child to wander off...and that can be a danger in any normal restaurant, or were they leaving and the child was a few steps ahead of them? I'm curious how this will play out considering the differences between the police report and the suit. It's a tragedy either way.
Right and there's things we don't know, after it happened things were reported differently than they are now with the lawsuit, also none of us I don't think have been there and seen the exact trajectory of where table was, he walked etc--
One thing I don't believe it would be possible and no diss meant at all to the parent s because I really feel so sad for them, but I don't believe it would've been possible they were a couple steps right behind him for it to go from a to b to c--- I don't necessarily believe they were letting him climb all around and disturb others but I also don't think they were just there right behind him watching..they had to have either been still sitting back at the table talking or farther behind like quite a ways back, maybe had let him start ahead on his own and they were just starting to get up from table and start over their by the time he was already maybe at point b for example..If they were right behind him a few steps it would've only gone to a, not a to b to c
I don't think at all that was true... having been there for 41 yrs with no injuries or deaths including toddlers so I don't think there was a conclusion of a 4-5 inch space behind a booth being dangerous -it was behind a booth, where in the first place is not somewhere people would be expected to traverse behind--- it was not for example in front of a sight seeing window or fish aquarium . It was not foreseeable by the restaurant nor apparently by his own parents who are a child's first line of defense anyways and were right there with him and saw the little space-- that they now accuse the restaurant of not seeing as an obvious hazard-- they obviously didn't see it that way as they walked by and observed their kid going towards and into.
Agreed.
And what I'm wondering about is what if the child wandered this far from his parents on a city sidewalk into the street and was hit and killed by a car? Or what if the child wandered several feet from his parents in a museum and destroyed irreplaceable art? What if these parents were at a park and their child wandered 30 ft away and was kidnapped? What if this child wandered away from his parents on a ferry and fell overboard? All these things can happen within a few feet of the parents, whether they're watching him or not. But whose fault is it when those things happen? The driver of the car, the ferry boat captain?
Somewhere along the way parents have got to start taking some responsibility for their kids and quit relying on every other Tom, Dick, and Harry to make the world over for a safe place for their kid to be. The world is not a safe place, no matter how much parents want it to be. And it's up to the parents to figure out how to protect their kids because they're the parents. That's their job, not everyone else's.
Parents can not win. If they let their children have 3 feet of space to walk, they are negligent. But if they hover, always hold hands, etc then they are helicopter parents raising snow flakes who cant do anything for themselves.
Its beyond absurd what people's expectations are in some of these posts.
And btw, it is everyone's job to look out for other people. And kids are people too.
Parents can not win. If they let their children have 3 feet of space to walk, they are negligent. But if they hover, always hold hands, etc then they are helicopter parents raising snow flakes who cant do anything for themselves.
Its beyond absurd what people's expectations are in some of these posts.
And btw, it is everyone's job to look out for other people. And kids are people too.
I have been reading what some people here have been writing and they continually suggest the child was not being supervised and the parents are responsible for what occurred. Earlier in this thread, I quoted a USA Today article that seems to say the child was perhaps 3-4 feet away from its parents when this tragedy happened.
Perhaps, this is what this case turns on: How much supervision was this child getting and was it really inadequate.
If the distance involved was only to 3 to 4 feet I would have to plead guilty myself to being a "bad parent". I did allow my children to be that distance away from me because I had pretty good reflexes and I could grab them in an instant if a danger materialized. Three to four feet does no equate to allowing your children to "wander around a restaurant". Only the most paranoid and insecure person would really try to argue that that constitutes inadequate supervision. Unless, of course, you have taken your children to the edge of the Grand Canyon. No one here seems to suggest being in this restaurant compared with that.
We do know these facts for certain:
1. Employees and owners of a business are going to be much more familiar with the building than someone who patronizes the restaurant for the first time is going to be.
2. We do know that a legal duty is imposed on any property owner to make that property safe and/or provide warnings of potential dangers for business invitees. Business invitees are those who not only legally have a right to be on the premises, but those who are there financially contributing to the welfare of those who own the property.
3. We know that the restaurant rotates. Anytime this kind of movement occurs, there is the potentiality of an injury because of it. This was not an ordinary restaurant that simply was in a stationary position.
4. I make the assumption that the owners of the restaurant know that people come to their establishment precisely because it is at the top of a building and because it rotates. If they are going to benefit from these facts are they not under a duty to thoroughly inspect their premises and make sure that no on can be injured or killed because of it?
5. Apparently, the restaurant does nothing to discourage people from bringing children of tender years to its establishment. Since they have the choice to prohibit young children from being present, should they not be expected to have a property that is safe for these children.
It is evident to me that a number of people here are hostile to this lawsuit. My real question is is are they hostile to all lawsuits?
I can think of many cases where I would fault poor supervision by parents and call it a factor in an accident. In this case, based on the article that has the parents 3-4 feet away from the child. I do not see absence of parental supervision as a factor in this accident.
Last edited by markg91359; 11-25-2017 at 08:57 AM..
^ Like someone said earlier, there are big discrepancies between the police report/initial news reports and info in the suit. I don’t know why people are so quick to believe the latest reports rather than the earliest ones. With some major facts differing, I don’t know what to believe at this point.
Right and there's things we don't know, after it happened things were reported differently than they are now with the lawsuit, also none of us I don't think have been there and seen the exact trajectory of where table was, he walked etc--
One thing I don't believe it would be possible and no diss meant at all to the parent s because I really feel so sad for them, but I don't believe it would've been possible they were a couple steps right behind him for it to go from a to b to c--- I don't necessarily believe they were letting him climb all around and disturb others but I also don't think they were just there right behind him watching..they had to have either been still sitting back at the table talking or farther behind like quite a ways back, maybe had let him start ahead on his own and they were just starting to get up from table and start over their by the time he was already maybe at point b for example..If they were right behind him a few steps it would've only gone to a, not a to b to c
Also highlighting a point you made regarding if they had like according to initial reports allowed their child to wander off "which could be a hazard in ANY restaurant " (or anywhere frankly)...
Parents can not win. If they let their children have 3 feet of space to walk, they are negligent. But if they hover, always hold hands, etc then they are helicopter parents raising snow flakes who cant do anything for themselves.
Its beyond absurd what people's expectations are in some of these posts.
And btw, it is everyone's job to look out for other people. And kids are people too.
3 feet? I don't believe that's a fact- that we know to be true--if you read the reports and not just what the parents allege in their lawsuit but the initial reports and some diners there and police... it's not a matter of parents winning or not winning.
I personally am not sure how it coulda gone from a to b to c with that end result if they were just right a few steps behind him.
I hesitate to post this because some here may bicker it's not the same-- but it kind of is. Last night I was in my car, I was taking a break from shopping, and having a snack, making some calls etc. In the parking lot there was one of those shopping cart spaces, I can't think of the word but where some larger stores have in their lots a small place for customers to put their cart after they leave, and there was a type of iron rung again hard to describe, configured in a upside down u shape sort of.. hope some can picture what I'm talking about, and I saw several people come and go pushing their cart in and walk off, with no problems or injuries---then a teenage boy walked up to put his cart and kept walking directly into the iron pole u shape, and banged his head pretty hard, he stood there and held his head and used a expletive in pain, looked back at the pole thing and left. If he had been walking quickly through instead of slowly, or was skateboarding or whatever and hit his head hard enough it could have caused a head injury, or possibly worse. If it was an elderly person who walks along through their without paying attention although majority of people see it, and bang their head and fall, and are injured or die should the store be sued for having that shopping cart rung? Are they negligent and should have a jury trial? Do they need a glow in the dark sign there for night? Do we need a jury trial and demand the store put up flashing neon signs or can we allow for some personal responsibility and realize we can't constantly change remove take down etc , sue, have jury trials and demand businesses take measures to try and ensure the impossible that nobody will ever be unaware??
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.
