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.
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.
The only problem I see with that is if you are only 3-4 feet away aren't you close enough to take a step, reach out and pull your child back because you can SEE they have wandered into a space they shouldn't be in? Or to raise your voice and tell them to get out of there? If the space is diminishing rapidly enough to 'trap' someone shouldn't that have been visible to the parents if they were actually looking at where the child was, or what he was doing? I suppose it's possible he wandered into that space at just the precise moment that it would be impossible to back out again, but that seems unlikely. Purely speculation though.
We can stand here and point fingers back and forth with who should have seen or known what, but I really feel like this is one of those things that would not occur to any reasonable (key word) person that anyone would remain in such a tight space for ANY length of time without realizing it could become dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondayafternoons
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
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.
I realize your an accident attorney but I don't believe it's known as fact it was 3 feet away , as many have pointed out here the parents allegations for the purpose of their lawsuit are quite different on some key points than the fresh after the fact reports-- including how far away they were. I'm a parent too and also an aunt and I have plenty of experience watching little children and how all that works. Imo it was a lot more than a few feet or the boy wouldn't have gotten from a to b to c. As you say a few feet is close enough to see what's going on and grab your kid back. It's not being a helicopter parent to be close enough to them to see what they're next to or getting into
Last edited by toosie; 11-25-2017 at 07:26 PM..
Reason: Fixed quote wrap
..... I do not see absence of parental supervision as a factor in this accident.
Think of this being a Carousel at a Amusement Park. The Carousel spins, the world outside of it does not nor does the center core. A small child decides to go for a walk while it is spinning and either falls off the outer edge or falls against the center core and gets injured. Who's fault would it be? The adult parents who were not paying attention to their child while on the ride or the Park?
The only problem I see with that is if you are only 3-4 feet away aren't you close enough to take a step, reach out and pull your child back because you can SEE they have wandered into a space they shouldn't be in? Or to raise your voice and tell them to get out of there? If the space is diminishing rapidly enough to 'trap' someone shouldn't that have been visible to the parents if they were actually looking at where the child was, or what he was doing? I suppose it's possible he wandered into that space at just the precise moment that it would be impossible to back out again, but that seems unlikely. Purely speculation though.
We can stand here and point fingers back and forth with who should have seen or known what, but I really feel like this is one of those things that would not occur to any reasonable (key word) person that anyone would remain in such a tight space for ANY length of time without realizing it could become dangerous.
Like this? He had to walk into the actual corral to hit his head? http://www.nationalcart.com/wp-conte...art_corral.jpg
Not quite like that, instead of a wide girth like in that ring, it is more of an upside down half of a rectangle shape , and the sides of it much closer together, most people do not have an issue of hitting their head against it, to someone a little observant its right here, but he pushed his cart in and hard to describe in words, kept walking through hitting his head hard on the lower rung.
I will take a pic of it and post it later if someone can tell me how to post a picture on cd--don't make fun people I'm really befuddled with tech stuff
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'll grant you that. But there's another element to this as well. That element is teaching your child how to behave in a public place. This means in ALL public places. Like no running around in a movie theater screaming just because it's a "kid" matinee. No acting like a wild animal just because it's Chuck E. Cheese.
The thing is parents need to teach their kids how to behave in public. And I'll admit, there are some kids who will behave perfectly at 4 and some that will be bounce and go till they're 18. Parents know their own child. A curious child isn't a bad thing. But if you, as a parent, know your child is going to wander off and explore, or act like a banshee when out in public, then that's for you, the parents, to deal with.
Parenting is a lot more than just watching or not watching your kids. It's teaching them as well, and the public shouldn't have to teach your children anything.
I'll grant you that. But there's another element to this as well. That element is teaching your child how to behave in a public place. This means in ALL public places. Like no running around in a movie theater screaming just because it's a "kid" matinee. No acting like a wild animal just because it's Chuck E. Cheese.
The thing is parents need to teach their kids how to behave in public. And I'll admit, there are some kids who will behave perfectly at 4 and some that will be bounce and go till they're 18. Parents know their own child. A curious child isn't a bad thing. But if you, as a parent, know your child is going to wander off and explore, or act like a banshee when out in public, then that's for you, the parents, to deal with.
Parenting is a lot more than just watching or not watching your kids. It's teaching them as well, and the public shouldn't have to teach your children anything.
Very well said... I don't think most people would feel a literal 3 feet of space is wrong... at issue is that initial reports indicated a lot more than 3 ft away
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'd say that most people here seem to be anti-lawsuit, altogether. They believe all lawsuits are wrong and those who file lawsuits are greedy. That is because of the media. The media reports these lawsuits where big money is awarded to plaintiffs. But not all lawsuits win and certainly don't win millons. It is costly to hire good attorneys and most people who have a good, winnable case, never go to court. They just give up.
I've experienced this reaction from people when I filed a small claims suit to recover $600, deposit money that my landlord wrongfully withheld from me. I had people call me greedy. I had people tell me, why did you do that? I've had people react with shock and astonishment. I don't get it. $600 is not some big windfall (to me), but perhaps it's more money than some people have seen in a long time. And the court agreed with me because they decided in my favor. I have zero guilt and don't feel that I am greedy or bad for suing.
I'd say that most people here seem to be anti-lawsuit, altogether. They believe all lawsuits are wrong and those who file lawsuits are greedy. That is because of the media. The media reports these lawsuits where big money is awarded to plaintiffs. But not all lawsuits win and certainly don't win millons. It is costly to hire good attorneys and most people who have a good, winnable case, never go to court. They just give up.
I've experienced this reaction from people when I filed a small claims suit to recover $600, deposit money that my landlord wrongfully withheld from me. I had people call me greedy. I had people tell me, why did you do that? I've had people react with shock and astonishment. I don't get it. $600 is not some big windfall (to me), but perhaps it's more money than some people have seen in a long time. And the court agreed with me because they decided in my favor. I have zero guilt and don't feel that I am greedy or bad for suing.
I can't speak for others but I'm not altogether against law suits when there was real wrong done, I am against though the new behavior of suing others for everything where there was not true negligence --- it is a windfall for the attorneys that do that so of course they're 100% for it all the time, of course... but if someone/thing was clearly negligent with an obvious hazard and people were getting hurt then I'm not against a lawsuit in those cases. Btw I'm aware how greedy and corrupt some landlords are, and I know plenty of them do withhold deposit money for no real reason and so I would support suing a landlord if they withheld your deposit for a bogus reason. When I moved out of an apartment once I was paranoid because some yrs before a landlord did that to me, so this time some years later I had a cleaning person help me make sure it was **** and span and that landlord I couldn't believe it said she would have to withhold some of the deposit-- I told her I had another person with me help clean and that they saw how spotless it was and she changed her mind
The money they are suing for beyond the funeral and burial costs is silly. If my child was killed, not even trillions of dollars in compensation would ever make up for losing my kid. Seems like this particular family is looking for a financial windfall.
I can't speak for others but I'm not altogether against law suits when there was real wrong done, I am against though the new behavior of suing others for everything where there was not true negligence --- it is a windfall for the attorneys that do that so of course they're 100% for it all the time, of course... but if someone/thing was clearly negligent with an obvious hazard and people were getting hurt then I'm not against a lawsuit in those cases. Btw I'm aware how greedy and corrupt some landlords are, and I know plenty of them do withhold deposit money for no real reason and so I would support suing a landlord if they withheld your deposit for a bogus reason. When I moved out of an apartment once I was paranoid because some yrs before a landlord did that to me, so this time some years later I had a cleaning person help me make sure it was **** and span and that landlord I couldn't believe it said she would have to withhold some of the deposit-- I told her I had another person with me help clean and that they saw how spotless it was and she changed her mind
Yes. I think sometimes accidents are just accidents and some things really aren’t foreseeable. Awful as it sounds, nothing is 100% death or accident proof. We are not perfect and neither are machines. We are a sue happy society now and it’s annoying. I’m sorry this kid died but it’s not like there was some massive ignored danger. No one had ever fallen victim to this moving restaurant before.
The often automatic reaction to a public, tragic death like this is to sue. The money won’t bring your kid back and going through the process won’t heal you. Reliving it may actually make things worse. And if they were to say they were doing it for the safety of others, sorry I’m not convinced because like I said, no one died or apparently was hurt before.
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.
