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'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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla
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.
Why do people make things up?
Yes, he did wander off, as he would have had to in order to be pinned behind the interior booth. His family was dining at a table against the window.
The parents took their two pre-schoolers to the restaurant.
It was an unfortunate accident that could have easily been prevented.
As the owner of an upscale restaurant for many years,we got sick of peoples children being allowed to run unsupervised through the house when people were dining.Many parents allow a child to act up,including screaming and temper tantrums which pretty much ruins the dining experience for other diners.Even had a valuable antique lamp broken by a running child.
Finally got sick of it and removed the childrens menu,booster chairs and announced that we were not an appropriate restaurant for young children but well behaved older children were welcome..
As we expected (and really didn't give a *****) a few people were upset and said they'd never come back without their little monsters but a much larger number were totally appreciative and thankful.There was no change in sales up or down but things finally got peaceful.
My message to people who can't supervise their kids and quietly continue to eat while their 2 year old's screaming is disturbing everyone in the restaurant..............go to McDonalds
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.
AS I said, all around a sad outcome.
All that is irrelevant. In rotating machinery, there should be no unguarded pinch points where even a finger could get caught. It will be interesting to see the engineers safety analysis on this set up that should have been done as part of the restaurant's construction.
I don't understand why the restaurant didn't have an inspection done for possible safety hazards. Something like that should have been noticed a long time ago.
Obviously the restaurant is at fault and should be shut down.
They should have had their restaurant inspected for safety problems. Most businesses do this. Someone should have noticed that a small person or child could get pinched between the table and wall when the restaurant was revolving. I do feel the business is liable, not the parents. The parents were simply dining out at a restaurant. They had no idea there was a "booby trap" in the restaurant. It's certainly not their fault as they appeared to be doing nothing out of the ordinary.
Inspected by whom? Perhaps they did have all the required inspections and met building codes?
My question is how many other similar rotating restaurants are there (seems like every big city has one) and how do they address this problem? And how many such accidents have there been. If others are doing things to prevent these kinds of accidents that this restaurant isn't doing then clearly they are negligent and liable. If no other similar restaurants have foreseen this problem and no safety inspections have foreseen this problem and there has been no history of similar accidents then I'd see the problem was not foreseeable. Of course, every problem becomes crystal clear in hindsight.
I think about the time my own dd was that age.. she was a curious investigative type kid who loves to touch, pickmup, look at etc things in the world around her. I was aware of this, that she liked to wander, pick up, look and explore etc. So I made sure to parent accordingly iow taking her to places like the children's science museum, parks, storytimes, puppet shows, indoor playgrounds for kids like Chuck E. Cheese, and a fair amount of classes like music for tots, mommy and me cooking, etc etc. She was intelligent and if I didn't provide a plethora of stimulating opportunities or experiences believe she would've made her own "fun" and gotten into stuff she shouldn't. Still as any humble parent will attest to you can't have a grip 24/7 on your child's hand-- but... clearly if there is something like a parking lot or road, or other potential dangers then you do always have their hand.
When she was around that same age we went to an adult Mexican style restaurant every so often with a couple family members.. I never let her wander around because it was not Chuck E. Cheese or the mcdonalds play area not just out of respect for other diners but also I realized there might be something whatever it might be that wouldn't be safe for her to go touch or whatever-- different than having a fair assumption that a kids indoor play area IS free of for example uncovered wall plugs or a small open space behind a booth that might have an extension cord etc.
In fairness to the parents they seemed like responsible parents who were not just sitting there while he ran amuck but as he walked ahead of them if that was the truth since accounts vary, he somehow stepped in to what would seem an impossibly small space to get lodged behind. It's perplexing to see how a five year olds entire body could fit inside a five inch space-- and so in fairness to the restaurant I really don't believe it occurred to them that a human being of any size would somehow shimmy inside such a small space. If it had been a little larger space that could reasonably be foreseen as somebody getting stuck in, that would be something I would feel more angry at the restaurant for not having some type of guard to block it off. When I first read it I was picturing a window with a enticing view and a larger area where the boy wandered off and stood there. It was a remote tiny space behind a booth-- in a perfect world the staff would have realized this could be potentially a place a small person could get stuck in and blocked it off or at least had an emergency accessible button to stop it immediately.
Still whether sun dial was actually negligent or not they will probably settle. They could also say it seems that they aren't responsible if a diner lets their small child get into such a area-- it's not as if it was right in front of say a large tropical fish aquarium where it would be presumed some diners including curious children would want to look.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 14 days ago)
35,648 posts, read 18,006,664 times
Reputation: 50688
This story presents a very compelling, different picture. I think I get it now.
So this floor rotates around a central column, as we all know. And there are gaps in the central column allowing for waitstaff to move in and out of the kitchen, for patrons to come in and out of the restaurant. Where the furniture is, relative to those large gap doorways changes over time. The restaurant moves slowly slowly slowly around the central core column.
There are times when the back of this booth is completely unobstructed. When the family arrived at the restaurant maybe an hour prior, they entered the restaurant and got to their table by going around the back of this booth. So at that time it was unobstructed.
The boy tried to retrace his path to the door by again going around the booth, but by that time there was a kind of narrow gap behind the booth, as the booth approached the critical total pinchpoint. The boy got a little stuck, and maybe didn't immediately try to back out, but kept trying to go forward and wiggle through and no one realized fully what was about to happen. As he struggled and struggled in this kind of narrow gap, the gap got critically horribly narrow and he became so stuck at that point adults helping couldn't free him. It was probably minutes more before the other patrons and staff fully engaged to get him out, and it was a half hour before he was finally out. So what began as a slightly stuck boy that could have been rescued had he been forcefully and quickly pulled backwards to retrace his steps, was eventually crushed.
So. Of course this would be a known hazard. If the booth goes from completely unobstructed to a pinchpoint, of course the staff knew about it. Of course there would have been food carts left behind the booth by inexperienced staff that crashed to the floor when they hit the pinch. Of course there were groups of patrons assembled behind the booth for a photo op when oh no this isn't going to work.
The rotation is so very slow that groups assembled to take photos would have had plenty of time to react.
This was a perfect storm. This gap was exactly at the right stage - big enough for an adventurous boy to think he could squeeze through, but too small for him to actually make it, and the gap was closing.
The family of a young boy killed in a tragic accident at a rotating restaurant in Georgia is now suing the establishment.
Charlie Holt, 5, died from a head injury at the Sun Dial restaurant on April 14 after he allegedly wandered a few feet away to have a look at the view on the 72nd floor of the building in downtown Atlanta.
He somehow became lodged in a five-inch space between a table, which was rotating, and a wall.
Holt’s parents allege in the lawsuit the restaurant failed to prevent a “longstanding safety hazard” that led to the child’s death, New York Daily News reported.
They also disputed claims that the boy wandered away from his family.
“The Sun Dial had no protections to stop children from getting close to the pinch point or to stop the rotation of the floor if a child became trapped in the pinch point,” the lawsuit reportedly said.
I live near here and I remember when this happened. Several people were eyewitnesses who said the couple came in to lunch, and let their kid run wild all over the restaurant, disturbing other patrons.
Not to say he deserved it, but they were negligent in allowing their kid to get to where he was in the first place.
I've been to the Sun Dial, and I cannot even picture how the little bugger got into this predicament.
The restaurant has been around since 1976, 41 years, and nothing like it has happened before.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 14 days ago)
35,648 posts, read 18,006,664 times
Reputation: 50688
Quote:
Originally Posted by convextech
I live near here and I remember when this happened. Several people were eyewitnesses who said the couple came in to lunch, and let their kid run wild all over the restaurant, disturbing other patrons.
Not to say he deserved it, but they were negligent in allowing their kid to get to where he was in the first place.
I've been to the Sun Dial, and I cannot even picture how the little bugger got into this predicament.
The restaurant has been around since 1976, 41 years, and nothing like it has happened before.
I do agree, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. The lawsuit claims he was merely exiting the restaurant at the end of his meal and tried to retrace his path. I'm struggling a little with that, because the parents wouldn't have been going that way, of course. There wasn't room.
So you've been there. Was my assessment correct - that sometimes the booth was completely unobstructed from behind, as the floor rotated past wide doorways? It must have been, it seems. The center isn't a closed column - it's got big gaps for doorways, that the booth was have passed by and then been accessible from behind until the booth again approached a solid part of the wall.
Incidentally, a part of the lawsuit is seeking relief from emotional damages, as the restaurant didn't step up publicly and defend the family against what they are saying were untrue allegations of neglect by the public. So hmm.
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.
