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.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 10 days ago)
35,636 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50676
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by headingtoDenver
Of course they are. Never sue just one person. You sue the entire chain of people because when you are looking for a payday, someone is bound to pay up.
Well, how much is it worth if you are standing there and your child's skull pops while you are frantically trying to rescue him from this crushing wall?
They're asking for a jury trial, not a settlement, because they know it's worth a lot. A lot.
Even if the parents weren't letting him run around as they were walking and saw the crevice of the booth, if they were observant or somewhat aware of the surroundings in an adult dining establishment , why was he far enough ahead to be able to get inside there in the first place--- if the parents in hindsight assert it was a known hazard they would have seen it there, hazard- don't let him skip ahead and crawl in there. As a parent you are your child's first line of defense-- so if it was such an obvious hazard they're contending it was, why didn't they as his parents act accordingly? Not trying to be harsh but how could they assert it was an obvious hazard the staff could see, if the parents themselves were totally unaware of it?
Parents assert it was a known and clearly obvious hazard-- if it was such a clear and present hazard sitting there why weren't they , his mom and dad with him right there not able themselves to recognize it?? When you have a little boy that age or girl, you as the parent have to be a step ahead of them in being their eyes and ears to protect them-- of course nobody can prevent all accidents from ever occurring but since their assertion is it was a clear and obvious hazard, it seems like they would've also recognized it, even if they couldn't know exactly what could happen, if it was an obvious hazard , then since they were right there-- they should have under the scenario not let him skip ahead and crawl behind there to begin with.
Its a heartbreaking tragedy and I feel so sad for the little boy and his parents in their grief..I also do feel bad for the waitstaff and management who I do not believe could have been aware a person of any size would shimmy themselves into that crevice and die.
Last edited by mondayafternoons; 11-21-2017 at 08:21 AM..
I can almost hear it now: "Mr. Holt, this is Ignatz Bacigaplonski. I am a personal injury lawyer. I read the article about how your son died. I believe I can get a huge cash settlement for you. I will only take 33% of that settlement for representing you in the matter. Will you allow me the privilege of representing you and your family?"
Yes, one of my prejudices is showing. I really doubt that the family considered the death of their son to be a "cash cow" until contacted by an ambulance chasing "attorney at law"!
The parents were sitting at a table eating lunch, 30 feet away from where their child was allowed to crawl around on the floor and underneath tables.
The view is from the windows, on the outside perimeter of the restaurant, not on the inside wall where the floor moves alongside it.
But then, wouldn't be incumbent for a restaurant employee or manager to alert the parents to their child's inappropriate behavior? If not for safety reasons, at least out of courtesy to other guests? As tragic as this is, it won't matter who prevails at the trial, a potential for injury has been identified which will affect the restaurant's insurance costs, potential for future litigation, and public relations. In the meantime these parents have lost their son.
I can almost hear it now: "Mr. Holt, this is Ignatz Bacigaplonski. I am a personal injury lawyer. I read the article about how your son died. I believe I can get a huge cash settlement for you. I will only take 33% of that settlement for representing you in the matter. Will you allow me the privilege of representing you and your family?"
Yes, one of my prejudices is showing. I really doubt that the family considered the death of their son to be a "cash cow" until contacted by an ambulance chasing "attorney at law"!
Ok, and what does this have to do with the merits of the case?
And are you more concerned with a lawyer earning a fee than the fact we have a dead child?
Sounds like it to me. Pretty twisted sense of priorities.
BTW, I guess I am one of those people you call "ambulance chasers". Except, they come to me. I don't go to them.
Years ago there was a tragedy in my town where two young girls died in a condominium where one girl lived and the other girl was there visiting her. The parents in their grief understably so as grief can cause a person to want someone, anyone to pay, the parents tried suing everyone basically- the owners of the complex, the security company, the security patrolman who was on duty at that time although he was security for the entire complex and was not at the time of their death there , they still filed suit against him as well-- don't know what the outcome was w the lawsuits. The two girls were at home there playing unsupervised after school while the mother was still at work, I think parents feel guilty even if they really didn't do anything wrong and lashing out and suing other people is a reaction in their pain.
But then, wouldn't be incumbent for a restaurant employee or manager to alert the parents to their child's inappropriate behavior? If not for safety reasons, at least out of courtesy to other guests? As tragic as this is, it won't matter who prevails at the trial, a potential for injury has been identified which will affect the restaurant's insurance costs, potential for future litigation, and public relations. In the meantime these parents have lost their son.
Parents are responsible for their children, waitstaff are not also doing double duty as babysitters. I've seen many businesses that place a sign to alert unaware parents "We are not responsible for children"
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 10 days ago)
35,636 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50676
So about the lawsuit.
A lot of it seems to be motivated by the pain the parents felt when the public turned on them and accused them of being bad parents, their child was a brat, etc. and the restaurant didn't do anything to stick up for them and ease their pain.
I wonder where the truth is, about this child's behavior in the restaurant? If the public made it all up, and in fact the child acted like a normal well-behaved child in the restaurant and just at the last moment while they were exiting decided to do the daring thing of squeezing behind the booth?
Would there have been a lawsuit if the public had warmly embraced them and expressed sadness for their pain, and if the restaurant management issued a statement that the waitstaff found the family to be a delight and a pleasure to serve and they were heartbroken over this tragic loss, and they built a small play area on the grounds and called it "Charlie's park"? And paid the medical bills and funeral expenses?
My guess - there would be no lawsuit. It seems this is out of hurt and horror from the way they were treated during their darkest hours.
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.
