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.
Truly sad that this child has died, but I have a few issues with their statement.
"If Marriott had acted responsibly in the face of this known safety hazard, this tragedy would have been prevented. It is never acceptable for a business to needlessly endanger patrons," the statement says.
How did the hotel and restaurant know this was a safety hazard? I highly doubt they thought to themselves that yes, it is a safety problem but don't worry about it. Also, have there been other accidents in the same spot? Lastly, I don't think the hotel "needlessly" endangered their patrons. I believe the hotel would have to willfully disregard any previous notion that this was a safety issue for them in the first place. Now, if they were inspected and told that this was a hazard, then it is completely different.
Maybe the restaurant owners didn't think about it, butthe designers/contractors and safety standard inspectors SURE SHOULD HAVE!
Even an adult could have a hand crushed in this situation where there is no automatic emergency stopping mechanism in place.
Yes, but the answer to why, cannot be a possible imagined scenario.
That depends, none of us knows how the plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys will prosecute the case, but since this is a civil case, the plaintiff only needs to convince a jury that they should have taken reasonable measures to prevent the child's death.
I'm not sure about post by gouligann--- No restaurant or place of business can be completely guaranteed as safe. Since the rotation was so slow as to hardly be noticed, the 5 inch space shouldn't create a hazard that would be foreseeable. If a diner chooses to stick their hand and hold it in there as it ever so slowly enclosed and they get their hand pinched, well, it goes back to the whole idea of having to place signs everywhere "Please don't stick fingers between small spaces", Please do not run in store, Please do not touch fire in our fireplace- it is only for your viewing enjoyment.
That depends, none of us knows how the plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys will prosecute the case, but since this is a civil case, the plaintiff only needs to convince a jury that they should have taken reasonable measures to prevent the child's death.
Depends on what? It depends on actual evidence, not what someone says they could imagine such and such
I don't know, Monday. When the jury hears the father say he saw his son's skull get crushed, evidence will kind of be out the window.
That's why these tort cases win so often. The jury believes the defendant has deep pockets, and the plaintiff has a horribly sad story to tell.
I understand as a parent myself how devastated they are and honestly if my child was seriously injured or killed even in a freak accident I would not put it past myself to lash out with lawsuits to go around..
Even though it's a civil trial (or will be if there is one) and admit I'm not an attorney but I was under the impression the plaintiff has to bring to bear some actual evidence-- to show the restaurant would have reason to believe a five inch basically stationary space could kill a person. I say basically stationary because it moves at one rotation an hour, I doubt it even caused water glasses to swish, at such a slow barely perceived motion-- so but maybe your right- somebody's grief might cause a jury to find guilt just on that without even real hard evidence
Years ago two little girls were murdered in a condo complex five minutes away. They were latchkey kids, one girl was playing at her friends house when an intruder broke in and killed them. The parents of both girls filed lawsuits against everyone, while really nobody could be held culpable in their death but the murderer-- I don't know what the results of he lawsuits was... they even tried ( probably unsuccessfully) to sue the parents of the defendant claiming they should've known he might do something like that-- even though he had never shown violence before
Last edited by mondayafternoons; 11-21-2017 at 05:16 PM..
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.
Agreed. The root cause of this tragic matter is the parents' failure to supervise their child and keep him from wandering away.
The restaurant had no control over the child, none of their equipment malfunctioned, and none of their staff commit any wrongdoing, so they should not be held responsible for this matter simply because it happened on their premises.
If there was a well know design flaw, why did the parents bring a kid there and why did they not hold his hand near the moving sections? .
Why would they the parents know about the design flaw? Only the restaurant would know about that, and they certainly would not publicize it to customers.
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.
