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:
"It's WARY, or LEERY (weary means tired)"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
16,099 posts, read 21,231,415 times
Reputation: 43697
Advertisements
I have been in a few rotating spaces before and all of them moved at a snails pace, so I have to wonder how long was this child in that space before it became so small he couldn't back out, and why the parents didn't notice the danger in that time frame? Surely this wasn't something that happened in a matter of mere moments?
(How would you put up barriers to a space that is only a danger for x number of minutes per day, but completely open the rest of the time? You could move the tables further in from the wall, but then I bet there would be ADA regulations possibly preventing that)
I don't even allow my 5 or 3 year old to get up from the table at HOME until their meal is finished and they have taken their plates back to the kitchen.
They sure as heck are NOT allowed to wander around a restaurant.
Also, they don't order the crap off the kids' menu anywhere.
You're a good parent stan4
Wish they were all like you
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"!
33% is only the beginning.......these sleazy personal injury lawyers know how to add up the expenses as well.
Many consultations with layabout colleagues,lunches,travel,and many "expert witness' will drive the cost up tremendously.Parents will be lucky to get 40%
The restaurant is responsible if it ignore known safety hazards and safety hazards that it should have known about.
The fact that no other accidents happened during the tenure of this restaurant is certainly important. However, it is not the only relevant inquiry. It is relevant for people to simply assess the condition and determine on their own whether it presented a safety hazard. If five other people assessing the premises concluded there was a potential safety hazard and the restaurant did not, this would be an example of something they "should have known".
I disagree about the bolded part. Not necessarily on a legal basis because I'm not a lawyer but on a moral basis. I don't believe it is fair to hold anyone to a standard of perfection or to hold them accountable for being human. If a hazard "should have" been known about then it "would have" been known about. Your next statement seems to touch on this.
If it can be shown that it was a hazard widely recognized by the industry and that trade publications had warned about this hazard in rotating restaurants, then owner is negligent as he should be aware of best practices in his industry. If it can be shown that the building designers and constructors had warned in documents about this hazard and cautioned to leave at least 3' (or whatever) clearance from walls, then owner is negligent. But this requires evidence and the burden is on the plaintiff to present it. I do not think the owner should be held negligent in the absence of any evidence based on speculation, on the basis that because hindsight can see the hazard then foresight would have seen it as well.
33% is only the beginning.......these sleazy personal injury lawyers know how to add up the expenses as well.
Many consultations with layabout colleagues,lunches,travel,and many "expert witness' will drive the cost up tremendously.Parents will be lucky to get 40%
I was under the impression the topic we were discussing here was whether or not the child that was killed here, died as a result of carelessness by the restaurant his family was patronizing or not.
The topic is not about legal fees. You don't know how much this family will get after such a case is resolved.
But its all beside the point. It is not worse of a problem for people to see a lawyer than for a child to be killed in an accident that may have been caused by carelessness or negligence.
Only twisted minds see obtaining legal counsel as a greater problem than fatal accidents.
And because we can all picture those cases is why there should not need to be any explicit warning. We will never be able to prevent people from doing stupid things and getting hurt. We can try, we've been trying for 50 years with endless signs and warnings and lawsuits, and still we have horrible accidents. You can barely find out how to operate a device in a product manual because most of it is useless and silly warnings.
The kid could have ran headfirst into the wall and broke his neck. Should we have signs on walls saying "wall is hard, ramming it with your head may cause spinal injuries"? Should all walls be padded? The kid could have ran into the street and got hit by a bus? Should there be signs warning not to run into the street in front of a bus? Should all roads have 4' barrier walls alongside them with childproof latch gates where pedestrians cross?
I highly doubt the owner or manager ever looked at that wall and thought "hmmm, a kid could squeeze into there and get crushed, oh well, dem's da breaks". I don't believe it was foreseen and ignored. Hindsight is 20-20 and it's easy to see after the fact.
I agree, I do not believe for a second the owner, manager etc looked at that and thought now that little crevice could possibly trap a person and crush them to death
I don't even allow my 5 or 3 year old to get up from the table at HOME until their meal is finished and they have taken their plates back to the kitchen.
They sure as heck are NOT allowed to wander around a restaurant.
Also, they don't order the crap off the kids' menu anywhere.
I'll bet there have been past incidents of objects having fallen through that space or other near-misses.
A wallet falling behind the booth wouldn't imo cause a reasonable conclusion that a human being could be trapped there
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.
