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.
As a long time special education teacher I personally have had three different students in my classroom over the years whose brain damage/cognitive impairment, seizures and/or cerebral palsy were definitely traced back to, or strongly suspected to have been caused by, falling out of a shopping cart at a store as an infant or toddler.
In once case the damage caused all three (moderate cognitive impairment, seizures and cerebral palsy).
At the pediatric office where I worked, a kid (sibling of the child to be seen) was climbing around on the equipment and ended up falling and having to go to the ER. Pretty embarrassing, to go to the ER from the doctor's office. (Was not my patient.) A neighbor child was at the gym, ostensibly to watch his sister's gymnastics class, fell on the bleachers and had to get stitches. Falls happen.
You two want to hold everyone but the parents accountable. I will agree there may have been a design flaw in that restaurant. As far as the tower of cans, I can't recall the last time I saw one, but my grocery store often has little kiosks in the aisles that could be knocked over. Today there was one with peeps.
The child in the video is adorable, but if an adult, probably a parent, hadn't been right behind her doing the videotaping 1) she probably would have been bawling her eyes out looking for mom, and 2) if she'd approached me I would have tried to help her find her parent/guardian. Are you really that naive to think her parent wasn't right there? She's way too young to allow to roam.
Peeps won't injure anybody, at least until they ingest them.
And, I'm sure a parent was nearby that toddler, judging by the video 20-30' away, just like the ones in the OP's example.
Peeps won't injure anybody, at least until they ingest them.
And, I'm sure a parent was nearby that toddler, judging by the video 20-30' away, just like the ones in the OP's example.
You have an excuse for everything. One time there was a kiosk of s'mores ingredients. Boxes of graham crackers could fall on someone's head. At a minimum, a lot of merchandise could be ruined.
The parent was probably doing the video, not more than 5-10' from the child.
Good training for backpacking through South America.
No one expects that if a child wanders away for a few seconds they will be crushed between a wall and a table. That is not the expectation. All parents should know a child could fall down a set of stairs. Apples and oranges.
No excuses for parents, but they do at times, with all precautions, lose sight of a child. I don't think they should expect they child will be crushed by a tourist attraction. Bottom line. Flaw in design, child finally paid the price. Restaurant owners knew it was a defect but did nothing, or didn't know and didn't provide the needed inspections.
I believe if the kid had been sitting down at the table with his parents, he could have sat there a thousand years and he would have been perfectly safe. Parenting problem.
Its my understanding that his parents were paying the bill and he walked over to the windows to catch a glimpse. Perfectly innocent and normal thing for a five year old to do.
At the pediatric office where I worked, a kid (sibling of the child to be seen) was climbing around on the equipment and ended up falling and having to go to the ER. Pretty embarrassing, to go to the ER from the doctor's office. (Was not my patient.) A neighbor child was at the gym, ostensibly to watch his sister's gymnastics class, fell on the bleachers and had to get stitches. Falls happen.
Yes and usually those falls are totally nontraumatic. My son fell off the bed when he was a baby, just rolled right off. He was perfectly fine. I know a woman whose son fell off their bed and fractured his skull. As Forrest Gump said, "____ happens"
No one expects that if a child wanders away for a few seconds they will be crushed between a wall and a table. That is not the expectation. All parents should know a child could fall down a set of stairs. Apples and oranges.
No excuses for parents, but they do at times, with all precautions, lose sight of a child. I don't think they should expect they child will be crushed by a tourist attraction. Bottom line. Flaw in design, child finally paid the price. Restaurant owners knew it was a defect but did nothing, or didn't know and didn't provide the needed inspections.
Now you're just making stuff up. Do you have a source that says that last statement? That owners knew there was a defect or that they dodged inspections? Because your need to constantly blame everyone except the people who are supposed to be watching their own children is getting ridiculous.
Btw, this restaurant was at the top of a multistory building, if the child was unsupervised to the degree that his parents didn't see him until he was wedged between the wall and the table, than he could have done a dozen other stupid things, knives, stairs, hot coffee, whatever. Would the parents have been negligent in any of those situations?
That's on the store, not the parents, and not the child. I haven't seen a display of cans stacked in years. it's just as susceptible to being knocked over by an inattentive adult as a climbing child. Somebody in store management didn't read the memo.
I'd be quite happy to see a toddler like this walking through my store, no parent too close by:
Am I reading this correctly: It's the store's fault that a child hurt themselves while climbing on something that was not meant to be climbed on, and as a result, the display collapsed. Thus, it's the store's fault for setting up something that was not stable enough for kids to climb on. All retail displays, and or any other object in public must also double as a jungle gym. If not, the store is liable because it put up a display that is not meant to be a playground.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around that logic as expressed in your post above.
Innattentive adults have nothing to do with my example.
Its my understanding that his parents were paying the bill and he walked over to the windows to catch a glimpse. Perfectly innocent and normal thing for a five year old to do.
I missed the 5 year old part. I wouldn't think twice if my 5 year old wanted to go up to the spinning window to look out. He was very well behaved in restaurants so I know he wouldn't bother people. Or run into waitresses holding cauldrons of boiling water or oil. I didn't anticipate he would go loco with steak knifes. Nothing unsafe about this situation...other then there was a major design flaw. It could be easily anticipated a child would go up to the window to look out.
I missed the 5 year old part. I wouldn't think twice if my 5 year old wanted to go up to the spinning window to look out. He was very well behaved in restaurants so I know he wouldn't bother people. Or run into waitresses holding cauldrons of boiling water or oil. I didn't anticipate he would go loco with steak knifes. Nothing unsafe about this situation...other then there was a major design flaw. It could be easily anticipated a child would go up to the window to look out.
But it's a spinning window/floor, so it's machinery with moving parts. I don't think it's that much different than an escalator, elevator, or moving sidewalk in that regard, in other words not a place I think I'd let a young child wander around without keeping a close eye on them.
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.
