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.
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.
The parents were within 5' of the child, by all accounts. They were at the table paying the bill, the child got up to look out the window. And since the restaurant is renowned for the views it offers of the city, it's logical to assume that it's safe to approach the windows to enjoy them. No signs, no warning to stay away from the windows=negligence on the part of the restaurant. It doesn't matter that nobody was ever hurt before, as a child is dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whereitwent
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.
When was the last time you saw a tower of cans in a supermarket? They stopped displaying that way, because stores have been held liable for injuries caused by their collapse. It doesn't matter if it is a child climbing, or an adult running into it, common sense dictates it is going to fall if it's knocked.
Of course, this thread has gotten far off the original scenario, as threads in this forum so often do. So I'll leave y'all to bicker among yourselves and heap blame on parents.
The parents were within 5' of the child, by all accounts. They were at the table paying the bill, the child got up to look out the window. And since the restaurant is renowned for the views it offers of the city, it's logical to assume that it's safe to approach the windows to enjoy them. No signs, no warning to stay away from the windows=negligence on the part of the restaurant. It doesn't matter that nobody was ever hurt before, as a child is dead.
According to police, Charlie wandered off a few feet from his parents and got lodged between the rotating floor and a wall, WBTV reports.
“Just very tragic,” said Sgt.Warren Pickard of the Atlanta Police Department. “I simply think he lost sight of his parents and panicked, and found himself in that situation. A small child doesn’t know what to do in those moments.”
As soon as Charlie got stuck, the restaurant’s employees jumped into action and tried to save him, WBTV reports.
“They immediately tried to administer first aid when they saw what was happening,” Pickard said.
The rotating floor automatically shut off, and an ambulance was called, but it was too late. Charlie died in the hospital.
The par
Of course, this thread has gotten far off the original scenario, as threads in this forum so often do. So I'll leave y'all to bicker among yourselves and heap blame on parents.
Or you just don't want to admit that you're wrong. I do realize that all opposing posts are instantly off topic and bickering as soon as your own argument begins to fall apart, but come on, redirection, playing the blame game, and throwing unrelated topics at the wall to see what sticks, aren't a solid foundation for your opinion, the correct literary device would be facts.
Such as the fact that if a child climbs on or otherwise interacts with an object in a way that it was not intended to be used, and said child was injured as a result, it is NOT the property owner's fault for not designing the object to be of use as a playground to the child as well. That is simply nonsensical and outrageous.
Who cares whose fault it is at the moment, anyway? The fact is, your child is seriously injured if that happens. Where the fault lies doesn't matter because you're still going to have to go through the usual rigmarole of treatment even if the store was found at fault and you were awarded compensation.
I don't know, it just seems easier to not let your kid climb on a big stack of soup cans in the first place....Then again, I may be posting too much common sense in one post, so there's that. Now for some nonsense: How can any parent be held accountable for their child's actions and safety? Ridiculous!!! Are you, the store manager, telling me that it's not your fault that my kid was injured due to my negligence? Stop being silly. It's all your fault for not having a playground in this grocery store!! I need to prepare my kid to backpack the world by letting them run free and absolving myself of any parental responsibility!!
Half of me thinks that by how the parents walked up to you that they saw he was there.
The other half of me would still get worried because 20+ feet away is a disaster because anyone can just grab the kid and run down the aisle (aka kidnap the kid).
TBH if that were me, I would call 911 and ask the operator if its ok if someone comes to see that everything is ok. I know that it may be nothing and is probably nothing, and dont want to come across as a nusiance caller, but I just want someone to come to make sure that everything is ok based on the fact that the toddler was walking around not in eye distance (20-30+ feet away, which is technically another section of store in grocery store) from parents and they were just walking around like its no big deal.
I think those calls are ok but if those calls arent, I would hope they would tell you.
I know exactly what she was saying. I don't put on a seat belt because "what if". I put on a seat belt because accidents happen and its better to be prepared. You were using fear of what ifs as a reason to helicopter children. I am saying, that is anxiety talking. Because walking 20 feet away from a parent isn't know to be harmful on a regular basis.
Seriously? That is exactly how kids get snatched. Maybe not in restaurants, but certainly at parks and in large stores.
It happened to a friend of mine. Her child wasn't even 20 feet away in a crowd, maybe half that, or less, but a stranger walked up to her, addressed her by name after overhearing her mother say her name, took her hand, and walked toward the entrance/exit of the zoo grounds. She almost made it out into the parking lot, but her frantic mother had reported the missing child to authorities, and they locked the place down just in time. The little girl later said to her mom, upon being asked why she went away with a stranger, "It was ok, mommy, because she knew my name."
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.
If you're responding to me, as you posted right after me, I was not talking about the restaurant death. I feel I don't know enough about it to make a comment.
When was the last time you saw a tower of cans in a supermarket? They stopped displaying that way, because stores have been held liable for injuries caused by their collapse. It doesn't matter if it is a child climbing, or an adult running into it, common sense dictates it is going to fall if it's knocked.
I haven't seen a stack of cans in a supermarket in a long time, if ever. But I have seen kiosks in a wide aisle full of all sorts of merchandise. A kid dashing through the store could easily run into one, or push someone else into one. Yeah, you might win a lawsuit (and you might not) but your kid or someone else may be permanently injured. Even if they get an injury they recover from, is that good?
As I said earlier, it's a frequent experience to hear about a clean up needed in some aisle. Merchandise can be pulled off the shelves and be dropped on the floor as well. Lots of things can happen. Oh, but I'm just showing my anxiety.
The reality is humans suck at risk assessment, and are wildly irrational but yet are quick to assign blame rather than take responsibility for their own actions.
The most dangerous thing to anyone's kids are cars. Not grocery stores, not kidnappers, not revolving restaurants, or whatever. Yet all of us put our kids in cars everyday. Because we minimize that risk in our heads. Meanwhile risk from kidnapping is infinitesimally small yet people think there is some magic number of feet away from you that is correct. Everyone is arguing their own irrational risk assessment as if they alone are correct.
Look at that people who think the restaurant it to blame. It is a machine that spins a restaurant. More machinery than used to move an escalator or carousel (which is what a rotating restaurant functionally is) which hopefully they would be aware enough to keep their child nearby, but when parents let their children wander away in such an environment, it is suddenly negligence on the part of the restaurant.
Accidents happen, accept that risk (or don't) but don't pretend you are rational about it and the other viewpoint is not, and stop blaming other people when they happen.
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.
I'd think in a place like this safeguards would be put in place so no one - man, woman or child - could get caught in the machinery that turns the floor. Seems like a no brainer to me.
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.
