Yes, it’s supposed to be there for people to enjoy. It’s not intended to be utilized as a place to engage in risky activity, which is why they forbid the activity. It’s not a groomed piste we’re talking about, so who knows what trees or rocks may or may not be on the hill that would cause great injury? Yes, the land owner would know.
No, i’m not expecting public places to be free from hazard, what I’m expecting is that public places reasonably be kept in a safe condition and free from known hazardous conditions. Keep in mind, we’re not talking about Rochester, NY Parks & Recreation here - we’re talking about an area of the country where snow is abnormal and the prevailing standards for understanding what is and is not a wise thing to be doing on a sledding hill may not be known to the community.
The more telling fact is that the FDA had inspected the plant and it’s records and found no reason that they should not provide food to the public. The problem is that the micro records indicated a systemic problem with salmonella. That is the failure. I understand wanting to protect the public and I certainly think that there should be some oversight, but if something like this can slip past the FDA inspectors evidently there are gaps in the process.
As a side note the FDA can only ask for a voluntary recall, they have no authority to issue a mandatory recall, nor do they do any sort of large scale determination of the scope of the contamination. The decision to recall and the investigation into scope is left entirely to the manufacturer. As you said the FDA can then go public and the company will suffer severe consequences, generally bankrupcy as was the case with PCA, however this is far after the effects have been felt by the public. This is also a failure.
My comments were directed at EP’s ridiculous comparison to elimination of government food inspections, as analogous to this situation.
Yours are a little more on target; but the OP wasn’t pitting Va Beach, he was pitting our society convincing someone that they should sue Va Beach, forcing Va Beach to raise shields and go to battle stations wrt Trashmore sledding.
Or let me put it this way: The OP was pissed that America’s surplus of lawyers, looking for a quick payday, forces municipalities into building single-purpose sites for having fun, just because otherwise-*mostly-good *sites open them up to lawsuits. To take your baseball analogy; if they built a baseball diamond with a punji-stake-filled pit hidden in the outfield, yes that would be actionable. If they had a field with a couple too many rocks, and someone tripped, fell, and split their lip, well maybe that’s actionable, but I would hope not. (or… it should’t be).
They didn’t intentionally make the run dangerous. Sledding on its face is a dangerous activity. There is no way to make it completely safe and foolproof. But there is benefits from it: it’s fun, it’s good exercise, etc. And, importantly, there aren’t any good alternatives within 30 miles. In my opinion, the cost-tradeoff here should be made by parents (and teenagers I suppose), not a sue-happy society that forces the decision down Va Beach’s throat.
no, see, that’s my position: they absolutely should be sued for that, if people are getting injured because there are rocks in the outfield, the city knows about it, and does nothing about it. to the degree that the park user is also negligent in failing to use due care to not get injured, his damage recovery is reduced by his degree of comparative negligence - it doesn’t operate to absolve the city of liability, why should it?
(i mean apart from the minimal amount of damages which i’m assuming is not your point)
I understand your point, Rumor, I really do. And I agree with you… to a point. I think I come down a bit more on the caveat emptor side of things than you do.
Once you involve the finders of fact, it becomes such a slippery slope. How many rocks in the outfield is too many? How much cost should the city (county, country…) endure to injury-proof our lives? Doesn’t that then have the chilling effect that the OP is decrying - nobody ever gets fired for buying Microsoft, and nobody gets fired for taking the uber-safe path and close Trashmore to sledders?
I’d like to put some of that responsibility back on the parents.
So why does the city close the whole hill and not simple the two dangerous sides, leaving the gentle slope open? This I don’t get.
But then, in my city, the office for parks and so on puts straw bales around treetrunks at the end of a popular hill, and puts up wooden fences to block other parts, or even walkways.
Here the general attitude is that the state /city/ community takes care of the dangerous risks, and then it’s everybodys duty to apply common sense to avoid obvious risks. The freak accidents that happen still, if unforeseeable combinations of circumstances, are the “rest risk of life” according to the courts, and won’t get awarded damage. So no labels of “Don’t use electric shears to cut your hair” because somebody tried, got injured and sued - our courts would throw it out because the person didn’t apply common sense.
