I see your logic, Tabby. I don’t like it much, though. I think the weak spot remains proving that parking garages (and this garage in particular) are alluring to children - there is no particular allure except for the height and the gap. I still wouldn’t call that watertight, but I’m not a judge.
The really good point made is that there are way too many people who want to save and protect these idiots who really need to be allowed to exit the gene pool by their own efforts.
If not for them, we would not have the silly signs, fences and lawsuits.
YMMV
I can understand wanting to protect children.
However, the jumper who fell wasn’t a child. He was a minor, but not a child. I hold a 14-16 year old to a higher standard than an 7-8 year old. I hope a jury does also.
The injured jumper was engaging in an inherently reckless activity, and appears old enough to know that the activity was risky and dangerous.
However, I did look through the pictures. There probably should be fences. Not to protect idiots who want to engage in risky activities; rather, they should be there to protect “the clueless”.
By “the clueless”, I am thinking of my children. Since they’ve been old enough to walk, I have tried to teach them about how dangerous parking lots can be. Cars can come from any direction, and you are better off assuming that they don’t see you and reacting accordingly. Yet, despite being good kids, they are easily distracted, and ignore my warnings unless repeated at the time of infraction. Despite nearly a decade of teaching (for the eldest), just last week the two of them were playing in the middle of the aisle in a parking lot (yes, I quickly put a stop to it, but the eldest is old enough to visit malls on his own or with friends…I think I felt another hair just turn grey). Risky behavior, but not with intent. Transfer this rambunctiousness to the top level of a parking lot, and disaster can easily ensue.
To conclude:
Tim Bargfrede and family are not due any cash for his injuries. He was engaging in a risky activity and the garage should not be at fault for that.
Garages should erect fences to prevent true accidents. If it puts an end to risky activity on their property, it is a bonus. However, if fences are not mandated in zoning/building codes, the garages should not be held liable. If one gets hurt, take it to your councilman to update the building code, not to a judge to attempt a payday.
What if a parking ramp had no walls around the top level at all? Would people who fell off the edge be morons and screw em? Suicides are a completely different matter than people doing things for a thrill or by accident.
Managers of property available to the public are expected to take reasonable precautions. The nature of those reasonable precautions depends on the public using the property. No one is out there suggesting the Snake River Canyon gets a chain link fence along it, but there is a wall along the edge of the Grand Canyon in areas where there are people. No one in this discussion, not even the parent suing, was advocating fencing all along the entire perimeter of the ramps, just between the two adjacent ramps where there is a history of a problem. You are really saying that the City who owned the ramp did not have a duty to take minimal efforts to stop this problem before people got hurt?
I like how everyone ignored my Gun on the sidewalk analogy which would force you to admit you are riding on dogma and emotion rather than logic.
Oh, and on Preview I see D_Odds comments. Finally, some logic. And a point to where perhaps I have been at cross purposes with most of the posters. Yes, the kids parents are not due any money. The purpose of their lawsuit was to get the ramp owners to fix the problem. Unless your city works differently than any I have ever lived in, petitioning the city to change it will be met with indifference, delay, and scorn. Money talks, and a bite in the wallet is often the only means to get attention. Would you be happier if they were forced to donate any proceed to charity?
Suuuuuure, that’s what they always say. Slap up a fence and they’ll move the goalline.
I ignored it because it’s stupid and inapplicable. The problem in this case arises from an inherent property of parking garages (they are tall), coupled with the fact that society deems their existence beneficial. An individual placing a loaded gun (a useful tool, to be sure ) on a crowded sidewalk is in no why comparable. I suspect most posters felt the same, so they ignored it.
BoringDad, I ignored your loaded gun comment because it was a very poor analogy and Bryan Ekers had addressed it. Guns are inherently dangerous, and there is likely to be significant legislation in place to punish an irresponsible gun owner. A gun in the hand of a minor is far, far more dangerous than a minor, whatever age, on the top of an unfenced parking garage.
And I agree with World Eater. I really, really doubt the family is in it for the public good. Yes, it’s a cynical view, but too few people prove my cynicism wrong.
I didn’t ignore it, but it’s not a good enough analogy to consider unless you imagine poorly-built parking garages as deathtraps capable of randomly collapsing on hapless victims. This is (slightly) akin to a loaded gun in the hands of a child. I daresay that a parking garage’s normal function is pretty benign and building one is in no way like leaving a loaded weapon where random passers-by can find it.
Your eagerness to cover the world in foam rubber is, shall we say… emotional? In any case, if you really are a father, your children are going to do stupid risky things sooner or later. If they’re old enough to know the activity is stupid and risky, then they won’t deserve any more sympathy than the Plunge-o Kid.
There was no inherent danger in the construction of the garage. It’s not like people were in danger of falling over the side in the dark. The danger exists only when deliberate and willfull action is taken by another party.
And therein lies the rub. We can’t make everything foolproof because we have such inventive and persistent fools. And trying to keep up with them will be prohibitively expensive. What should they do? Put up a fence? That could be beaten with wire cutters. A security guard? Guards can’t be everywhere at all times. An unscalable wall? Who would pay? And would zoning and building restrictions allow it?
Again, we’re** not ** talking protecting a vulnerable public from harm.
Once again, no one is talking about making everything foolproof. In this case we are talking about a single chain link fence along one side of the ramp. You make the unfounded assumption that the kids have such a burning desire to jump this gap that they will stop at nothing to do so, and so the fence would be worthless. I have no idea why you think that. There is a difference between jumping a gap and vandalism. Historically, simple deterrents DO work for simple problems. No one is suggesting putting a fence around every drop off in a city. To suggest so is to cloud the argument by extrapolation to extremes.
And you don’t think idiotic 15 year olds are a vulnerable population? They are as competent as adults to make rational decisions? Society has deemed otherwise by the restrictions we put on 15 year olds. They are not deemed rational enough to drive, vote, drink, rent a car. They make mistakes, and some measure of minor common sense prevention seems only human.
Sorry, somehow I missed your post. I appreciate others comments on what you see as a flawed analogy. This type of argument comes up quite often around here, and critical feedback helps change the arguments enough that they don’t become any more repetitive than they are. I will rethink my anaolgy and try it again another day.
And once again… extrapolation to extreme. I advocate that one fence in a known danger spot is not too much to ask from a City that owns the garage, and you say I want to wrap the world in foam. Bit of a stretch isn’t it?
And, perhaps unlike you, I do have sympathy for my children’s hurts even when acquired by doing stupid things. I generally tend to think that even stupid people are humans who deserve compassion. It’s not their fault they are stupid, so why punish them for being stupid?
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here.
Are you saying that if the jumpers were 18+ and older you wouldn’t require fences?
Are you saying that if the jumpers were over 18 there would be no lawsuit because they would accept responsibility for the dumb thing they just did?
Me, I don’t see what age has to do with the lawsuit. Someone did a bone-headed thing, hurt himself in the process, and is now seeking to place blame on someone else. If the guy was 20 we’d likely still see a lawsuit, except he’d have filed it himself. What does the age of the claimant have to do with it?
Well, they ARE risking their very lives on the proposition.
You really think a chain link fence would stand in their way?
Of course, I have no objection to them putting up the fence.
But the parents of morons should foot the bill.
That was my quote and yes. Billions of people have somehow managed to avoid falling off the edge of car lots since whenever they were invented. If a child is too stupid to avoid walking off the edge of tall buildings then it’s up to their parents to notice their apparent retardation and keep them safe. It’s not the responsibility of the rest of the world to wrap every sharp edge in cotton wool or fence off every conceivable accident site.
Crumbling cliff edges, sure. But building roofs - no. Anyway - if teenagers are determined to be stupid, they’ll find a way.
I grew up on the coast, with nice big enticing crumbling chalk cliffs to climb. If you were a complete and utter fucking dumbass. Somehow I managed not to climb them but despite the endless warning signs every years many kids on holiday would have to be rescued by the local volunteer rescue service. Good on them for risking their necks but I wouldn’t have bothered.
Okay - I’m a heartless bastard but WTF is wrong with people? Some of them were adults. You’ve got to draw the line somewhere on safety and I draw it at the point where only stupidity can get you into trouble. For me leaping off buildings and climbing cliffs is that line. And yes - even falling off buildings where that requires errant stupidity or culpable carelessness.
May I offer a different analogy? We all know roads are dangerous and that people are routinely killed crossing roads. I’ve done my share of jaywalking, especially when I was in college and I know the temptation of thinking you can get across a street before a certain car. To me, the logic BoringDad uses to require a fence at the parking lot also dictates that all streets should have fences along them to keep people from running out into traffic.
Does that make any more sense?
CJ
I disagree slightly. I prefer to let nature take its course with stupid people, as long as they don’t drag some innocent bystander along into their own evolutionary power slide.
Four-hundred-thousand years from now, there will either be a homo-sapiens subspecies with membranous wings running between wrist and ankle, like some simian flying squirrel, or the behavior will have been selected out. I say we take down the fence and find out.
Queens Boulevard did this, to protect jaywalkers from themselves.
Queens Boulevard is 10 lanes across: each direction has a 2 lane service road and a 3 lane express. It is also an area with a large amount of pedestrians and a significant number of elderly pedestrians. It was considered one of the most dangerous roads in NYC.
The city put up fences on the medians to prevent jaywalking, allowed extra parking on the service road to reduce it to one lane (thus, slowing traffic), and extended the lights to allow more pedestrian time across the Boulevard. Since then, pedestrian accidents have dropped sharply.
Not really, since you’ve offered us no reason your standard of protection won’t graaaaadually slide to the extreme.
For a spectrum of cost/benefit analysis, I suggest:
[list=#][li]Protect all citizens at all times, regardless of their behaviour[/li][li]Protect citizens in places where previous injury has occured, as well as all similar places, regardles of behaviour[/li][li]Protect citizens in places where previous injury has occured, regardless of behaviour[/li][li]Protect citizens in places where previous injury has occured to someone who was not engaged in knowingly risky/inappropriate behaviour, as well as all similar places[/li][li]Protect citizens in places where previous injury has occured to someone who was not engaged in knowingly risky/inappropriate behaviour[/list][/li]
Naturally, these get progressively less expensive. By your above statement, I figure you’re at level 3, but I suspect you’d go to 2 if the kids, thwarted by a new fence, started jumping from other garages, and if all garages were fenced and the kids moved elsewhere, I think you’d want those places fenced etc. etc. You’d be requesting a blank check from property owners.
Sure, compassion. Help his injuries heal. Help him learn from his mistake. But don’t reward him or punish someone else in the process.
Well if I owned the garage I would sue the kid/parents.
One, I had to clean up the blood. That is expensive.
Two it was fairly tramatic to be called and told some kid jumped off my garage.
Three He may have damged the pavement with his head and that has to be paid for as well.