Hey here you go try this fellow… He SPECIALIZES in trampoline law 
If there enough law suits around White Plains NY alone for a lawyer to have a page dedicated to just that you can bet people have won plenty of cases just like those I listed above.
so you don’t agree with this statement:
“It is the responsibility of a trampoline’s owner to make every necessary safety precaution.”
now who’s talking about dodging personal responsibility? it’s your g-damn trampoline, you’re responsible for its appropriate use. don’t want the responsibility? don’t let other people use it.
every time someone bitches and moans about the dearth of personal responsibility, they’re forgetting that this is a two-sided coin. if someone helped move along a set of circumstances that lead to an injury, then you can just as easily ask if that other person was acting responsibly as well. if things happened by themselves (i.e. where there was only one party responsible for everything) then there would be no one to sue (except the manufacturer, but that’s different)
Personally I think it is critical to the point of the OP. The reason child protection has got out of hand in this country (and why a fan like that described in the OP would, rightly or wrongly, not be found in a US restaurant) is same reason my insurance company won’t let me have a damn trampoline. Everyone is either afraid of getting sued when kids hurt themselves, or their insurance company won’t allow it (because they are afraid of you getting sued as they’ll pick up the bill).
That’s my point (and it was never a “bait and switch”, I was making it all along), is that children’s welfare, and common sense “is this a safe thing to do ?” has long since given way to “can I get sued over this?” or “will my insurance company let me?”
But I’ve chipped in my $0.02 and I’ll leave it and that…
I don’t see the problem. The manager turned off the fan while she was there. That seems pretty respectful to me. What he does while she’s not there is none of her business.
All insurance companies since time immemorial have always asked “can I (the policy holder) get sued over this”.
You act as if this is some sort of new occurrence due to the destruction of personal responsibility and/or bloodsucking lawyers who have successfuly won lawsuits. it’s not.
Firstly you are putting words in my mouth again. I never blamed blood sucking lawyers, “trampoline lawyer” is just earning a living, and representing his clients, in the legal system as defined. He didn’t write the laws. The fact that he can earn a living SPECIALIZING in trampoline law is just a symptom of how messed up the system is. He didn’t make it that way.
But its is clearly getting worse over time, ten years ago the first question my insurance company asked would NOT have been “Do you have any trampolines?”. That is the nature of a precedent based legal system, the first time someone won a lawsuit against someone after they hurt themselves using their trampoline it set a precedent for every subsequent trial. And also why its difficult to fix.
Did the fan in question have a cage over it or not? Sometimes older fans have them but they are spaced far enough apart that a toddler could stick their finger in there.
Modern fans…not an issue, generally.
I assure you that reputable entertainment companies using pyrotechnics are doing so under extremely rigorous control.
If the fans were under similar control, I’ve no objection at all. For all I know they had safety devices in the motors, or were out of anyone’s reach. The owner might well have put some effort into ensuring they would not hurt anyone.
I actually grew up with one of those fans around my house, and really thought that the new overprotective fans were bizaar. I’m not even that old, but my parents had a rather large one for some reason. I can tell you, I stuck my fingers in and stopped the blade many times. I have no doubt some minor injuries are possible, but the idea that these things are like open lawnmower blades is just wrong. It could be a danger to small kids, but you should be watching them anyway.
Yeah. Worst case scenario i can see with one of those things is a not very serious cut, and maybe a torn fingernail or broken finger(if the child is really small).
But kids are resilient, and heal absurdly fast. I’ve got so many scars on my body from that time in my life… Cuts, gashs, lost a fingernail a few times, scars on top of my head all over the place, broken leg, broken foot, broken cheekbone. My palms still have a crisscross pattern of scars from crawling on a heating vent when i was a baby. When I was 5, I was climbing 25-50ft up trees. When I was 7, I climbed to the top of our 100ft grain elevator and was playing on the platform on top. Went swimming by myself in our ponds/in a creek by myself without telling anyone. Explored the woods. Stayed out all day long. Played with fire(and gasoline!), with bullets, with slingshots, with bb guns, with knives and razors, even those giant lawn darts. Poked snakes with sticks, threw rocks at badgers. Played in a rickety old barn whose floor was so rotten you couldn’t step on the floorboards directly, lest you fall through. Built rickety treehouses high up into trees. Crawled into spaces in old concrete that had been part of some foundation and made nifty little caves. Mixed chemicals under the sink to see what would happen. Drove a 4 wheeler(tiny one… 75cc) around at breakneck speeds without a helmet. Ate a few bugs. Played on farm equipment.
You know. Kid stuff.
That was nice 
- bouncing checks.
If you have the money to buy a house outright, you can have a trampoline farm on it.
I dunno about your jurisdiction, but as far as I know in mine the gov’t does not require insurance (and in any event, if yiu have enough money, I’m sure Lloyd’s would cover it).
What you are really complaining about is that you can’t do what you want with the cash you have. That may be true but it is true for a lot of things. If you want other people to lend you money, your sovereignty over “your property” isn’t absolute, for the simple reason that, to an extent, it isn’t totally “your property”.
Call me retarded (I can just imagine how many replies that will get), but when my children were sufficiently young, I didn’t take them to places I myself hadn’t previously been. I thought, and still think, it’s the prudent thing to do.
Had someone come into my restaurant complaining about the danger my fan might cause to her unsupervised child, I’d have cordially invited her to get the fuck out as she’s the kind of irresponsible client I don’t want to attract. Children in general, and unsupervised children in particular, tend to be a pain in the ass for other diners. I just love going out to dinner only to listen to some inconsiderate parents let their child(ren) scream and carry on. Whenever my children wanted to act up in public, thus ended the public outing. If she’s worried enough about what her child might get into while she’s not watching, then I’d be thinking about how annoying to the rest of my clientele this little shit-gem would be.
You’re retarded. It’s not irresponsible to fail to send an advance team to every place a child will ever visit.
It’s not just “your fan” when you operate a business that is open to the public. It’s “your fan that you have a responsibility over to ensure that others aren’t harmed by it”.
Really?
Yeah, that’s pretty retarded.
Isn’t it easier to, you know, have certain reasonable safety standards, then require people to personally inspect in advance everywhere they want to take the kids?
note to mods: I was being comically literal when I heeded ashman’s request to call him retarded. I hope he and others didn’t take offense at it! Apologies if anyone did
I didn’t say other people have to do as much. I said that’s what I do as I’ve found it prudent.
People are entirely free to leave as much up to chance and take as poor care of their children as they choose. I chose to to know where it was I was taking my young children.
And no. It’s my fan irrespective of how many people come into my store. One of the joys of owning one’s own restaurant is that one gets to pick and choose which customers are allowed, and which aren’t. She would have squarely fallen into the “aren’t” category.
You seem to labor under the delusion that my private property ceases to be mine because the public are let into my place. Such isn’t the case.
Quoting Malthus
See above. I said this is what I thought. But you beg the wrong question which wasn’t at issue in this thread. Of course there should be reasonable safety standards.
But even then people drop dead all the time from shit. Even shit within the confines of safety standards. Safety standards, in some cases, give people a false sense of, well, safety. But, of course, you work under the premise that there’s no personal accountability for parents to keep their children alive, and safe. While I don’t think other people should intentionally sabotage that, the responsibility of a parent to keep its child supervised never goes away.
But if you want other people to be responsible for rearing your children (if you have any), then just slap’m on the ass, and send them out the door. I’m sure they’ll be fine at the park alone (after all, there are safety regulations in a park, right?).
No, I’m not offended by the retard(ed) thing; I all but begged to get called it a few times.
I would like to see you attempt to pick and choose which racial group you allow into your restaurant. Have fun with that.
No, it’s not that your private property ceases to be yours. But in exchange for the economic license to conduct business and profit from your private property, society demands and expects compliance with a baseline notion of responsible usage of your property.
If you want to analogize, think about it like this: you own a car. you drink alot. you cannot “utilize your property in anyway you see fit” on public property, while you can drive three sheets to the wind on your own private property to your hearts content.
Operating a business, and indulging yourself in the economic system that society has graciously allowed to exist means that you cede 100% absolute rights to the property that consists of your business. The quid pro quo for utilizing the government’s grant to operate a business is the subjecting of that business to certain social norms and regulations.
One would think better of another poster’s reading skills here. The exclusion of individual customers is nowhere near the same rank of the exclusion of an entire class of people based on nothing more than their race. One is illegal; the other is not. Since you confuse the two, I’ll leave it to you to research in the hopes you’ll learn something.
Yes, it is. For instance, it’s a theoretical restaurant we’re talking about here: the expectations are that the food will be cooked properly and kept properly. The electricity will be up to code. The plumbing will be up to code. There won’t be, oh, I don’t know, loose light fixtures near falling down.
There are also expectations of customers. For instance, it’s well-settled that in tort law, there’s such a thing as comparative (contributory elsewhere) negligence. So much so that complainants (or “victims”) are required to mitigate their responsibility. That she is such a bad parent who can’t keep tabs on her very small child and let it walk to a fan, stick its fingers in and get hurt cuts against any claim she really has. But that all presupposes that I, as the owner of said business, wouldn’t have already kicked this very irresponsible parent and shit-gem child out on their asses.
If you want to use an analogy, at least make it apt. So, your analogy is by comparing choosing to drive drunk in contradiction to law is relevant to a fan on the floor? Moreover, you are factually wrong that one is free to drive drunk on private property. In all states here one is proscribed from driving drunk anywhere (with notable exceptions for training in law enforcement in some states; and for legitimate scientific inquiry in other places), even on one’s own property. Your argument would carry weight, well almost, if the fan in question were being used to chase people down the street.
The fan is stationary and has nothing in common with either a.) drunks, b.) drunks who drive, or c.) cars driven by b. It’s doesn’t move and isn’t deadly. Hell, it’s also not even shown to be harmful in anyway; the evidence is anecdotal, but I, like others here, have managed, as a child, to successfully stop such fans using nothing more than my finger.
Whatever rights I might cede surely don’t include the ability to eject shitty parents from my property on a whim. And anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit as private land owners always have a choice to allow people in, or not. As said owner, shitty parents (and unruly patrons in general) needn’t bother coming in; their stay would be quite short.
Violations of the civil rights act don’t depend on exclusions of members of a class. It’s exclusion, which can and most often is singular, based on the class membership.
So you think you can deny one black guy (i’m assuming you’re white here) entry into your restaurant for no other reason than the color of his skin, so long as you don’t do it too often? Please.
Yes, there is also an expectation that you aren’t placing dangerous articles in close proximity to patrons
It’s also well-settled that in tort law, minors usually aren’t be liable for their comparative negligence. And FYI in most jurisdictions it’s contributory negligence that’s the norm, not comparative. (edit: whups, switched those around. comparative is the standard now)
Not in Texas. So I guess it’s you who is factually wrong?
No, it doesn’t, I never said that, and I don’t take umbrage with that. But if you don’t eject them, you’re going to be liable for unsafe things on your property. That’s the right you cede when you are “open” for business.