No-one is arguing that parents have no responsibility for supervising their kids, so that’s a bit of a straw man, right?
What I am arguing with is the notion that such responsibility extends to personally scouting the premises in advance of visiting with the kids. That’s not a straw man, you actually said parents ought to do just that. :smack:
Assuming purely for the purposes of argument that the fan in issue is actually dangerous to touch, how could it possibly pass the most basic safety muster? Anyone could accidentially put their hand through it, child or not; and the notion that any parent could control their child robot-fashion at all times defies reality.
The first is called absolute liablity. That is basically something that is so dangerous that you can’t contract out of it. For instance a lion would be such a thing. A lion is a dangerous wild animal. No matter what you make a person sign or no matter how he behaves the law would say, “It’s up to the owner of the lion to keep everyone safe.”
The second is called an attractive nuisance, this is similar to the above but slightly less strict. For instance a pool is such a things. Kids are naturally attracted to a swimming pool. So here you would be responsible for the safety of any child who may happen across it. You would have to show if a child was injured you took all necessary steps. Like put up a fence around it that was deemed high enough to prevent a child from climbing over it.
So I was ask myself would a judge call the fan any of the two above? If so then the owner needs to move it period.
If not the owner has leeway. Even if the fan and it’s location were a matter of keeping the place cool there are certainly enough ways to stop people from getting at it.
Um, while I suppose that’s one meaning you can take from what I said because I wasn’t precise, it hardly tracks with the tone of my posting.
No, I don’t think. I can, however, exclude a black person, fat person, gay person, aids victim, or whatever simply because they don’t behave like a good patron. However, it matters not if I’m white, or do you suppose that a black person can’t be racist towards other members of his class?
It also is curious to me that you draw the distinction between what I said and your assertion about excluding classes in general. It was that to which I responded, albeit not in such a comprehensive manner as to avoid the point being molested.
It’s nice to see that you can sometimes correct your errancy. Keep up the good work!
Young minors aren’t generally responsible, no. Parents of them, well, yes. The issue here wasn’t about the child, rather it was about the parent’s failure to supervise it. Hence, we’re talking about child protection (or do you think they’re to fend for themselves?), which implies an adult.
Let’s see: I’m factually wrong about a theoretical restaurant in which I hypothetically own in an unnamed state. Yeah, I guess under the exacting conditions, it’s obviously logical to draw the conclusion I meant Texas.
You apparently aren’t keeping up. I said I would eject them. How you took my assertion that I’d kick their asses to curb post haste to mean something otherwise boggles my mind. I guess you just don’t understand what “I will cordially invite her and her shit-gem kid to get the fuck out” means. It doesn’t mean that I might just let them stay; it’s unequivocal. Bad patron = immediate departure.
To iterate: this is a hypothetical restaurant; I don’t own one so it’s actually a moot point. But if I did own one, or indeed any business, I sure as hell wouldn’t locate it in Texas of all places. I have children and I hold education in high regard; moving to Texas would be antithetical to their having a great primary education.
No one has explicitly argued it, no. But it has been implicit throughout. For instance, the focus has been on what the manager should do instead of what the parent should do. Let’s just say that the manager, in some strange legal system, is 100% liable for any injury anyone suffers for any reason in his establishment (including people who choose to stab themselves in the eye just to sue him), so what? Even if he is, and the child could have been hurt (maimed let’s say), my argument would then be that being right and maimed can be simultaneous experiences. I would rather have my child safe simply by my taking the role as its protector than to have a right to sue someone later on after my child has been harmed. Call me crazy (or retarded?), but my first priority is to make sure that I myself am providing for my own children’s welfare. No liability theory can undue that.
What I am arguing with is the notion that such responsibility extends to personally scouting the premises in advance of visiting with the kids. That’s not a straw man, you actually said parents ought to do just that. :smack:
[/quote]
Cite? Please quote for me exactly where I said that all parents should do that. I said it’s what I do. Whether by design or simply a byproduct of taking my children to places I’ve previously gone because I’m familiar with them isn’t material. That I don’t foist my young children into places unknown to me makes sense to me. How can I accurately assess the risks of a place into which I’ve never been? I’m smart, not psychic.
Why would I assume that? Based on ignoring the evidence that many people have stuck their fingers in similar type fans without injury? Some of them kids? If you want me to assume your conditions hold, then it would seem fair that I request you present to me one person who was injured while doing so.
I’m not sure what reality it is in which you dwell, but when I’m out with my children (well, when they were really young anyway), I always knew where they were and what they were up to.
I’m really clever. You see, I sat them on the inner side of me so that to leave, they’d have go over me. I’d have noticed and put them back in their spot. If this caused commotion, I’d simply ask for the check and leave with them so as to not cause a scene for anyone else.
Even if that weren’t true, it’s hardly asking too much for parent to be well-aware of what it is his/her children are up to. I think a great case could be made that a parent who lets his/her child wander off in public and (even if not harmed) isn’t under the parent’s control at the time is a parent who is negligent. Much more so if the child actually gets harmed because the parent isn’t doing what should be done to restrain his/her child’s conduct.
To be fair here, though, no one was suggesting that adults were running up to the thing and jabbing their fingers into it. The issue was a parent being concerned her child might do so. The only way that can be true is if the parent doesn’t monitor his or her child. It’s really of no moment to keep a child out of trouble in a restaurant.
Actually, it is Private Business telling you that not Government. You CAN have all of those things but they insurance company will refuse to do busines with you as it greatly increases the likelihood of them having to pay out. If you can’t get a mortgage because the bank does not want to lose its collateral it is a Private Business telling you that.
You want that stuff and don’t want insurance save up and buy it cash. You need a mortgage you play by their rules. There is no reason why the bank or insurance company need to jeopardize their income to subsidize you risky behavior.
I never said it was. But for the vast majority of people the end result is the same, an insurance company refusing to cover trampolines in homes mean you cannot have a trampoline in your home, just as surely as if the government has banned them.
I wasn’t suggesting they should. As I point out above, then end result is unacceptable, but neither the insurance company or the mortgage company are to blame. The mortgage company doesn’t insist on liability insurance because they are jerks, its because there is a nowadays a real risk to the security of the loan caused by people suing private non-commercial property owners. The insurance company doesn’t refuse to cover trampolines because they hate fun, its because we as society consider it acceptable for people who come on to your property and voluntarily use your trampoline (without paying you), then get hurt, to bankrupt you in court as a result.
In the original post, the restaurant was in Taiwan. Based on the post, I am assuming that the OP is not from Taiwan. IMO, it is very common to want to impose our cultural frameworks onto another society without considering that we may in fact be dealing with two disparate cultures.
For example, assume that I am from North America, where all the cooking is done in a kitchen with stove-tops that are 4 feet from the floor and the oven doors are somewhat insulated so that they don’t immediately burn any hands that touch them. Then, I take an eco-vacation with my family to a tribal society where they do all the cooking over an open fire. It is preposterous to think that I could “demand” this society change their ways so my child wouldn’t have the possibility of getting burned.
Face it, folks. Taiwan (and other parts of the world) is not North America. There are things in that society that the residents find perfectly normal but which people from other countries might find totally dangerous. I was born in Taiwan in the 60s and was raised there and Indonesia in the 70s. There were many aspects of those societies that people from North America found totally appalling: open-air sewers (benjo ditches), children smoking, insane amount of bicycles in the street, 5 people on a single motorcycle.
The basic point is that when people visit other countries, they should remember that they are guests in another culture and should take whatever precautions are necessary to protect themselves and their families within the framework of the host culture.
The number one rule pounded into the brains of non-diplomatic personnel stationed overseas is that the host culture’s laws are trump. Just because your home nation has free speech, protection against unreasonable search-and-seizure, right to assemble, or whatever, doesn’t mean that you will have that right when you go overseas. You also don’t have the right to impose your societal or cultural mores on the host nation.
So, if I were in a restaurant in Taiwan where there were open fans, I would make sure my child was not seated next to the fan. My child would not be wandering around the restaurant by herself. When the food was placed on the table, I would make sure the boiling hot teapot was not within her reach. Because that is my job as a parent.
And guess what? I do the same darn thing when we go out to eat with my kids (actually, my grandkids, now) in restaurants here in Kansas City.
In most states you must provide proof of insurance to license car. Maybe the out of putting up a bond.
As an industrial manager in the early 80’s, I carefully studied our machinery and procedures looking for ways to make changes to reduce injuries. I also responded to employee suggestions. One of the best ones was to move the high stacks of empty boxes from the inside of a bend in the aisleway to the outside. When full, the boxes were low enough you could see forklifts and people over them. There was no limit to cheap, simple changes that could reduce the chances of a injury.
Therefore it is an unreasonable infringement by the gubmn’t of the right to own property in that it would not be possible to get vehicle and driver’s insurance that includes using a trampoline while driving.
griffin1977, already stated, and in your first paragraph you acknowledge he can’t get the home without borrowing money.
So when you say: “the first step is not borrowing money to get that home”, how is that any less incoherent than saying “the first step is build a perpetual motion machine”?
Basically what you’re saying is he can’t have a trampoline, period. Due you acknowledge this?
Unless the modifications are specifically listed in the contract, the policy would be voidable by the insurance company. Some insurers will insure modified Jeeps, so shop around.
You can blame the Plaintiff’s Tort Bar for all of this. Back in the good old days we had contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and no duty of care to invitees on your property. If someone broke their neck on your trampoline, hey, he knew what could happen on a trampoline and didn’t think of suing.
Now the liberal courts have changed these doctrines so Plaintiff’s attorneys can become rich and homeowners have to pay more to have trampolines in your backyard.
I know this is a zombie thread, but I’ll throw in my own $0.03 (adjusted for inflation) based on my own experience, both as a licensed property and casualty insurance agent and as the victim of a trampoline accident.
From the insurance side, trampolines, swimming pools, and certain other things, such as (IIRC), certain kinds of swingsets and playsets constitute what’s called an “attractive nuisance” because they attract kids, who can’t always be trusted to stay away from them. If they’re kept in an area behind a locked fence, the owner has eliminated the moral hazard of failing to protect the attractive nuisance; if some kid jumps the fence or picks the lock, the risk is assumed to be on the kid for taking the action of thwarting the fence, and (likely) the parents for failing to teach their kid not to thwart fences. The property owner or the insurance company has someone to hold legally accountable for any injury to the child or damage to the property, so the insurance company is more likely to write a policy that covers such things, although they may increase the premiums to account for them.
On the other hand, the risks associated with an attractive nuisance that is not secured behind a locked fence are considered to be so great that the insurance company may decline to write a policy until a lockable fence has been installed; alternatively, they may write the policy but specifically exclude coverage for the attractive nuisance such that any injuries caused by the nuisance will not be covered. The property owner, therefore, assumes most, if not all of the risk for failing to secure the attractive nuisance and is on the hook personally for any costs associated with the injury.
In fact, you can think of this scenario as the insurance company trying to protect your stubborn ass from lawsuits by giving you incentive to just build the goddam fence. Fence = insurance and reduced or no exposure to lawsuits and bills for expensive injuries. No fence !=insurance and personal exposure to lawsuits and bills for injuries and possibly damages. See how that works?
From a personal perspective, trampolines can and do cause serious injuries, even if they’re used correctly. I’ve got two caps in my mouth that cover teeth that were severely damaged after I went face-first into the metal railing of an above-ground trampoline. Another kid shouted in my ear, and I lost my balance and my permanent front teeth. I didn’t do anything wrong, but the facility that owned the trampoline was held responsible for the cost of fixing my front teeth because the other child shouldn’t have been close enough to me in the first place. You may also consider all those YouTube videos of idiots who attempt to dive onto a trampoline from some distance or height, or do some other stupid stunt and suffer head injuries, broken bones, sprains, and other nasty, expensive injuries as a result. This is why insurance companies would rather you keep your trampoline behind a fence, preferably a locked one.
When I went through P&C training, the trainer made a big deal out of recommending some sort of sturdy fencing (e.g., wrought iron) anchored in concrete that had spikes or something similar so that people can’t do that without risking injury beforehand. And if 1000 Ways to Die and The Virgin Suicides are any indication, death by rectal impaling is a very real possibility if something goes wrong.
