I never cease to be amazed over the knee-jerk reaction to something like this. There’s a swarm of lawyers and politicians supporting legislation to require swimming pools to carry liability insurance “to make them safer for childredn”. That is pure ********. No amount of insurance is going to make them safer. It will only create a larger pot of gold for the wrongful death suits the ghouls will file.
I found no information alleging any negligence by the owners of the pool. The reality is that just becasue six year old kid drowns doesn’t mean there’s negligence/liability. No pool can guarantee 100% safety of swimmers. The parents allowed the kid to go on an outing with a local club. If they want to sue anybody, they should have focused on negligent supervision, if there was any.
I agree. The story indicating a requirement for liability without a reference to safety guidelines seems to support the idea of entitlement to insurance money for every death. This is what happens when you support something to look good to voters.
Just read that liability insurance for the park involved would be $72K per year, a cost the owner can’t afford. Sometimes I think the world would be better off without liability insurance, or at least limit it to pecuniary (out of pocket)damages only. Since most things in life involve some assumption of risk, people should be “made whole” after an accident, but why should they have a windfall profit from one? “entitlement to compensation” is a concept fathered (illegitimately) by personal injury attorneys.
I THINK SOME HAVE MISSED THE POINT ON THIS ONE. THE GOVERNMENT HAS SORT OF SIDESTEPPED INTO REGULATION OF THESE PARKS BY REQUIREING LIABILITY AND THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY WILL HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT THEY REQUIRE REGARDING SAFTY, DESIGN, WHATEVER BEFORE THEY WILL ISSUE A POLICY. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PARK HAD VERY FEW LIFEGUARDS AND THEY COULD NOT SEE THE ENTIRE OPERATION. PERHAPS THE PARK NEEDED TO BE MORE RESPONSIBLE AND PAY FOR ADEQUATE LIFEGUARDS, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN AND NOW WE HAVE THIS LAW.
looks like Missouri is moving dramatically forward into the 20th century – guess the reason the plunge operator had no cover is that the whole park is worth less than a good lawsuit. and, by the way, as an old Lifeguard (very old), I can ratify the thought that a drowning can occur without negligence on the part of the Staff – the golden rule is to be sure whatever rules and protocols might be in force for Staff were being followed (to the letter)- then, no negligence
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
do they require insurance. What took them so long?
What idiot runs a business like this and doesn’t purchase liability insurance?
I never cease to be amazed over the knee-jerk reaction to something like this. There’s a swarm of lawyers and politicians supporting legislation to require swimming pools to carry liability insurance “to make them safer for childredn”. That is pure ********. No amount of insurance is going to make them safer. It will only create a larger pot of gold for the wrongful death suits the ghouls will file.
I found no information alleging any negligence by the owners of the pool. The reality is that just becasue six year old kid drowns doesn’t mean there’s negligence/liability. No pool can guarantee 100% safety of swimmers. The parents allowed the kid to go on an outing with a local club. If they want to sue anybody, they should have focused on negligent supervision, if there was any.
I agree. The story indicating a requirement for liability without a reference to safety guidelines seems to support the idea of entitlement to insurance money for every death. This is what happens when you support something to look good to voters.
You don’t have to have insurance?
So….I can have a beach and charge for the use of the Bar-B-Que and not the use of the other facilities I’m okay?
A $10,000 fine might be a lot less than they would be paying for liability insurance
Maybe they should look into forming a (pardon the punn) “pool” so the operators could be guaranteed affordable coverage
Just read that liability insurance for the park involved would be $72K per year, a cost the owner can’t afford. Sometimes I think the world would be better off without liability insurance, or at least limit it to pecuniary (out of pocket)damages only. Since most things in life involve some assumption of risk, people should be “made whole” after an accident, but why should they have a windfall profit from one? “entitlement to compensation” is a concept fathered (illegitimately) by personal injury attorneys.
I THINK SOME HAVE MISSED THE POINT ON THIS ONE. THE GOVERNMENT HAS SORT OF SIDESTEPPED INTO REGULATION OF THESE PARKS BY REQUIREING LIABILITY AND THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY WILL HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT THEY REQUIRE REGARDING SAFTY, DESIGN, WHATEVER BEFORE THEY WILL ISSUE A POLICY. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PARK HAD VERY FEW LIFEGUARDS AND THEY COULD NOT SEE THE ENTIRE OPERATION. PERHAPS THE PARK NEEDED TO BE MORE RESPONSIBLE AND PAY FOR ADEQUATE LIFEGUARDS, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN AND NOW WE HAVE THIS LAW.
looks like Missouri is moving dramatically forward into the 20th century – guess the reason the plunge operator had no cover is that the whole park is worth less than a good lawsuit. and, by the way, as an old Lifeguard (very old), I can ratify the thought that a drowning can occur without negligence on the part of the Staff – the golden rule is to be sure whatever rules and protocols might be in force for Staff were being followed (to the letter)- then, no negligence