Wow that is some detail you provided. I am getting so tired of this system of “who else but me” accountability. Kind of like the woman on YouTube who thought that Obama would now buy gas for her car now that he won the election. Unbelievable.
how can the parent of a toddler in a three foot deep pool blame ANYONE but the person responsible for watching the kid? Themselves, family member, nanny or au pair, whomever- THEY are responsible for that child and sadly, his death. Who brings a toddler (as in barely walking) to a three foot deep pool crowded with throngs of people and then expects a pimply-faced teenager to watch their kid out of the hundreds in there? What were his parents doing while he drowned?? Sorry, there is no way I would ever trust a water park employee to be the eyes on my 2 1/2 yr old in that situation. This suit is ridiculous.
True….I’ve seen the Kalahari water park in Wisconsin Dells. It’s impressive, full of people, and not a place I would suggest leaving a child unless constantly and closely supervised by the parent. The parents are the ones who are responsible for their child, not the waterpark.
This is an upscale water park that has had a perfect safety record for 9 years. It has 25,000 visitors each week. According to the Sheriff and Department of Health, their safety procedures are excellent. The pool was a “zero entry” with it’s deepest point being 4. By design, the sight/visibility for people on the pool deck was considered excellent. Certified lifeguards were on duty. Following an investigation, no citations were issued to the water park as there was no negligence found. The drowing was ruled “accidental”.
The mother allowed her 3 year old son to be in the pool with her 6 year old son. They were un-supervised. The mother was “relaxing on the pool deck”. She admitted “losing track” of her son and alerted the lifeguards. The boy was found in 3′ of water and resusciation efforts were un-successful. There is no mention of the whereabouts of the father.
Now the parents are suing the park in a vain attempt to absolve themselves of their own negligence. (and make some money in the process. Lifeguards are not surrogate parents or babysitters. It is not their responsibility to know where every child/person is every minute of every hour. It is however, the parent’s responsibility to pay attention to where a 3 year old is in the water.
The sole cause of this tragedy was an in-attentive mother. Sound harsh? Too bad. So is small child drowning at age 3. Any responsible parent would be outraged. These people should be embarassed to accuse the park. Hopefully, the park will vigorously defend this suit.
Another sad case of no one wanting to take responsibility for their own actions (or inaction). When will government step in and refuse to hear such frivolous cases? Maybe their social policy should revert back to personal responsibility. If they stop hearing these cases, maybe lawyers will stop trying to drum up this type of business. Sad. I feel horrible for the 6 year old. He is the victim that will suffer from this.
I agree completely with what everyone has said. Unfortunately, it is not just the courts that need to take a hard line on these but also the insurance carriers. Stop settling to save on defense cost. I understand the economics but I think the over all big picture is not taken into account. Everytime a case is settled and people are given money to go away, they tell friends and family and the problem grows. They wonder who can I sue? Let’s send a different message!
The existing jury concept is flawed allowing un-educated, un-sophisticated, sometimes irrational, and emotional individuals to render verdicts and awards. Unfortunately, this factors into an insurance carrier’s evaluation of whether to roll the dice on a trial.
We should consider going to a professional jury system akin to Japan. Being a juror is a profession. They are well educated and well compensated. They don’t allow emotions to factor into an analysis of liability and damages. It delivers a much more objective result.
In this case, what juror can divorce their personal feelings and hold firm on an assumption of risk defense verdict? The woman lost her face, her eyes, and her hands. What kind of quality of life can she have regardless of how much money she’s awarded?
The plaintiff knew of the vicious propensities of this beast and went so far as to warn it’s owner. She also expressed fear about it. In spite of that, she voluntarily went to help corral the damn thing. This entire mess could have been avoided by just saying “no”. Animal control and the police should have been called.
Wild Card:
I think you responded on the wrong case. I agree no carrier would be wise to try to defend the chimpanzee case. I don’t think anybody would consider that womens case frivolous. I mean fight the good fight. Yes you deal with prejudices and emotions but just paying up to avoid defending is where all of the frivolous cases were born.
You want to stop “frivolous” lawsuit – counter sue the mother for neglegence – by her own admission, she left a 3 year old in the care of a 6 year old and lounged on the sidelines. If that isn’t being a total idiot – there could be no other definition. As a parent I can not even imagine the thought of losing a child – but puhleeezzz – to blame someone else for your own negligence? The state should throw her in jail on behalf of the deceased child for negligent homicide – she allowed the child to die when she neglected her duty as a responsible parent. Sheezzzz – what is this world coming to and how do I get off…
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.
Wow that is some detail you provided. I am getting so tired of this system of “who else but me” accountability. Kind of like the woman on YouTube who thought that Obama would now buy gas for her car now that he won the election. Unbelievable.
It ends up costing all of us in the end.
how can the parent of a toddler in a three foot deep pool blame ANYONE but the person responsible for watching the kid? Themselves, family member, nanny or au pair, whomever- THEY are responsible for that child and sadly, his death. Who brings a toddler (as in barely walking) to a three foot deep pool crowded with throngs of people and then expects a pimply-faced teenager to watch their kid out of the hundreds in there? What were his parents doing while he drowned?? Sorry, there is no way I would ever trust a water park employee to be the eyes on my 2 1/2 yr old in that situation. This suit is ridiculous.
True….I’ve seen the Kalahari water park in Wisconsin Dells. It’s impressive, full of people, and not a place I would suggest leaving a child unless constantly and closely supervised by the parent. The parents are the ones who are responsible for their child, not the waterpark.
This is an upscale water park that has had a perfect safety record for 9 years. It has 25,000 visitors each week. According to the Sheriff and Department of Health, their safety procedures are excellent. The pool was a “zero entry” with it’s deepest point being 4. By design, the sight/visibility for people on the pool deck was considered excellent. Certified lifeguards were on duty. Following an investigation, no citations were issued to the water park as there was no negligence found. The drowing was ruled “accidental”.
The mother allowed her 3 year old son to be in the pool with her 6 year old son. They were un-supervised. The mother was “relaxing on the pool deck”. She admitted “losing track” of her son and alerted the lifeguards. The boy was found in 3′ of water and resusciation efforts were un-successful. There is no mention of the whereabouts of the father.
Now the parents are suing the park in a vain attempt to absolve themselves of their own negligence. (and make some money in the process. Lifeguards are not surrogate parents or babysitters. It is not their responsibility to know where every child/person is every minute of every hour. It is however, the parent’s responsibility to pay attention to where a 3 year old is in the water.
The sole cause of this tragedy was an in-attentive mother. Sound harsh? Too bad. So is small child drowning at age 3. Any responsible parent would be outraged. These people should be embarassed to accuse the park. Hopefully, the park will vigorously defend this suit.
Another sad case of no one wanting to take responsibility for their own actions (or inaction). When will government step in and refuse to hear such frivolous cases? Maybe their social policy should revert back to personal responsibility. If they stop hearing these cases, maybe lawyers will stop trying to drum up this type of business. Sad. I feel horrible for the 6 year old. He is the victim that will suffer from this.
I agree completely with what everyone has said. Unfortunately, it is not just the courts that need to take a hard line on these but also the insurance carriers. Stop settling to save on defense cost. I understand the economics but I think the over all big picture is not taken into account. Everytime a case is settled and people are given money to go away, they tell friends and family and the problem grows. They wonder who can I sue? Let’s send a different message!
The existing jury concept is flawed allowing un-educated, un-sophisticated, sometimes irrational, and emotional individuals to render verdicts and awards. Unfortunately, this factors into an insurance carrier’s evaluation of whether to roll the dice on a trial.
We should consider going to a professional jury system akin to Japan. Being a juror is a profession. They are well educated and well compensated. They don’t allow emotions to factor into an analysis of liability and damages. It delivers a much more objective result.
In this case, what juror can divorce their personal feelings and hold firm on an assumption of risk defense verdict? The woman lost her face, her eyes, and her hands. What kind of quality of life can she have regardless of how much money she’s awarded?
The plaintiff knew of the vicious propensities of this beast and went so far as to warn it’s owner. She also expressed fear about it. In spite of that, she voluntarily went to help corral the damn thing. This entire mess could have been avoided by just saying “no”. Animal control and the police should have been called.
I’m not sure you understand Japan’s “jury” system, which is really not a jury system at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in_Japan
Wild Card:
I think you responded on the wrong case. I agree no carrier would be wise to try to defend the chimpanzee case. I don’t think anybody would consider that womens case frivolous. I mean fight the good fight. Yes you deal with prejudices and emotions but just paying up to avoid defending is where all of the frivolous cases were born.
You want to stop “frivolous” lawsuit – counter sue the mother for neglegence – by her own admission, she left a 3 year old in the care of a 6 year old and lounged on the sidelines. If that isn’t being a total idiot – there could be no other definition. As a parent I can not even imagine the thought of losing a child – but puhleeezzz – to blame someone else for your own negligence? The state should throw her in jail on behalf of the deceased child for negligent homicide – she allowed the child to die when she neglected her duty as a responsible parent. Sheezzzz – what is this world coming to and how do I get off…