This is why we can't have any fun

[anyonefortennis]

http://omaha.com/article/20100812/NE...-s-family-2-4m

[sloasdaylight]

Don't let your young daughters sled down a hill before you check it out maybe?

[Yerf Dog]

Clearly, sledding must be banned.

[sarcastro83]

Originally Posted by sloasdaylight

Don't let your young daughters sled down a hill before you check it out maybe?

Nope. Parents should be allowed to abdicate their responsibility for the well-being of their kids. Everything bad that happens is the State's fault.

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by sarcastro83

Nope. Parents should be allowed to abdicate their responsibility for the well-being of their kids. Everything bad that happens is the State's fault.

Oh right, thanks. I forgot about that whole "responsibility is so last generation" thing.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

What a joke.

I'm sorry that the kid was paralised, but seriously, the parents should try to take some damned responsibility for it.

Lets ban hills, tree's and anything that moves.

[Meyatch]

Yes, a parent should not put a child incapable of controlling their sled on a hill that they are unfamiliar with, but it states in the article that the city had ample warning that the trees were a hazard, and should be removed, that other people had suffered injuries from hitting the trees, that it was a very popular sledding area, and that the trees had only been there a few months.

[sarcastro83]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

What a joke.

I'm sorry that the kid was paralised, but seriously, the parents should try to take some damned responsibility for it.

Lets ban hills, tree's and anything that moves.

Seriously... the kids loss of the lower 3/4 of her body is indeed tragic. She'll never live the life that she could have. But there is so much that is wrong with this whole thing, it's disgusting. The courts have ruled that the city was entirely aware of the risk to sledders that these trees posed, but seriously, as a responsible parent, wouldn't your first instinct be to look to see what whas at the bottom of the hill before you send your kids sliding down the damned thing? Considering that there was a kid who'se jaw was broken 12 days before the crippling accident happened, you'd think that the parents would have exercised better judgement... apparently not.

But the worst part about this is now her parents are going to "appeal the constititionality of the states cap on the liability of municipalities". Because apparently, 2 million just simply isn't a big enough pay day for them? Complete and utter nonsense.

[hover]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Lets ban hills, trees and anything that moves.

Yeah, especially them hit and run trees. There would be waaaay less drunk driving accidents that way.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Meyatch

Yes, a parent should not put a child incapable of controlling their sled on a hill that they are unfamiliar with, but it states in the article that the city had ample warning that the trees were a hazard, and should be removed, that other people had suffered injuries from hitting the trees, that it was a very popular sledding area, and that the trees had only been there a few months.

If it's a popular sledging area, people should have gone

"Hmm, those weren't there before"

And looked somewhere else or for a safer area to sledge down.


The other thing that gets me, why did they think it was a good idea to let a 5yr/old go sit in the lap of a 10yr/old while going down on one of those saucer sleds? That in itself was an accident waiting to happen.

[Meyatch]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

If it's a popular sledging area, people should have gone

"Hmm, those weren't there before"

And looked somewhere else or for a safer area to sledge down.

Maybe. I've never been there. Maybe they couldn't see the trees from where they were at. Maybe the parents have sledded there every year for their lives and never had a problem?

There's some mention in the article about how the slope of the land is "confusing" and it wasn't immediately apparent that a sled would veer towards the trees.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Meyatch

Maybe. I've never been there. Maybe they couldn't see the trees from where they were at. Maybe the parents have sledded there every year for their lives and never had a problem?

There's some mention in the article about how the slope of the land is "confusing" and it wasn't immediately apparent that a sled would veer towards the trees.

Is the park specifically for sledging?

If it was such a popular place for sledging, how come they didn't notice that the other sledgers were veering out and towards the tree's?

Also, making the assumption that a hazard isn't there, just because it wasn't there the previous year is still pretty poor. Environments aren't static.

No doubt if the city had put up "No Sledging" signs that would have been deemed unconstitutional aswell.

[L-A]

“And she can't be fully compensated for the injuries she suffered because of the state's cap, despite the fact that a judge found that she bore none of the fault for the crash.”

Because of course, if it's not her fault it's the city's.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by L-A

“And she can't be fully compensated for the injuries she suffered because of the state's cap, despite the fact that a judge found that she bore none of the fault for the crash.”

Because of course, if it's not her fault it's the city's.

I agree with it not being her fault. The parents on the other hand . . .

[sarcastro83]

Originally Posted by Meyatch

There's some mention in the article about how the slope of the land is "confusing" and it wasn't immediately apparent that a sled would veer towards the trees.

A kid broke his/her jaw like a week before the accident happened. How is the unsafety of the hill the least bit confusing after something like this happens?

When you watch your friend stick his hand on the red-hot element of a stove and see him burn his hand, would you yourself be confused as to whether or not the element was in fact hot?

[Meyatch]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Is the park specifically for sledging?

If it was such a popular place for sledging, how come they didn't notice that the other sledgers were veering out and towards the tree's?

Also, making the assumption that a hazard isn't there, just because it wasn't there the previous year is still pretty poor. Environments aren't static.

No doubt if the city had put up "No Sledging" signs that would have been deemed unconstitutional aswell.

I don't really know the answers to these questions, but you know who probably did? The judge who presided over the case.

Originally Posted by sarcastro83

A kid broke his/her jaw like a week before the accident happened. How is the unsafety of the hill the least bit confusing after something like this happens?

When you watch your friend stick his hand on the red-hot element of a stove and see him burn his hand, would you yourself be confused as to whether or not the element was in fact hot?

I would guess that they were unaware that happened.

I'm not saying I agree with what happened here, I just think the armchair lawyering that goes on around the internet gets way out of hand.

Evidently the judge felt that the city was aware of the problem, and chose not to do anything about it. The article mentions several times that the city knew the trees were a hazard, and should have gotten rid of them.

I wonder if the trees are still there now?

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by sarcastro83

A kid broke his/her jaw like a week before the accident happened. How is the unsafety of the hill the least bit confusing after something like this happens?

When you watch your friend stick his hand on the red-hot element of a stove and see him burn his hand, would you yourself be confused as to whether or not the element was in fact hot?

I would acknowledge that it may or may not be dangerous, but is probably at least a little bit of fun, and then stick my hand on it, and if in fact I did burn my hand on it, I would then sue the ever loving **** out of the stove maker for making an unsafe product without adequate warnings.

[Jim Nazium]

Originally Posted by Meyatch

...it states in the article that the city had ample warning that the trees were a hazard, and should be removed

Right, but unfortunatley the part of the city that made the mistake (mayor, city council, park employees) is not the part of the city that is going to pay the million dollars (the taxpayers). That's what really irks me about lawsuits against cities & states.

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by Meyatch

I don't really know the answers to these questions, but you know who probably did? The judge who presided over the case.

No offense to anyone here who is a judge, but just because some one has the black robe does not mean that they're right all the time. Their opinions may carry a HUGE amount of sway to determine people's lives and laws, but that doesn't mean they make the right decisions all the time.

[Meyatch]

The judge found that the hill naturally sloped toward the trees, which had 3-inch trunks. And, Lamberty ruled, the city had ample warning that the trees should be removed.
Neighbors had told officials at city planning meetings to avoid planting new trees on that slope. On an aerial photograph of Memorial Park, former City Forester Phil Pierce wrote in large letters that those “four new crabs should be moved.”
An emergency room physician testified to an epidemic of sledding injuries in the winter of 2000. And a sledder had suffered a broken jaw and cuts when she ran into the clump of crabapple trees 12 days before Rachel was paralyzed.
“The evidence at the trial showed that the city created, controlled and had notice of a situation that created an unreasonable risk of harm to persons sledding in Memorial Park,” Lamberty ruled.

.