So what? The basis of her lawsuit will be that someone else should have been watching her child. I believe that HER responsibility to monitor her child trumps anyone else's duty or job to do so. Turning this tragedy into a lawsuit will further lower her in my opinion. You're right, no amount will bring the kid back...so why sue?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Responsible parenting. California style.
- Thread starter syciprider
- Start date
While some of the blame is on the lifeguards, I think most of it is on the mother.
We all know she's gonna sue, but why, will money make her son come back to life?
We all know she's gonna sue, but why, will money make her son come back to life?
- Feb 27, 2005
- 3,218
- 125
- Disclosures
- Full disclosure, I'm a certified Fender technician working in a music store that carries Fender, Yamaha, and Ibanez products among others.
That mother was an IDIOT, period. Completely lacking in common sense. Possibly, she's just completely selfish and self-centered. I'm willing to bet that she was more concerned with her tan than she was with the welfare of her child. Seriously.
She let a four year old alone in a wave pool? I don't let my five year old swim without me nearby in the local kiddy pool, and when in the adult pool, waves or no, he gets a life jacket, and will, until he's proven to me he's an excellent swimmer, or tall enough to stand up and breathe.
Also, she sent her eight year old to look for the kid, after ten minutes? If I don't see my kids for ten minutes in a public place, I don't ask my teenaged sister-in-law to find them, I go find them myself, and quickly. These are things you just don't take chances with. Her eyes shouldn't have been off that child for a second, and if she couldn't see him in the churning mass, why would she expect lifeguards to?
This is a tragedy, and the women needs a stern lecture on priorities in life, and then be sent off to bear the consequences of her inaction, not rewarded with large sums of money, thus encouraging other parents to easily dismiss their responsibilities.
Judgemental? You betcha. If no one judges, then nothing is wrong anymore, and everything's OK. Her ignorance and inattention, directly resulting in her own son's death, is NOT OK.
She let a four year old alone in a wave pool? I don't let my five year old swim without me nearby in the local kiddy pool, and when in the adult pool, waves or no, he gets a life jacket, and will, until he's proven to me he's an excellent swimmer, or tall enough to stand up and breathe.
Also, she sent her eight year old to look for the kid, after ten minutes? If I don't see my kids for ten minutes in a public place, I don't ask my teenaged sister-in-law to find them, I go find them myself, and quickly. These are things you just don't take chances with. Her eyes shouldn't have been off that child for a second, and if she couldn't see him in the churning mass, why would she expect lifeguards to?
This is a tragedy, and the women needs a stern lecture on priorities in life, and then be sent off to bear the consequences of her inaction, not rewarded with large sums of money, thus encouraging other parents to easily dismiss their responsibilities.
Judgemental? You betcha. If no one judges, then nothing is wrong anymore, and everything's OK. Her ignorance and inattention, directly resulting in her own son's death, is NOT OK.
Mark Wilson
Supporting Member
I wouldn't say so.
I worked at a waterpark, and the wave pool was smaller than that, and we had 6, sometimes 7 lifeguards on the pool.
Also, it is the mother's fault. At the waterpark, we had COUNTLESS instances where the parents would drop their kids off and goto the Casino all day. The kids were no older than 12. The rules state that anyone under 16 must be accompanied by a 16 year old at all times.
Also, the pool was crowded. The lifeguards can't be expected to keep an eye on who knows how many people, and spot a 4 year old boy.
If the pool had 10-15 people? Then yea, I could see how it was the lifeguards fault TO A POINT. But no. I can't see it in this instance. It's ultimately the mother's fault.
BTW, for those who think that it is odd that 6 lifeguards did not see anything
a) This is like Disneyland in the water. There is A LOT of ppl and definitely a lot of splashing. Maybe they should sue everyone in the pool for not seeing anything.
b) The pool is big. 355,000 gl (1.3 million lt, 47570 cu. ft). 240 ft x 160 ft.
a) This is like Disneyland in the water. There is A LOT of ppl and definitely a lot of splashing. Maybe they should sue everyone in the pool for not seeing anything.
b) The pool is big. 355,000 gl (1.3 million lt, 47570 cu. ft). 240 ft x 160 ft.
It's crap like this why swimming pools get shut down, why my kids will never have to opportunity to challenge their limits on a high dive like I did, etc. etc. Sue sue sue.
Always someone else's fault. I wouldn't let a 4 year old out of my reach in a park like that unless I WANTED him to drown or be snatched by a pedophile.
Always someone else's fault. I wouldn't let a 4 year old out of my reach in a park like that unless I WANTED him to drown or be snatched by a pedophile.
Mark Wilson
Supporting Member
So if Great America was doing their job then parents don't need to watch their kids all the time?
I feel for this woman, she has a pain I hope to never experience. Eventually she will realize it was her own damn fault and that pain will be worse than anything I would wish upon anyone.
You read my mind. Parent's fault. Very possible for lifeguards to not have seen it, with the huge (and I mean HUGE) problem of all the intertubes and other large floaties that people are permitted to bring into a wave pool. They're nothing short of obnoxious and dangerous. It's easy for an adult to get caught between and under those things banging together, let alone the 4-year-old child of a negligent parent.
No, because in that same pool there are 100s and 100s of people. Not odd at all, lifeguard is a hard job, you can't know what each person out of 100s in is doing. They look for signs of distress. Neither the parents nor the boy showed any distress, there for it's not odd that they did not notice...
So what? she has 2 more, If i was a state I'd be in progress of proving even more that she is an idiot and taking the kids away from her, for their own safety. Parents like this should not have kids at all.
So what kind of place do you think it would be if EVERYONE acted like this 'mother'? Hundreds of moms turning their toddlers loose into a churning froth of turbulent water and bodies, then sunbathing with their eyes covered or buried in Oprah's latest book-of-the-month?
Over 275 young children have drowned in buckets in the US since 1984. Over 30 other children have been hospitalized.
In BUCKETS.
So, wave pools are much safer to dump your kids in while you're not paying attention, I guess.
Over 275 young children have drowned in buckets in the US since 1984. Over 30 other children have been hospitalized.
In BUCKETS.
So, wave pools are much safer to dump your kids in while you're not paying attention, I guess.
The lawsuit won't prove that the lifeguards aren't doing their job. It will only prove that cashing in on a loved one's death by generating negative publicity (via lawsuit) for a big firm is not beneath some folks' morals.
OJ wasn't found guilty, but it doesn't mean that he really did not kill his wife.
OJ wasn't found guilty, but it doesn't mean that he really did not kill his wife.
It might not but it also might. Just because she will most likely win BECAUSE cashing in one a beloved one's death in the US is a common thing does not mean they were doing their job either.
Lets wait till we actually get more details on the story. But on first look it seems weird to me that with 6 lifeguards the kid drowned.
Diggler: Stop trolling. I agree with you. the woman is a horrible parent, and it is mostly her fault. Doesn't mean the lifeguards were doing their job.
edit: you're gonna tell me that 6 lifeguards cant watch everyone in this???:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Sorry Im just not buying it.
Lets wait till we actually get more details on the story. But on first look it seems weird to me that with 6 lifeguards the kid drowned.
Diggler: Stop trolling. I agree with you. the woman is a horrible parent, and it is mostly her fault. Doesn't mean the lifeguards were doing their job.
edit: you're gonna tell me that 6 lifeguards cant watch everyone in this???:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Sorry Im just not buying it.
You are right, we do not know the whole story. That is why we should also try to find data about previous incidents that the life guards PREVENTED before we pass judgement that they were not doing their job.
However, we can be certain that the woman was not doing her job. We had an unattended child to prove it.
However, we can be certain that the woman was not doing her job. We had an unattended child to prove it.
Morf, the pictures you posted do not tell a complete representation of what the lifeguards see. Find some with waves and a crowd of people in it.
And as far as I'm concerned, they're doing their job because folks don't die more often.
Howver, having customers like Miss Flores increases their chances of missing something.
