• 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.

This is why we can't have any fun

#21
sarcastro83 said:
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?
Click to expand...
no,you sue the manufacturer,distributor,dealer,and salesman who sold you the stove.....the only time the parents are culpable is if they dicipline their kids.....then the government takes them into foster care
 
#22
sloasdaylight said:
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.
Click to expand...

Judges are fallible human beings, but they are trained to make decisions like this, and like it or not, that is our justice system.
 
#25
Jim Campbell said:
no,you sue the manufacturer,distributor,dealer,and salesman who sold you the stove.....the only time the parents are culpable is if they dicipline their kids.....then the government takes them into foster care
Click to expand...

just to continue playing devil's advocate, this hypothetical is a lot more like if the city decided to put a hot stove in the middle of city hall, because there was one there a long time ago, several people warned them not to put a hot stove there, then several people burned themselves on the hot stove, then someone burned themselves really bad on the hot stove, and decided to sue city hall.
 
#26
We had something similar here a couple years back. Apparently there's a "Sledding hill" that has a parking lot at the bottom of it. The lot is seperated from the field by wooden posts maybe 2' high surrounding the parking lot.

A kid hit one, and I think he died. They were showing footage on the news of parents at the top of this hill as their kids slid down it right towards the parking lot. I don't think there was a law suit, but I couln't believe how many parents were giving their kids a shove off the top of that hill!

It's a bummer that the kid got crippled, and long term care is going to be expensive, but I'm not so sure the park was to blame.
 
#27
Phalex said:
It's a bummer that the kid got crippled, and long term care is going to be expensive, but I'm not so sure the park was to blame.
Click to expand...

That's the real crux of this issue. In today's society/legal system, someone is always to blame.

Sometimes stuff just sucks.

Evidently the judge decided that the city was to blame, do to the fact that they knew the trees should have been removed, but didn't.
 
#29
Meyatch said:
just to continue playing devil's advocate, this hypothetical is a lot more like if the city decided to put a hot stove in the middle of city hall, because there was one there a long time ago, several people warned them not to put a hot stove there, then several people burned themselves on the hot stove, then someone burned themselves really bad on the hot stove, and decided to sue city hall.
Click to expand...
sorry dude,it's a tree.....they often grow out of the ground,with no help from us......they are generally stationary,and running into one is rarely because the tree moved
 
#30
Meyatch said:
just to continue playing devil's advocate, this hypothetical is a lot more like if the city decided to put a hot stove in the middle of city hall, because there was one there a long time ago, several people warned them not to put a hot stove there, then several people burned themselves on the hot stove, then someone burned themselves really bad on the hot stove, and decided to sue city hall.
Click to expand...

So because the one person who got burned really bad didn't learn a damned thing from everyone else burning themselves, it's acceptable for them to thrust blame on the city because they failed to take responsibility for their own safety?

I'm not playing devil's advocate, here. I actually believe that this is unacceptable..
 
#31
Jim Campbell said:
sorry dude,it's a tree.....they often grow out of the ground,with no help from us......they are generally stationary,and running into one is rarely because the tree moved
Click to expand...

These trees didn't. They were there because the city put them there, despite the fact that several people told them not to, several people warned of the danger the trees put sledders into, the city is aware that it is a popular sledding destination, and former City Forester Phil Pierce wrote in large letters that those “four new crabs should be moved.”
 
#32
sarcastro83 said:
So because the one person who got burned really bad didn't learn a damned thing from everyone else burning themselves, it's acceptable for them to thrust blame on the city because they failed to take responsibility for their own safety?

I'm not playing devil's advocate, here. I actually believe that this is unacceptable..
Click to expand...

You actually think that a city should bear no fault for putting a hot stove in the middle of a public place?

Yeah, its dumb to touch the thing, but its also really dumb to put it there in the first place.

This situation is way stupider than the tree planting.
 
#33
Meyatch said:
You actually think that a city should bear no fault for putting a hot stove in the middle of a public place?

Yeah, its dumb to touch the thing, but its also really dumb to put it there in the first place.

This situation is way stupider than the tree planting.
Click to expand...

What is that area used for the other 9 months out of the year? It's only a sledding hill in the winter. Someone may hang out under those trees and read during the warm months. I doubt they were planted exclusively for the winter.
 
#34
Phalex said:
What is that area used for the other 9 months out of the year? It's only a sledding hill in the winter. Someone may hang out under those trees and read during the warm months. I doubt they were planted exclusively for the winter.
Click to expand...

That's not what this is about. Its a given that the trees are a hazard, and should be moved. The former city worker told them, I have to imagine that the entire crux of the judge's decision rests on this fact.

The only thing debatable is whether that is enough to make it this cities fault, or whether it is the parent's fault.
 
#35
And to weigh in on that debate, of course its the parents fault. It is a parents job to protect their children from this kind of stuff, end of story.

I do agree with the judge that the city shares some of the blame in this though.

Probably not the 75% of the blame the judge said, but some of the blame, absolutely.
 
#36
sloasdaylight said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking Meyatch probably meant that the Judge has all of the facts, while we don't

EDT: wow, a lot of posts came in before I hit "submit!"
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back