This is why we can't have any fun

[macaroni tony]

Unpossible! You're telling me members of a bass centered internet forum don't have all the facts on a legal case?!

Good one, silly Billy gumdrops. Just to clarify. You responded to Meyatch's post that we don't know the answers to these questions, but the judge presiding the case probably does. To which you responded

"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."

Which is why I said to you, dear sir, that Meyatch wasn't claiming the robe or the position of "judge" to be the trump card. Rather, that we're Monday morning quarterbacking a court case that we don't have all of the facts on.

OK, scratched that itch.

 

[sarcastro83]

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.

No. I do not think that a city should bear no fault for literally putting a hot stove in a public place. That would be ********.

What I do think is that when an individual decides to partake in a normally safe activity (in this case, sledding) in which a variable (in this case, the trees) is introduced which causes that activity to become dangerous as a result, THE DECISION TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE ACTIVITY RESTS SOLELY ON THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION.

Sure, it was a bad idea for the city to put the trees there, but as I must remind you, that is not my issue. My issue is the fact that these half-assed parents, IN SPITE OF THEIR AWARENESS OF THE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR DANGERS THAT THESE TREES POSED TO THEIR CHILDREN'S SAFETY, allowed them to continue sledding as if there would be no consequences to this action. When these half-assed parents realized too late that there WERE consequences to this action (in this case, the severe, irreparable paralysis of their daughter) they thrust the blame not on themselves, but on the city, and it's citizens in the form of financial compensation. Financial compensation that is paid out by everyone who is not responsible for their daughter's injuries, mind you.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Good one, silly Billy gumdrops. Just to clarify. You responded to Meyatch's post that we don't know the answers to these questions, but the judge presiding the case probably does. To which you responded

"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."

Which is why I said to you, dear sir, that Meyatch wasn't claiming the robe or the position of "judge" to be the trump card. Rather, that we're Monday morning quarterbacking a court case that we don't have all of the facts on.

OK, scratched that itch.

Yea I got what you and meyatch were both saying.

 

[Meyatch]

you are assuming the parents were aware of the danger.

I hypothesize to you, that the reason the judge's decision went the way it did, is that the parents should have reasonably expected a sledding slope free of injury causing trees.

I don't know that to be the case, but its certainly a possibility.

 

[Febs]

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.

I don't expect that an appeal on the constitutionality of the damages cap will get very far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#State_sovereign_immunity

 

[buzzbass]

All you dorks would be singing a different tune, if it was your kid who got hurt/killed. You'd all be the 1st ones to jump on the lawyer bandwagon. And, those who say they wouldn't be, are full of shiz(with a Z).

 

[Phalex]

you are assuming the parents were aware of the danger.

I hypothesize to you, that the reason the judge's decision went the way it did, is that the parents should have reasonably expected a sledding slope free of injury causing trees.

I don't know that to be the case, but its certainly a possibility.

I guess this is where I'm unclear. What constitutes a "sledding slope"? Any relatively smooth snow covered surfave with an incline of 20 degrees or better? I have never seen a sign that designated any hill as a "Sledding Slope". A sledding hill is basically a place where kids go with sleds to have a little fun with gravity and friction coefficients.

If the parks dept designates an area for a specific purpose (Like a baseball diamond) I think they have a responsibility to ensure that it remains suitable for the stated purpose. Just because they mow the grass on an incline in the summer doesn't mean that the hill is intended to be used for sledding.

There is an awesome hill right in downtown Grand Rapids. I bet it has to be 45 degrees or better and quite long. Right at the bottom, there is a ball diamond surrounded by a chain link fence. I imagine that if you were to hit that fence at around 70MPH, you would manage to squeeze at least some of your body through it. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever attempted to take a sled down this particular slope. Not because it's not a great hill, but because you'd end up a course paste at the bottom. It's a shame to think that if someone is dumb enough to try that hill, that their parents could sue the chainlink fence company as well as the parks dept.

 

[Meyatch]

I guess this is where I'm unclear. What constitutes a "sledding slope"? Any relatively smooth snow covered surfave with an incline of 20 degrees or better? I have never seen a sign that designated any hill as a "Sledding Slope". A sledding hill is basically a place where kids go with sleds to have a little fun with gravity and friction coefficients.

If the parks dept designates an area for a specific purpose (Like a baseball diamond) I think they have a responsibility to ensure that it remains suitable for the stated purpose. Just because they mow the grass on an incline in the summer doesn't mean that the hill is intended to be used for sledding.

There is an awesome hill right in downtown Grand Rapids. I bet it has to be 45 degrees or better and quite long. Right at the bottom, there is a ball diamond surrounded by a chain link fence. I imagine that if you were to hit that fence at around 70MPH, you would manage to squeeze at least some of your body through it. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever attempted to take a sled down this particular slope. Not because it's not a great hill, but because you'd end up a course paste at the bottom. It's a shame to think that if someone is dumb enough to try that hill, that their parents could sue the chainlink fence company as well as the parks dept.

I doubt it is specifically designated as a sledding slope, but it mentions in the article that it is a very popular sledding area, and has been for some time.

I'm pretty sure the city was aware what would be going on there in the wintertime.

 

[sarcastro83]

All you dorks would be singing a different tune, if it was your kid who got hurt/killed. You'd all be the 1st ones to jump on the lawyer bandwagon. And, those who say they wouldn't be, are full of shiz(with a Z).

Nope... I'd not be stupid enough to let my kid careen down a hill where a bunch of other kids got hurt. I'd do the responsible thing, and find another hill for them to play on. After all, you don't need to pay a lawyer for not being an idiot in the first place.

Dork.

 

[buzzbass]

Nope... I'd not be stupid enough to let my kid careen down a hill where a bunch of other kids got hurt. I'd do the responsible thing, and find another hill for them to play on. After all, you don't need to pay a lawyer for not being an idiot in the first place.

Dork.

you are probably in the minority though, that's the sad thing about today's society in general. I have a tendency to agree with you, about not letting the kids do that, in that situation.

 

[GregC]

Rather, that we're Monday morning quarterbacking a court case that we don't have all of the facts on.

And if we didn't, that would cut the posts in OT down by at least half.

 

[sarcastro83]

And if we didn't, that would cut the posts in OT down by at least half.

For sure. Face it dude, jumping to conclusions is essentially the foundation that OT is built on.

Now where'd I put that mat...

 

[rayzak]

It's Walmarts fault for selling them the sledding saucer in the first place. And how come that cute Columbia jacket didn't protect her spine? Must be a flaw in the manufacturing.

 

[MatticusMania]

All you dorks would be singing a different tune, if it was your kid who got hurt/killed. You'd all be the 1st ones to jump on the lawyer bandwagon. And, those who say they wouldn't be, are full of shiz(with a Z).

Not all of us look to blame others for our shortcomings. I really don't see how this is the city's fault, regardless of whether the trees should have been moved or not. Its a parents duty to safeguard their children from tragic event such as this. How is a hillside designated for sledding? Are there signs saying 'Sled Here' or 'This area for the specific use of Sledders' or was it just a good looking hillside that many another person has thought 'This hill looks good maybe I should sled down it'? I beleive the article does mention that the parents saw the trees before their kids sled down, but thought that the hill wouldnt naturally slide that way... that, to me, is irresponsible.

 

[hbarcat]

There is a popular sledding hill a few miles from my house (where I was a teen) and it's actually run as a "sledding" hill by the park district. They have a park ranger on duty at all times when the park is open and they do their best to make sure the patrons follow the rules of the park and they also keep their eyes open for hazardous conditions or situations.

Suppose then, that the park district decided to plant a bunch of trees near the bottom of the hill off to one side. Also suppose a couple of the park rangers, upon looking at the new trees, warned the park district that these trees were in a location that would put then in the path of many of the sledders and constituted and extreme danger. Finally, suppose that the park district ignored this warning and decided the aesthetics of the park was a higher priority than the safety of the sledders.

Now, when winter begins and the regular sledders arrive, why should anybody have reason to suspect that the sledding hill has suddenly become dangerous when it has been virtually danger free for many years. I know that if I had been sledding on this hill for twenty years and now I'm taking my kids to this hill I would have no reason to believe that the park district would be so careless as to purposely place a severe hazard on the hill that is likely to injure sledders.

This case isn't about a hill that happens to be used for sledding where someone accidentally ran into a tree that just happened to be growing there. It seems to be (according to the information in the article) about a sledding hill, maintained and monitored by the park district for that purpose, that had trees planted for decorative purpose only, in blatant disregard for the safety of sledders. Assuming this is a correct assessment of the facts of the case, the city is responsible, even though, unfortunately, the taxpayers are the ones who will end up paying, and it's possible the hill will be closed down and sledders will have to find someplace else to have fun.

 

[Meyatch]

This case isn't about a hill that happens to be used for sledding where someone accidentally ran into a tree that just happened to be growing there. It seems to be (according to the information in the article) about a sledding hill, maintained and monitored by the park district for that purpose, that had trees planted for decorative purpose only, in blatant disregard for the safety of sledders. Assuming this is a correct assessment of the facts of the case, the city is responsible, even though, unfortunately, the taxpayers are the ones who will end up paying, and it's possible the hill will be closed down and sledders will have to find someplace else to have fun.

Interesting, I didn't read it that way, because I have never heard of a "sledding hill" This is exactly the sort of information the judge had in front of him that we can only speculate on.

If it is in fact a designated sledding area, then the city planting trees there is exactly as woefully negligent as planting a tree in the middle of a baseball field, or road.

 

[MatticusMania]

There is a popular sledding hill a few miles from my house (where I was a teen) and it's actually run as a "sledding" hill by the park district. They have a park ranger on duty at all times when the park is open and they do their best to make sure the patrons follow the rules of the park and they also keep their eyes open for hazardous conditions or situations.

Suppose then, that the park district decided to plant a bunch of trees near the bottom of the hill off to one side. Also suppose a couple of the park rangers, upon looking at the new trees, warned the park district that these trees were in a location that would put then in the path of many of the sledders and constituted and extreme danger. Finally, suppose that the park district ignored this warning and decided the aesthetics of the park was a higher priority than the safety of the sledders.

Now, when winter begins and the regular sledders arrive, why should anybody have reason to suspect that the sledding hill has suddenly become dangerous when it has been virtually danger free for many years. I know that if I had been sledding on this hill for twenty years and now I'm taking my kids to this hill I would have no reason to believe that the park district would be so careless as to purposely place a severe hazard on the hill that is likely to injure sledders.

This case isn't about a hill that happens to be used for sledding where someone accidentally ran into a tree that just happened to be growing there. It seems to be (according to the information in the article) about a sledding hill, maintained and monitored by the park district for that purpose, that had trees planted for decorative purpose only, in blatant disregard for the safety of sledders. Assuming this is a correct assessment of the facts of the case, the city is responsible, even though, unfortunately, the taxpayers are the ones who will end up paying, and it's possible the hill will be closed down and sledders will have to find someplace else to have fun.

That would change my feelings on the matter, however I didnt gather from the article that this hillside was a designated sledding hill, and certainly not that it was maintained and monitored for that purpose.

If it is in fact a designated sledding area, then the city planting trees there is exactly as woefully negligent as planting a tree in the middle of a baseball field, or road.

If that were the case, I agree the city should be held to a fault.

 

[thumpbass1]

Oh yeah! My home town comes through again! Seriously, I feel sorry for the girl and her life changing injuries. While I hate that the incident happened, and the end results of it, it wasn't like there was no warning to the powers that were in charge back then, that it was a potential disaster in the making before things happened the way they did. As far as Omaha having unresponsive city leaders when it comes to issues like this, in the face of constant warnings, it's pretty typical to say the least, as most citizens of Omaha can tell you. Memorial Park has long been a traditional sledding area in the winter time here in Omaha, thought I'd clear that up.

On a separate note, our city is also sliding towards bankruptcy thanks to the last few mayors who were in the pocket of the firefighter and police unions, and the fat cat pension plans they signed off on. The last mayor kind of kept quiet about the details of how rotten things really were financially during the last mayoral election, which was fairly recent. He wasn't running himself, but you gotta' keep party unity going strong. The new, current mayor and some of his City Council buddies, are still playing crony politics as usual, and are asking the citizens of Omaha to eat a bunch of new taxes to fund the financial mess that they have helped perpetuate. I guess what's one more million bucks or so of pain to the taxpayers of Omaha, when we are now buried under a sudden mountain of unexpected debt for the next 50-70 years? Oh yeah, good times in Omaha, good times indeed. My heart and prayers are with the girl and her family by the way. With the judgment capped at 1 million by state law for her, it ain't hardly enough to cover the expenses she'll be facing.

 

[Meyatch]

Oh yeah! My home town comes through again! Seriously, I feel sorry for the girl and her life changing injuries. While I hate that the incident happened, and the end results of it, it wasn't like there was no warning to the powers that were in charge back then, that it was potential disaster in the making before things happened the way they did. As far as Omaha having unresponsive city leaders when it comes to issues like this, in the face of constant warnings, it's pretty typical to say the least, as most citizens of Omaha can tell you. Memorial Park has long been a traditional sledding area in the winter time here in Omaha, thought I'd clear that up.

Do you know if the offending trees are still there?

 

[anyonefortennis]

Oh yeah! My home town comes through again! Seriously, I feel sorry for the girl and her life changing injuries. While I hate that the incident happened, and the end results of it, it wasn't like there was no warning to the powers that were in charge back then, that it was potential disaster in the making before things happened the way they did. As far as Omaha having unresponsive city leaders when it comes to issues like this, in the face of constant warnings, it's pretty typical to say the least, as most citizens of Omaha can tell you. Memorial Park has long been a traditional sledding area in the winter time here in Omaha, thought I'd clear that up.

On a seperate note, our city is also sliding towards bankruptcy thanks to the last few Mayors who were in the pocket of the firefighter and police unions, and the fat cat pension plans they signed off on. The last Mayor kind of kept quiet about the details of how rotten things really were finnacially during the last Mayoral election, which was fairly recent. He wasn't running himself, but you gotta' keep party unity going strong. The new, current Mayor and some of his City Council buddies, are still playing crony politics as usual, and are asking the citizens of Omaha to eat a new bunch of new taxes to fund the financial mess that they have helped perpetuate. I guess what's one more million bucks or so of pain to the taxpayers of Omaha, when we are now buried under a sudden mountain of unexpected debt for the next 50-70 years? Oh yeah, good times in Omaha, good times indeed. My heart and prayers are with the girl and her family by the way. Withthe judgment capped at 1 million for her, it ain't hardly enought to cover the expenses she'll be facing.

BTW - Here is said park and it's hill. Plenty of places without trees to go.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...id=sDx7DCdglayuNY5b7kQM9A&cbp=12,9.18,,0,2.37



Yeah - Omaha is in debt. Every town is in debt. The unions thing was quite pathetic IMO but as much as the locals complain about Fahey, he did great things for the city.