We the Jury Find......

[ArmyGuy45]

door company
should of had a fence around the pool or not got a doggy door

[gsh341]

As sad as the death of that child is, the fault lies directly with the parents.

[Neomet]

Door company. I think that suit would have a hard time surviving a motion for summary judgement. I know of no alternative design that would let dogs in and out but not babies. You might as well sue the contractor who built your steps that your infant tumbled down.

Terrible case and we see a lot of these infant drownings in Phoenix at this time of year but to file suit against the manufacturer of the dog door just has no merit even if it serves to make the parents feel less responsible for their tragic mistake.

edited because I spell like crap at this time of night.

[thelongone13]

Door company, assuming they provided information with any sort of disclaimer. The reason we have all these damn disclaimers is... wait for it... stupidity. Unfortunately, the law allows those who are stupid enough not to know better to sue if there's no indication of the risks involved.

[Joeywhat]

Food for thought:

Let's say the door was advertised with a "child lock", which basically locks the door so a child (and obviously a pet) cannot use it. It's a simple lock that keeps the door from moving, so it's like a solid wall.

Said lock fails due to a poor design. The lock breaks off under low stress. So the child can easily push through the door when locked. The "child" in questions sounds reasonably mobile, and past the age where you keep them in site 24/7.

NOW who are we siding with?

The point I'm making is that we have about 25% of the whole story, so it's pretty hard to say who we can side on based on the facts given.

[thelongone13]

Originally Posted by Joeywhat

Food for thought:

Let's say the door was advertised with a "child lock", which basically locks the door so a child (and obviously a pet) cannot use it. It's a simple lock that keeps the door from moving, so it's like a solid wall.

Said lock fails due to a poor design. The lock breaks off under low stress. So the child can easily push through the door when locked. The "child" in questions sounds reasonably mobile, and past the age where you keep them in site 24/7.

NOW who are we siding with?

The point I'm making is that we have about 25% of the whole story, so it's pretty hard to say who we can side on based on the facts given.

Then, the parents. ALSO if the literature contained no disclaimers, the jury would possibly also find for the parents. Remember the McDonald's Coffee case?

[Groo]

There is no way in hell I would side with the parrents. people like that make me sick "everything has to be someone elses fault". Anything remotely dog sized can use a doggie door. The cat and wild racoons use the one in my parrent's outer porch. There are tons of stories of burglers using them. It should come as no surprize to anyone that this might happen.

[Myk9noseknows]

If doggie doors were 'childproof', this wouldn't have happened. Or, the dog door wouldn't work for the dog.

The family is at fault here, not the door company. If a man legally buys a handgun, but kills his neighbor with it, is the firearm company to blame???

NO! is the correct answer here boys

[thelongone13]

Originally Posted by Myk9noseknows

If doggie doors were 'childproof', this wouldn't have happened. Or, the dog door wouldn't work for the dog.

The family is at fault here, not the door company. If a man legally buys a handgun, but kills his neighbor with it, is the firearm company to blame???

NO! is the correct answer here boys

In an ideal world, you are correct. In our world of facetious litigants, the answer is to be determined. Unfortunately, I can see where the door company could be held at fault by the jury, but you know what? I don't think it's their fault. They're getting screwed.

[GI-Ant]

It's a sad day when we need to remind people to use common sense.[/quote]

That seem like everyday to me.