We the Jury Find......

[SA-XD]

Originally Posted by PhxAz XD9

Laws state that if you have a child under six, you must have a fence around the pool in order to purchase etc. Here anyways. They shoulda spent the money on a fence for the child, but no they spent the money on a dog... I'm sorry for their loss, i have a teen. i couldn't live with myself...

Here in Michigan, you have to have a fence regardless. Unless you get a varience like we did. We have an automatic pool cover.

If you are thinking of putting in a pool i would advise on one of these covers. When you are away from the pool, you close the cover and nothing and I mean NOTHING can get in. The cover is attached to the wall of the pool on all sides and retracts into the end of the pool with the turn of a KEY. I have had 5 people standing on my cover safely, it could have held more. If you have children get one of these covers so this kind of thing doesn't happen.

[Cannibul]

Since pools are a huge danger to children and kill many more children than guns, and we know how dangerous guns are, I say we should require registration of pools. And not allow parents of small children to own pools.

Pools should be strictly controlled.

For the children of course.

[jkontos]

There's no WARNING LABEL on the doggie door?!?!?!? Are you kidding me?

What should the label read?

"Hey Stupid Consumer...this is a DOOR...doors are meant to allow passage through them in both directions. If you have a pool, well, deep hole, bear traps, landmines, active volcanoes, or a pair of scissors on either side of this doggie door, someone could get hurt!"

When the hell are we going to start holding people responsible for their actions? I'm very, very sorry for their loss [I have 3 children], but I would have made damn sure that my child NEVER was able to get through that door and into the pool. That is called being a responsible parent.

Stop blaming manufacturers for people's irresponsible actions.

Also, the fence law is to keep neighbors out of a family's pool, not to restrict the access of the property owners to the pool.

[jkontos]

Originally Posted by ArmyGuy45

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

Folks...think about it...a fence normally surrounds the entire backyard property, not the pool itself. Have you ever seen a fenced-in pool? Other than a community pool? A fence would not have prevented this loss of life. Attentive parents would have.

[jkontos]

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.

Joey...a 'lock' on a doggie door? So then what? You now have to manually open the door for the dog each and every time it wants to enter/exit the house? Why not hire a doorman for the dog?

Do you have children yourself? I have 3. Unless they are born on Krypton, crawling infants typically do not possess the strength defeat any 'child-proof' lock/product [cabinet locks/door handle covers/outlet plugs, etc.]

You're not considering a career as a lawyer are you?

[nateroach]

I have only read through the first page worth of responses, but I have to agree with every one else. There were numerous things that the parents could have done to prevent such an incident, and virtually nothing that the dog door manufacturer could have done. Granted, if it was advertised as a child proof door then you might have a leg to stand on, but as I read it parent (and people in general) are looking for someone else to blame for their short comings. It reminds me a lot of a case here in KC that a group of people are trying to sue a local gun shop for selling some one ammunition that was later used in a crime. It is not the gun shops job to monitor how every piece of ammo they sell is used. too many people think that nothing can ever be their fault and someone else should pay up for their mistakes.

[cypress]

This shouldn't even be a case. If you have a toddler you have to actively anticipate all the possible ways they can get into trouble. It's YOUR responsibility. I not only would side with the door company, I would want to see any lawyer bringing a case like this to court disbarred and if I knew about it, I would vote against any judge that didn't throw the case out of court. I'm so sick of people not taking responsibility for their own negligence.

[sneedb82]

Originally Posted by Shane77624

I pulled this from a different board and was curious about the opinions here since there is a wider variety of people. The post was written as such:

"I have a a buddy who is an attorney and we started talking about a case he heard about. If you were on the jury would you decide for the family or with the door company?

Here is the issue...

A family was at their house which had a pool in the back yard. Upon moving into the house, they had a company install a doggie door so their new dog could come and go. They also have a toddler.

While the parents were doing something for a brief minute or two, the baby who is around 9 months old...still crawling...got through the doggie door and accidentally drown in the pool.

Obviously the family is heartbroken over losing their baby. I would be devistated if I ever had to deal with losing one of my children. But, if the family sues the doggie door manufacturer, who would you side with?

As I understand it, there have been about 35 deaths of similar nature from this manufacturer and at this time they do not have any warning label on their door.

Would you side with the family or the door manufacturer. If with the family, how much would they be compensated and what else would the company have to do for warning labels? Or is the family at fault for not keeping an eye on the toddler?"

Side with the Manufacturer... even if there's a small bit of liability through previous incidences with their same door. The door was designed to work for small animals to go through the door... and unfortunately, the child did instead.

Oh, by the way... Thanks Shane... my fellow TBH brother

[.40-.45]

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.

plus add that the CEO of the company flew down is his private jet and shoved the kid through the door and tosed his favorite toy in the pool.

now i side with the family against said CEO not the company short of that, as terrible as this is for the people involved, i still side with the company.

[jkontos]

Originally Posted by .40-.45

plus add that the CEO of the company flew down is his private jet and shoved the kid through the door and tosed his favorite toy in the pool.

now i side with the family against said CEO not the company short of that, as terrible as this is for the people involved, i still side with the company.

You forgot to mention that "said CEO" hogtied the child's parents prior to shoving him through the door...