We the Jury Find......

[Neomet]

Shane, homeowners get gigged under the "attractive nuisance" doctrine. Restatement of Torts holds that a homeowner can be found liable if:

The place where the condition exists is one on which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and

The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children,

The children, because of their youth, do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in inter-meddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it

The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and

The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children

The Readers Digest version is that you as the homeowner best assume that children (age undefined by the way) are going to be attracted to anything children are attracted to and take measures to keep them away. And don't think this is limited to swimming pools. Think old cars, piles of rubble, that garage you are starting to build out back..... Overall a well intentioned but onerous doctrine.

JMHO

[xorbe]

You can't put a hole in the bottom of your door and then blame someone else ... and their pool lacked a proper fence ...

[mongoose33]

Originally Posted by Don

I gotta agree, from when my daughter was born until she burned herself on the woodstove, she was never out of sight when about more than 10 seconds. If she was about and crawling, we kept track of her. We weren't overbearing, just aware and we figured aware was just part of parenting.
Now about the woodstove: usually the heat is self limiting, so we did not worry about it. At the point where she decides to break thru her natural revulsion and come in contact with it, well that just reinforced her natural revulsion and no permanent damage done. Sort of from then on, she learned that our warnings had merit, and all was well and we did not watch her as close. Now that stretched our awareness lapse out to 1 maybe 2 minutes. Finally some free time!
When you are parents you have to give up your own world, and make sure someone else's world is safe.

We similarly managed our children, i.e, you're either going to be a parent, or simply someone who sired a child. Too many want to have children without accepting the responsibility to *parent* them.

I've long wished there were a way to teach children caution without permanently harming them. Like "slightly" burning themselves on a stove, or falling down 4 stairs instead of the whole flight, or playing in the street and getting scared by a car that happens upon them unseen and blows the horn.

Alas, it's hard to do that. So what one has to do is be a parent. And you hope against hope that the few times in which, inevitably, you fail, they won't be times in which the child is permanently harmed.

[nickb]

Who let's a 9 month old out of sight for even 2 seconds? Sorry, that is as sad as it gets and no one is to blame but mom or dad.

[jkontos]

Originally Posted by FatboyCykes

POWER PET, World's Largest Selling Fully Automatic Electronic Pet Doors

These doors have been around in some form or another for awhile now. For 300 dollars, it would've saved the child. Very sad story.

Ironically , the person in the video owns a pool...

[maustypsu]

That's who I think is more at fault when it comes to ruling on preponderance of the evidence in a civil case.

There's a term "Known Dangerous Propensity" that might come into play.

If your dog bites someone twice you are in deeper doo-doo (can't be all legal jargon), than you were when your dog bit someone the first time. In otherwords, you might have no reason to expect an attack from a dog you've owned for years who seems mild mannered. But the second time the dog attacks, you should have known it was possible.

[Carnivorous]

Originally Posted by maustypsu

That's who I think is more at fault when it comes to ruling on preponderance of the evidence in a civil case.

There's a term "Known Dangerous Propensity" that might come into play.

If your dog bites someone twice you are in deeper doo-doo (can't be all legal jargon), than you were when your dog bit someone the first time. In otherwords, you might have no reason to expect an attack from a dog you've owned for years who seems mild mannered. But the second time the dog attacks, you should have known it was possible.

Yep. If there's one thing you learn from Law & Order marathons, it's this: with dog bites and blows to the head, the first one's free!



(j/k)

[bham shooter]

Too little info to make an educated decision for me. I have shopped around for doggie doors before. We have a medium-sized fenced in backyard, and a back door out of our garage/basement that I want to put one on so that my dogs/cats can roam freely in and out during the hot summer months. They make them that are one-way, so that an animal can either get in or out, but not both. They make them with locks or covers, so that it is secure when you are not there so burglars can't use them. They even make them so that you have a special collar you put on your pet that only allows your pet to enter, to keep out raccoons/snakes/etc. So without knowing what all was involved, it would be hard for me to make a decision. Like others have said, if it was a faulty design and it was locked, yet the 9 month old was strong enough to break through, then I might be persuaded to side with the parents. Other than that though, I would have to side with the door manufacturer.

[CW45]

Parental negligence should NOT be compensated for by a third party. Winner...DOOR COMPANY.

Around 20 years ago in my state two children broke into a marked exterminators vehicle and ate some poisoned sugar wafers that were in the locked compartment they broke into. Both died.

They family sued and lost big time. They were hit with charges of a frivilous lawsuit and were required to reimburse the extermination company.

The family tried this under the "Attractive Nuisance" theroy of litigation.