We the Jury Find......

[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?"

[TheBigc1234]

I'd side with the door manufacturer. Simply because there's no way to keep other things besides dogs going in and out of the door. Also the family should have a locked gate around the pool so there is no unauthorized access. But this is just like McDonald's cups stating "caution contents may be extremely hot." Its BS that people have to be warned about the obvious. Or for example a B and E suspect trips and falls and sues the homeowner. Personally though I would be with the Door people.

[DCSOXD40]

I'm siding with the door company. You can't blame them for bad parenting. The door did exactly what it was supposed to do. It allowed the entrance or exit of a small being. It's not designed to tell the difference between a child and a dog. It's just sad that the parents didn't have the forethought to realize that was going to be a problem.

[abjz71]

the family would be paying court cost for the manufacturer its sad that it happened but thats like suing the gun manufacturer because someone shot some one in your family. tragic but not the manufacturers fault

[carhartt]

I would side with the door company, because they didnt have anything to do with it. Seems like there might be something to it if the door company has had 35 incidents similar to this though.

Just the same, the parents are to blame.

[stbarsh]

a HUGE +1 to all of the above...

[Joeywhat]

There's really not enough to the story. All we know is that a small child crawled through a presumably working dog door, and that the manufacturer made no claims that it's "child proof" or anything.

What if the door were designed (or at least marketed) as a "child proof" door that would not allow children through the door? What if the door had malfunctioned in some way, allowing the child to go through? A lot of pet doors have locks on them to keep them closed...what if that had failed?

[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...

[MuddyAlaskanZJ]

Im going to have to chime in and say that I think its the fault of the family for not keeping an eye on their child. It is exactly what it is, the family could have blocked the doggy door with a cover (Most doors come with covers) and should have had a better watch on their child especially if they knew their child was a crawler.

[mongoose33]

When will people start being responsible for their own decisions instead of trying to blame their problems and mistakes on others?

Surely, the incident is tragic, but come on--is there no way these people could have anticipated this?

And furthermore, what good would a label on the door have done? I don't think the toddler likely would have been able to read it. The real issue is the family not monitoring the child, not the lack of a label.

I've written on this elsewhere, but the short version is that our society increasingly attempts to take risk out of people's lives. By trying to insulate people from risk and pain, our society teaches people that they shouldn't have to pay attention.

And that makes them vulnerable because they're not paying attention enough.

I just returned from Brazil--Rio, in fact.. Nice place, but not as regulated as the U.S. Sidewalks are uneven, made of a mosaic kind of brick, pieces set into mortar. In some places there are holes, pieces broken away. I'm reasonably sure that if you stepped in a hole and broke your ankle, you'd have little recourse there.

Accordingly, one learns quickly to watch one's step. In the United States, there'd be regulations and lawsuits right and left to prevent this kind of "problem."

Increasingly we attempt to relieve people of having to employ their native intelligence. My favorite is the one about the warning label on an iron which said "Do not iron clothes while wearing them."

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