- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So how does New York City respond to the lawsuit? By suing the victim's grandmother, charging her with negligence.A little girl from Queens spent a week in the hospital, after severely burning her feet at a New York City playground.
So, why is the city suing her family?
Isabella Kern is 4 years old, and once again feels comfortable playing at Annandale Park in Forest Hills. When she was 1 ½ years old she was at the park with her grandmother, took off her shoes to play in the sprinkler and when she ran toward the slides her bare feet touched the black rubber matting.
"As soon as she had put her feet on this mat, ultimately the second that her feet had touched that ground it immediately melted the skin on her feet," said Chris Kern, Isabella's father.
Isabella spent five days at the Cornell burn unit and couldn't walk for nine days. Her parents are concerned about other kids getting burned on these mats that can reach temperatures of more than 160 degrees, so they sued the city.
You are not going to believe this story at all, but here it is:
So how does New York City respond to the lawsuit? By suing the victim's grandmother, charging her with negligence.
I have no words to describe this. Perhaps someone can come up with the proper words to describe New York's actions without being banned from DP? Good luck with that.
Article is here.
You are not going to believe this story at all, but here it is:
So how does New York City respond to the lawsuit? By suing the victim's grandmother, charging her with negligence.
I have no words to describe this. Perhaps someone can come up with the proper words to describe New York's actions without being banned from DP? Good luck with that.
Article is here.
They didn't sue the city because they were concerned about other kids getting hurt. They were sueing the city, because right after it happened, they saw dollar signs.
You are not going to believe this story at all, but here it is:
So how does New York City respond to the lawsuit? By suing the victim's grandmother, charging her with negligence.
I have no words to describe this. Perhaps someone can come up with the proper words to describe New York's actions without being banned from DP? Good luck with that.
Article is here.
Yeah, because I bet they didn't have any medical expenses or anything ...They didn't sue the city because they were concerned about other kids getting hurt. They were sueing the city, because right after it happened, they saw dollar signs.
Do you have proof that they are just opportunists or is this just another baseless claim? I can't speak for everyone, but if this happened to my kid you'd better believe I would sue the city.
Is there a new rule against expressing an opinion on this forum, or is this just harrassment? If there's a new rule, I would appreciate you directing me to it, because I definitely missed it.
I simply asked you to back up your claim. If you can't do that, feel free to ignore or report my posts rather than complaining about it. If you can't take the heat, don't discuss it. :2wave:
They didn't sue the city because they were concerned about other kids getting hurt. They were sueing the city, because right after it happened, they saw dollar signs.
You don't know that. You have no way of knowing that. What an asinine thing to say.
As a parent, I can say that we do look out for other peoples kids. It becomes part your nature once you have your own child. I can't watch shows like Law and Order any more where kids are put in harms way.
The article states that the girl was in the hospital for 5 days? Knowing how hospitals work, the burns must have been severe. And, knowing how big cities work, replacing all those mats could be pricey. But Bloomberg is mayor who banned smoking in bars and restaurants. Maybe if this story gets some traction, the suit against the family will be dropped, and the city will do the right thing.
They should be publishing the name of the contractor or playground company in every article if they really want to get some movement.
The way this story is being framed, unless grandpa was boozing at the park or hitting on a jogger, then it looks like bully tactics and big PR problem.
Ever heard of punitive damages?How much did they sue the city for? If was for a larger amount than what the hospital bill would reasonably be, then they were walking around seeing dollar signs, like Richy Rich.
They were like
Ever heard of punitive damages?
There's real damages here, and stuff which should be awarded past the medical bills. I don't think we have to go McDonald's coffee bad, but this is 100% the city's fault. They should have tested this, and a child got severely injured due to their negligence. It's most likely beyond that, but not provable, in that someone in the city probably gave a contract to some buddies, who put in this playground material. But that's speculation and is rooted in my inherent distrust of government. Also, I think most government is run like a mafia. Chicago certainly is.
Regardless, in what is being reported, the family did nothing wrong and everything was the result of the city. As such, they need to provide compensation and fix the playground problem.
It's not the city's, "fault". It was an accident. I doubt that anyone working for the city put that mat on the ground, knowing that someone could hurt.
Oh yeah, and I think in most cases punitive damages shouldn't be allowed. The laws governing punitive damages needs way more reform than healthcare, IMO.
Wanted to make sure ya'll saw the IMO. Did'ja?
The accident part is for criminal charges, no one is being charged with a crime. If it wasn't an "accident", there would be charges. But the city is still at fault, they put it in there without proper testing. They are liable for the damages, all of them.
That's a pretty ridiculous stance, but whatever.Oh yeah, and I think in most cases punitive damages shouldn't be allowed. The laws governing punitive damages needs way more reform than healthcare, IMO.
That's something we'll never know unless there's a trial, which is a pretty good reason to have one.It's not the city's, "fault". It was an accident. I doubt that anyone working for the city put that mat on the ground, knowing that someone could hurt.
In order for the city to be held liable it must be demonstrated through an objective standard that a reasonable person should have forseen such a possibility. That doesn't seem very likely.
In order for the city to be held liable it must be demonstrated through an objective standard that a reasonable person should have forseen such a possibility. That doesn't seem very likely.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?