PDA

View Full Version : Now this is stupid...



Matt700wlw
10-18-2006, 04:27 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003310579_webtagban18.html

minus5
10-18-2006, 04:44 PM
You're it!

cinredsfan2000
10-18-2006, 04:53 PM
While there at it why not ban all physical activitys for fear of Liability.:rolleyes: . Also why not cancel school lunches also while were at it you know somebody could choke on something or worse yet get sick from eating something served by the school .:rolleyes: Sigh what has this country become .

Matt700wlw
10-18-2006, 04:56 PM
People talk about how kids are fat and overweight these days...

Uh...hello?

Blimpie
10-18-2006, 05:04 PM
I guess eating paste is now out of vogue as well...

HotCorner
10-18-2006, 05:04 PM
What is a kid to do on recess? Sit or stand idly.

Back in the day, I used play soccer, football, dodgeball, basketball, playground activities and even experienced a little female "companionship" during recess. I was quite the "playa" in the elementary school. Man did that change. ;)

westofyou
10-18-2006, 05:37 PM
Playgrounds in the PNW are often under giant outdoor roofing systems.

Ltlabner
10-18-2006, 05:41 PM
100% silly. Guess what parents...kids will get mildy hurt and injured while they are growing up. That is part of life. When did children become so fragile?

Unless you plan on wiping their rear ends and cleaning their houses when your kid is 50 years old you better let them experience life a little when they are children and not build this rediculas wall of fear around them.

Yachtzee
10-18-2006, 08:16 PM
Anyone remember when breaking your arm was viewed as cool and everyone wanted to sign your cast?

bucksfan
10-18-2006, 09:37 PM
I thought this had to be a gag. Unreal.

Matt700wlw
10-18-2006, 10:46 PM
Maybe they should ban art class too....those scissors can hurt you....so can pencils....

You could swallow crayons and paint and get sick and glue makes you high...


P.E. is next...watch.


Can't forget about Science classes....things could blow up, and those scapels during frog and fetal pig disections....boy, those could put an eye out or cut a finger off...

Dom Heffner
10-18-2006, 11:55 PM
As someone who works in the insurance business, I can tell you I'm honestly surprised this didn't happen long ago.

Just picture yourself liable for all these things and suddenly you see it.

Would you insure a $500,000 house in Florida for $1,000 a year if you were responsible for paying the bill if a total loss occurred?

Would you insure a school that had 200 kids running around on a playground playing football with no protective gear on? Or tag?

It sounds like schools are getting uptight, but I think they are wising up.

dougdirt
10-19-2006, 02:12 AM
Schools are being uptight, but parents that sue the schools because little Johnny ran into little Sam and fell over need to be taken out back and roughed up a little bit. I am not old by any means (22), but we were allowed to play basketball, football, soccer, tag, dodgeball, you name it.... not once can I recall anyone getting hurt. Its a joke. People will sue anyone over anything these days. Ridiculous.

Ravenlord
10-19-2006, 03:58 AM
i dislocated my ring finger on my left hand at least 6 times over several years playing football at recess and basketball in gym. and rarely did a year go by where that would be the worst injury.

SunDeck
10-19-2006, 06:42 AM
Another Willett parent, Celeste D'Elia, said her son feels safer because of the rule. "I've witnessed enough near collisions," she said.

How many kids in the world die from near collisions every year?

No Celeste, YOU feel safer.
Here's an idea, put your kid in a plastic bubble until he's 18.

macro
10-19-2006, 12:00 PM
I have Carpal Tunnel from the time I've spent at this site. Boss and GIK will be hearing from my lawyers.

HotCorner
10-19-2006, 12:10 PM
Back in the 5th grade I had broken my left arm (chipped elbow) and was in a sling to begin the school year. Another boy in my class had broken his arm and was in a sling. So when it came time for PE the teacher told us we could not participate with the rest of the class. Makes sense right?

Well that same teacher made us stay inside in the gym (unsupervised) while the rest of the class went outside. We decided to play a game of one-on-one basketball despite the fact that both of us had a broken arm in a sling.

When the teacher came back in with the class, he was livid. That was the last time we were left unsupervised.

Thinking back I definitely see how the school could have been liable had one of us gotten injured although knowing my parents they wouldn't have sued but rather chewed me out for being a dumbass.

RedFanAlways1966
10-19-2006, 12:51 PM
They should start banning lawyers who represent people (see Donna Trevino) that bring frivilous lawsuits.

* Walking in schools... why? There seems to be a risk of twisting your ankle when walking. Stop it now!
* Eating... why? You might accidently bite your tongue or choke. Close the cafeterias!

Dom Heffner
10-19-2006, 01:41 PM
dodgeball,

If you can't see the liability issue here, you aren't going to anywhere.

The purpose of the game is to drill someone with a ball at close range.

Maybe we should just let kids box without gloves or protective gear. What's the harm in that?


* Walking in schools... why? There seems to be a risk of twisting your ankle when walking. Stop it now!
* Eating... why? You might accidently bite your tongue or choke. Close the cafeterias!


Let's be careful here. Not all lawsuits are frivolous. Donna Trevino is not the litmus test for schools being held liable for allowing unsafe conditions to exist.

The examples given above are not good ones, because people must walk and eat as part of their lives. They are not required to play football and tag and dodgeball.

To your point- if the cafeteria served food that made someone more likely to choke, then sure, they could be held liable.

Keeping kids from playing contact sports on the school's time is a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

Having loss exposures like that can drive up rates for everyone or cause groups- like our school systems- to become uninsurable.

I'll admit that having people like Trevino around does hurt the cause as well- insurance companies are going to limit what they allow because there are always people like her around, no doubt- but a legitimate liability risk is there without poeple like her.

Danny Serafini
10-19-2006, 01:53 PM
I feel so left out. I only had one year - 6th grade - where we even had recess. For the record we played kickball every day.

registerthis
10-19-2006, 02:37 PM
Ah, The Litigious Society.

To Dom's points...I hear what you're saying, and I agree that it's a school's place to take measures to adequately protect children. But it is a sad commentary on society when insurance liability concerns trump concerns over children. There are some inherently dangerous activities that I agree schools shouldn't be having children participate in (the splinter-riddled Big Toy at my elementary school comes to mind), but I would be curious to see how many--and what types--of injuries were incurred by children playing tag. There is an element of 'real world" preparation that I believe school have a duty to provide children. A safe environment is one thing, one where otherwise innocuous activities are banned out of fear of lawsuits and insurance troubles are another.

It's simply a shame that it's come to this.

LoganBuck
10-19-2006, 03:04 PM
Dom, dodgeball is not the same as it was years ago. Now they play with crummy nerfballs. Not the good old utility balls that we used to have.

A friend of mine broke his ankle jumping off the swings one time. The next school year the swings were removed. Coincedence?

As a society we need to get away from the litigation and the need to blame. Lawsuits are not necessary because a kid fell and broke their arm. It is part of growing up.

Dom Heffner
10-19-2006, 03:17 PM
As a society we need to get away from the litigation and the need to blame.

My opinion is that it isn't about blame but being accountable.

If we do as you suggest, what forces Ford Motor Company to place operating safety features on a motor vehicle? If they can't be to blame, there isn't any incentive for them to do things properly.

Burger King doesn't have to inspect their meat, Wal-Mart can leave their floors wet- I mean, please.

Perhaps you are saying that we need to get rid of frivolous lawsuits, but there isn't anyone who is for them, or they wouldn't be called frivolous.

It seems that what we are wanting is a place for our kids to romp and play without the chance of getting sued.

Not going ot happen, because there is always the chance that someone is being negligent.

Now- that doesn't mean that someone deserves a multi-million dollar settlement out of a broken leg, no.

But there is always the chance of death or disablement, and if someone is negligent in those cases, the should pay up.

Roy Tucker
10-19-2006, 03:34 PM
I asked my daughter about this last night. She said that generally the recess teacher breaks up anything that gets "too rough".

When I asked her about tag, she said tag is usually broken up because there have been too many kids that have been too involved in the game and have run full blast into other kids.

All the kids have to stay on the playground during recess and can't go out wandering school grounds. So space is a little tight and the kids have to be a little careful around each other.

But there has never been a pronouncement that tag is banned. It's a common sense thing.

LoganBuck
10-19-2006, 03:54 PM
My opinion is that it isn't about blame but being accountable.

If we do as you suggest, what forces Ford Motor Company to place operating safety features on a motor vehicle? If they can't be to blame, there isn't any incentive for them to do things properly.

Burger King doesn't have to inspect their meat, Wal-Mart can leave their floors wet- I mean, please.

Perhaps you are saying that we need to get rid of frivolous lawsuits, but there isn't anyone who is for them, or they wouldn't be called frivolous.

It seems that what we are wanting is a place for our kids to romp and play without the chance of getting sued.

Not going ot happen, because there is always the chance that someone is being negligent.

Now- that doesn't mean that someone deserves a multi-million dollar settlement out of a broken leg, no.

But there is always the chance of death or disablement, and if someone is negligent in those cases, the should pay up.

Negligence and disregard for public safety, is much different than a childhood game, that on an incredibly rare circumstance ends in broken bones. What negligence is there in a game of tag, and do not say inattention from playground monitors, because anything could happen while they are watching?

Dom Heffner
10-19-2006, 04:12 PM
What negligence is there in a game of tag,


Are these kids running around on a parking lot? In the grass?

Tell me where they are playing, and I'll come up with an area where someone could be negligent.

Ltlabner
10-19-2006, 05:00 PM
If we do as you suggest, what forces Ford Motor Company to place operating safety features on a motor vehicle? If they can't be to blame, there isn't any incentive for them to do things properly..

One way to force FMC to implent safety features is the good ole marketplace. If people want safety features, FMC doesn't offer them and people can get them elsewhere it woln't take a law suit for FMC to get the hint and implement them. There is most definatley an "incentive" for them to offer the safety features consumers want (and develop new technolgies that the consumers haven't thought of yet) beyond the sledge hammer of law suits.

I understand what you are saying about schools protecting themselves from the lugnuts that would sue because little jonny skined his knee on the playground. The shame is so many people view lawsuits as a get-rich-quick scheme that juries are not likely to introduce common sense and reject assinine claims because they want to leave the door open for when their chance at scads of cash comes along.

A teacher is neligent by leaving children unattended to go surf the net inside and little bobby breaks his arm? Definatley, they should be held liable and cough up the medical expences. But they shouldn't been on the hook for $5,000,000 for emotional trauma so mom and dad can retire early. Is a school negligent when they have a number of playground monitors and a child mearly gets injured in the course of normal childhood playing? Not a chance, IMO. Parents really need to cut out this fantesy that they will protect their child from any and all harms and that children are some fragile unit incapabile of dealing with the realities of life.

I just hate the idea that a school has to create this safety bubble so dear fragile little Mary can't possibly be hurt. Life involves risks. Get used to it. My kid gets hurt at school during normal playgound activities including tag, dodgeball, monkey bars, etc and I call that part of a kid growing up (unless, of course, the school really was negligent by not supervising properally, pushing the kid down, etc).

Mearly offering an activity that happens to result in an injury does not automatically mean the school is neglegent, IMO.

registerthis
10-19-2006, 05:50 PM
Tell me where they are playing, and I'll come up with an area where someone could be negligent.

That's exactly the point. Why have recess/phys ed at all? Kids could injure themselves while running, doing sit-ups, playing basketball--you name it. You're exaclty right--some nut could assign negligence to practically anything. And that is exactly the problem. The problem isn't the kids playing tag, the problem is the parent who would sue the school district if their child skins a knee or chips a nail in the process.

Dom Heffner
10-19-2006, 06:21 PM
One way to force FMC to implent safety features is the good ole marketplace. If people want safety features, FMC doesn't offer them and people can get them elsewhere it woln't take a law suit for FMC to get the hint and implement them.

This assumes that one company would take the lead.

What if one doesn't? What if they collude?

There's an entirely new can of worms that gets opened when you hold nobody accountable.

As well, why should people be allowed to be injured and killed until the marketplace figures itself out?

Dom Heffner
10-19-2006, 06:27 PM
The problem isn't the kids playing tag, the problem is the parent who would sue the school district if their child skins a knee or chips a nail in the process.


It's part of the problem, yes. But there would be instances where the school could be legitimately negligent.

The problem I'm having here is that everybody keeps reducing the risk to chipping a nail or eating or walking.

That is a big difference from what could be a legitimate injury.

Let me ask you this: if you were an insurance company, would you issue a general liability policy for a birthday party where kids would be jumping up and down in one of those inflatable gyms?

Ltlabner
10-19-2006, 06:43 PM
This assumes that one company would take the lead.

What if one doesn't? What if they collude?

There's an entirely new can of worms that gets opened when you hold nobody accountable.

As well, why should people be allowed to be injured and killed until the marketplace figures itself out?

Why would a company not attept to gain a competitive edge over their rivals? It's not rational to assume that all companies will stay at the status quo without the threat of legal action because companies will always seek increased profits. It is this persuit of profit that is the best motivator of innovation, not the courts, lawyers or insurance companies.

I'm not saying lawsuits aren't appropriate or needed, but to imply that they are the driving force in business innovation or product improvement is laughable. If anything, the proliferation of lawsuits has dampened product innovation and most certinally has driven up product costs.

I have no problem with lawsuits for true cases of negligence, but the defination of negligence has become so diluted that true cases of negligence are cheapened by the get-rich-quick types.

vaticanplum
10-19-2006, 07:01 PM
Red Rover is, as far as I know, banned at my elementary school to this day because I was such a tiny little five-year-old that when I came barrelling towards two people's clasped hands, I didn't have the strength to break them apart but was running so fast that I flipped over their arms, landed on my head on the ground, and passed out.

I personally found the whole thing fabulous because I got to leave school and get fawned over at the hospital while I was sent through the awesome x-ray machine. My family, not believing that my kindergarten teachers had any intent to break my neck, did not sue, but rather gave me some graham crackers when I got home and told me to go outside and play.

vaticanplum
10-19-2006, 07:05 PM
By the way, I know that this case has to do with "unsupervised chase games", but it's in kids' genetic material to play, and to play physical games (as it should be). If they're not allowed chase, they'll make up something else, and likely something just as "dangerous". They're not like us; they're not going to sit there are reason through possibilities until they hit on one that's not dangerous.

KittyDuran
10-19-2006, 07:30 PM
Red Rover is, as far as I know, banned at my elementary school to this day because I was such a tiny little five-year-old that when I came barrelling towards two people's clasped hands, I didn't have the strength to break them apart but was running so fast that I flipped over their arms, landed on my head on the ground, and passed out.

I personally found the whole thing fabulous because I got to leave school and get fawned over at the hospital while I was sent through the awesome x-ray machine. My family, not believing that my kindergarten teachers had any intent to break my neck, did not sue, but rather gave me some graham crackers when I got home and told me to go outside and play.When I was four and during the summer I followed my older sister and her friends to the elementary school playground. Climbed up on the monkey bars on the underside. Like vp I was pretty small for my age and climbing up that high was a challenge. When I got to the top my hands started to sweat and my grip slipped. Fell straight down on my back and knocking myself out cold. The next thing I remember is lying in my parent's bed with a rotating fan on my face and a cool washcloth on my forehead. I must have had a whopper of a concussion because my Mom said that I was talking (not crying) when my sister and her friends walked me home. :eek:

I haven't checked, but do they still have monkey bars at elementary schools?

Dom Heffner
10-19-2006, 07:32 PM
It is this persuit of profit that is the best motivator of innovation, not the courts, lawyers or insurance companies.


Actually, the pursuit of profit is what has caused many companies in the past to forego safety tests, etc.

More specifically, it's the pursuit of profit minus accountability that is the most dangerous mixture.

You're assuming that companies will make the safest products because that's what will set them apart.

There are countless examples of manufacturers not doing that.

KittyDuran
10-19-2006, 07:35 PM
I personally found the whole thing fabulous because I got to leave school and get fawned over at the hospital while I was sent through the awesome x-ray machine. My family, not believing that my kindergarten teachers had any intent to break my neck, did not sue, but rather gave me some graham crackers when I got home and told me to go outside and play.
I was always so jealous of my little sister because she would get into scrapes [drinking turpentine, getting hit in the forehead with a swing, flipping over the handlebars of her bike and hitting metal trashcans playing dodge 'em] because my parents would take her to the emergency room and she would come back with toys! I was especially jealous of the Fisher Price popcorn sweeper she got with the turpentine...:D

KittyDuran
10-19-2006, 07:38 PM
Schools are being uptight, but parents that sue the schools because little Johnny ran into little Sam and fell over need to be taken out back and roughed up a little bit. I am not old by any means (22), but we were allowed to play basketball, football, soccer, tag, dodgeball, you name it.... not once can I recall anyone getting hurt. Its a joke. People will sue anyone over anything these days. Ridiculous.I didn't worry about getting hurt at school - we played Ammunition instead of dodgeball in grade school. I was more scared of my sister, Freddi, than I was anybody else [except my parents, of course]. :p:

vaticanplum
10-19-2006, 07:54 PM
I was especially jealous of the Fisher Price popcorn sweeper she got with the turpentine...:D

That sentence is hilarious. I don't think I got any toys by the way. Bastards.

As far as I know schools do still have monkey bars. Though a lot of them are above padded ground now, not concrete or soil.

KittyDuran
10-19-2006, 07:59 PM
That sentence is hilarious. I don't think I got any toys by the way. Bastards.

As far as I know schools do still have monkey bars. Though a lot of them are above padded ground now, not concrete or soil.My mom wasn't paying attention to my little sister while she was ironing some clothes - so sis takes a clothes hanger and puts the hook part through the bottom of her mouth. Blood gushing everywhere. When she came back from the hospital she had a big teddy bear...:p:

Ltlabner
10-19-2006, 08:09 PM
Actually, the pursuit of profit is what has caused many companies in the past to forego safety tests, etc.

More specifically, it's the pursuit of profit minus accountability that is the most dangerous mixture.

You're assuming that companies will make the safest products because that's what will set them apart.

There are countless examples of manufacturers not doing that.

No assumption...fact really. Volvo didn't focus on making safe cars because of law suits. Milwaukee didn't focus on making rugid, reliable tools because of law suits. Kitchenaid didn't focus on making "status symbol" mixers because of law suits. They did this because it would set them apart from competitors.

Because some manufactures try to cheat and ignore safety in a reckless pursuit of profit doesn't change the fact that companies will not stay at the status quo unless a lawsuit prompts them. There are are forces in the marketplace that will do in, in addition to lawsuits.

Hoosier Red
10-19-2006, 08:17 PM
LT(or Mr. Labner if you prefer,)
You are assuming Volvo is the most profitable car company. What if a company could make a cheaper and more profitable car, and feel secure that enough people would still buy it, by being negligent about safety standards.

How many people do you think look at how a car graded in safety when purchasing it.

Ltlabner
10-19-2006, 08:24 PM
LT(or Mr. Labner if you prefer,)
You are assuming Volvo is the most profitable car company. What if a company could make a cheaper and more profitable car, and feel secure that enough people would still buy it, by being negligent about safety standards.

How many people do you think look at how a car graded in safety when purchasing it.

Ltlabner is fine by me. :)

In your example several forces will converge on the company that tries to cheat by being negligent about safety standards. Yes, lawsuits will be one of those forces. New regulations might be another. Still another is the market forces of people deciding that they don't want to sacrifice their safety to save a few bucks. I'm not saying lawsuits don't spur positive advances and keep companies in line. I was responding to Dom's assertion that they were the only force effecting companies.

How many people look at how a car graded in safety before purchasing it...? Well, let me ask you this....why would so many auto manufactures advertise their crash test ratings and safety improvements if it wasn't a factor in consumer purchases?

By the way, were airbags an innovation prompted by law suits or by auto manufactures trying to get an edge? I really don't know...thats a serrious question.

LoganBuck
10-19-2006, 09:15 PM
Are these kids running around on a parking lot? In the grass?

Tell me where they are playing, and I'll come up with an area where someone could be negligent.

That is the problem. Right there. Life is not without risk. I take a risk every morning when I put bread in my toaster. When I get behind the wheel of my truck, when I eat a sandwich, when I sit in a movie theater. You can seek to limit risk but at what point does living life, become a life not worth living. Imagine every morning you got up and did the safest thing possible, and followed every possible safety precaution, hedging your bets on minimizing all risk. You couldn't make it past the front door. I will encourage my child to play tag, change my own engine oil, and eat bacon and eggs for breakfast. Call me a radical.

Dom Heffner
10-19-2006, 09:23 PM
I was responding to Dom's assertion that they were the only force effecting companies.


I don't think I ever asserted this.

What I was saying is that if you take away accountability, you put people's lives at risk.

Some on here are saying that we can throw accountability out because the marketplace determines safety.

That's a dangerous viewpoint.

Again- the market can help improve safety in tandem with the people's right to recoup damages for manufacturer negligence.

If Ford Motor Company makes a car that explodes on rear impact, they ought to compensate the victim.

Ltlabner
10-19-2006, 09:26 PM
I don't think I ever asserted this.

What I was saying is that if you take away accountability, you put people's lives at risk.

Some on here are saying that we can throw accountability out because the marketplace determines safety.

That's a dangerous viewpoint.

Again- the market can help improve safety in tandem with the people's right to recoup damages for manufacturer negligence.

If Ford Motor Company makes a car that explodes on rear impact, they ought to compensate the victim.

Totally agree with this point of view.

Dom Heffner
10-19-2006, 09:34 PM
There are some instances where the marketplace doesn't affect consumer safety at all-

Did McDonald's lower the temperature of their coffee from 185 degrees down to the industry standards because of the marketplace?

Nope- they had to lose a court case and $450,000 before they would do so, even after 700 people had been burned by their coffee.

You take away the ability to sue and they can do whatever they want.

Yachtzee
10-19-2006, 09:50 PM
Are these kids running around on a parking lot? In the grass?

Tell me where they are playing, and I'll come up with an area where someone could be negligent.

And then one could say something like "Assumption of Risk," or better, "Kids will be kids."

Banning children's games because of tort law is just silly. Kids don't understand thinks like "duty of care" or "proximate cause." They just want to go out, run around and use up some of that energy they've pent up sitting in class. They need to get some exercise in anyway. If one can be negligent by letting kids play tag, they can be negligent letting kids play baseball, football, soccer, basketball or any other sport involving kids running around. At some point one kid is going to knock heads with another kids. It happens no matter how much padding you put on them.

People who would use tort law to punish others because their kid got hurt simply by playing with other kids run two risks:

1. A majority of other people in their state will vote to enact tort reform, thus limiting recovery for those who really have been injured by the negligence of others.
2. No one is going to let their kids play with that kid because they fear a lawsuit.

Yachtzee
10-19-2006, 09:57 PM
There are some instances where the marketplace doesn't affect consumer safety at all-

Did McDonald's lower the temperature of their coffee from 185 degrees down to the industry standards because of the marketplace?

Nope- they had to lose a court case and $450,000 before they would do so, even after 700 people had been burned by their coffee.

You take away the ability to sue and they can do whatever they want.

Yes, but be careful what you wish for. That McDonald's case where the lady was burnt when she drove with hot coffee in her lap got a lot of media attention. While it helped her recover and got McDonald's to change how it handles its coffee, it also turned off a lot of people who are now asked to sit on juries in personal injury cases. There's a feeling that people who sue for personal injuries are seeking a big payday for their own stupidity. It has also helped make the idea of tort reform much more popular. Anyone pushing tort reform just has to say "McDonald's case" and people automatically think "frivolous lawsuit."

Dom Heffner
10-19-2006, 10:14 PM
There's a feeling that people who sue for personal injuries are seeking a big payday for their own stupidity.

You're totally correct, but I'm not going to change what I believe to be right because some people paint things as they are not.

I wish more could be done to explain the level of negligence involved in these cases.

Talk radio has done more to give lawyers a bad name than anything.

If you really look at the McDonald's case, they got exactly what they deserved.


There's a feeling that people who sue for personal injuries are seeking a big payday for their own stupidity.

And some people do this, undoubtedly. It hurts people who are legitimately harmed through negligence.

Whenever I hear somebody railing about the McDonald's coffee case, you can see the wheels turning in my eyes....:)

GAC
10-20-2006, 07:49 AM
If you can't see the liability issue here, you aren't going to anywhere.

Spoken like a true personal injury lawyer! :lol:


The purpose of the game is to drill someone with a ball at close range.

And the purpose of football is to make physical contact and tackle someone.

In baseball, your kid might get HBP or catch a groundball in the mouth.

Running track? Watch out that you don't trip on them hurdles. And for heaven's sake!.... pole vaulting, shot put!.... what are you thinking?

And when you participate in school sports after school, it is considered as being on school time.

Everyone understands that there are liability issues Dom. Life itself is a liability.

It has gotten ridiculous and simply way out of hand.


Maybe we should just let kids box without gloves or protective gear. What's the harm in that?

It wouldn't matter if they did wear protective equipment. If somehow, they still got hurt, then there would be two lawsuits.... one against the manufacturer of the equipment, and the second against the school for using it.


To your point- if the cafeteria served food that made someone more likely to choke, then sure, they could be held liable.

Anytime you put something in your mouth that requires the act of swallowing, there is the chance of choking.

Personally - I think all school cafeterias should have discalimer signs simply because the food is terrible! :lol:


Having loss exposures like that can drive up rates for everyone or cause groups- like our school systems- to become uninsurable.

What causes them to be uninsurable are lawsuits (whether frivolous or legit), and stupid juries who hand down simply ridiculous monetary judgments. That is what drives up insurance rates, and makes people uninsurable.

Anytime a monetary judgment is handed down, rates are gonna go up.

I think of tort reform every day when I see numerous TV ads from personal injury lawyers.

Roy Tucker
10-20-2006, 07:58 AM
I think this is all a tempest in a teapot.

What the school did is ban *unsupervised* games of tag, touch football, etc. at recess. Leaving a mass of kids alone to play however they want after being cooped up all morning is just asking for trouble.

As long as the teacher keeps an eye on the game (i.e. supervises), the kids can play. Seems prudent to me. This district just made a policy of it. Again, a prudent (and wisely legal) move.

Did anyone read my post? In the real world, Mason schools stop kids from playing tag at recess all the time. It's a common sense thing. If the playground is too crowded, too wet, if the kids are especially revved up that day, whatever, the teacher says "not today gang".

Dom Heffner
10-20-2006, 10:50 AM
What the school did is ban *unsupervised* games of tag, touch football, etc. at recess. Leaving a mass of kids alone to play however they want after being cooped up all morning is just asking for trouble.


This is what we were referring to. No one was talking about supervised sports and sports with referees and pads and helmets.


Mason schools stop kids from playing tag at recess all the time. It's a common sense thing. If the playground is too crowded, too wet, if the kids are especially revved up that day, whatever, the teacher says "not today gang".

And thi sis perfect. I'm not saying let's not allow the kids to play- I'm saying that schools are correct in rethinking what they allow to the kids to do.

I just don't want to let the kids play whatever games they want and say "things happen."

That's not a very safe answer.

I'm not trying to make big bucks for personal injury attorneys- I'm just saying that they deserve the right to defend a child who is injured playing unsupervised or in unsafe conditions.

Ltlabner
10-20-2006, 10:58 AM
I'm not trying to make big bucks for personal injury attorneys- I'm just saying that they deserve the right to defend a child who is injured playing unsupervised or in unsafe conditions.

I don't think anybody would argue with that statement.

But that doesn't change the idea that a "movement" of sorts has developed that want to protect children from each and every possible harm and injury that could happen to a child. They want to broaden the defination of "unsafe" to include anything that could possibly harm a child. This hypersensitive overreaction to any concievable danger is more harmfull, IMO, than the actual risks.

It also doesn't change that some people abuse law suits and use them as a personal lottery system (and you recoginized this earlier). These yahoos cheapen the legitimate injury/negligence cases that are filled.

Matt700wlw
10-20-2006, 11:28 AM
Teatherball needs to go too....

if you're not paying attention.....OUCH

registerthis
10-20-2006, 11:48 AM
It's part of the problem, yes. But there would be instances where the school could be legitimately negligent.

The problem I'm having here is that everybody keeps reducing the risk to chipping a nail or eating or walking.

That is a big difference from what could be a legitimate injury.

Let me ask you this: if you were an insurance company, would you issue a general liability policy for a birthday party where kids would be jumping up and down in one of those inflatable gyms?

Not being privy to the litany of information that an insurance company may have, I can't reasonably answer the question. I know that there are plenty of companies that offer such a service, and ostensibly they are insured, so it's apparent that some insurance company has made the decision to.

I don't think people are trivializing the injuries that could be incurred by children, the greater point is that practically any activity requiring physical effort could cause harm to a child. Children on swings can fall off. Children who are running can pull a muscle or tendon, or could fall down and break a bone. Children playing in a sandbox could get some in their eyes and scratch their cornea. And so on and so forth. There isn't a single activity that doesn't involve risk on some level.

Now, perhaps games of tag have become more vicious and induce more physical calamities than they did when I was a child. Perhaps games of tag were resulting in unusually high numbers of injuries to children, and the school rightly banned an activity that had a great likelihood of causing harm. If so, then I could not fault the school for its decision. However, the article does not leadme to that conclusion. The only conclusion I am able to gain from it is that games of tag could possibly result in an injury to a child, and as such should be banned. To which, my response is: what couldn't? And if the potential for physical harm is now the litmus test of whether an activity can be deemed permissable, then schools across the nation would be well-served to ban physical activity of any sort.

Chip R
10-20-2006, 12:31 PM
Teatherball needs to go too....

if you're not paying attention.....OUCH


Gosh!

http://www.spacejunk.org/updates/2005/update_napoleontetherball.jpg

wolfboy
10-20-2006, 01:56 PM
Yes, but be careful what you wish for. That McDonald's case where the lady was burnt when she drove with hot coffee in her lap got a lot of media attention. While it helped her recover and got McDonald's to change how it handles its coffee, it also turned off a lot of people who are now asked to sit on juries in personal injury cases. There's a feeling that people who sue for personal injuries are seeking a big payday for their own stupidity. It has also helped make the idea of tort reform much more popular. Anyone pushing tort reform just has to say "McDonald's case" and people automatically think "frivolous lawsuit."

Good point. It is the first case people mention when "frivolous lawsuit" enters the conversation. The unfortunate thing is that the hot coffee case was a great example of how punitive damages can bring about a great amount of good. That woman had to have skin grafts on her waist and down. McDonald's had been warned over and over about that temperature. The coffee was much hotter than the other chains. The damages awarded were cut down significantly (IIRC) on appeal. In the end though, those punitive damages did what the market and the government (health dept.) could not do: get them to cool the damn coffee down to a temperature that wouldn't cause serious burns. Sometimes the public is quick to label a case "frivolous" without knowing anything of substance about the facts or the law.

The solution isn't entirely market driven, regulation driven, or litigation driven. It has to be a good mix of the three. If businesses behave poorly, we reasonably regulate to show them the light. If they decide to blatantly disregard the rules, then we sue their pants off. They may be able to ignore everything else, but they won't ignore a sudden hit on their wallet.

As to the recess thing: from what I have read on the subject (at least through IN and OH law), schools have a reasonable duty to keep kids safe during recess. Courts have stated that injuries that come out of common recess games like tag are reasonable. Dom, do you really think the societal expectations have changed so drastically that a court would make the school liable for injuries suffered during tag? If so, things have gotten really freaking weird since I was a kid.

GAC
10-21-2006, 07:02 AM
Not being privy to the litany of information that an insurance company may have, I can't reasonably answer the question. I know that there are plenty of companies that offer such a service, and ostensibly they are insured, so it's apparent that some insurance company has made the decision to.

I don't think people are trivializing the injuries that could be incurred by children, the greater point is that practically any activity requiring physical effort could cause harm to a child. Children on swings can fall off. Children who are running can pull a muscle or tendon, or could fall down and break a bone. Children playing in a sandbox could get some in their eyes and scratch their cornea. And so on and so forth. There isn't a single activity that doesn't involve risk on some level.

Now, perhaps games of tag have become more vicious and induce more physical calamities than they did when I was a child. Perhaps games of tag were resulting in unusually high numbers of injuries to children, and the school rightly banned an activity that had a great likelihood of causing harm. If so, then I could not fault the school for its decision. However, the article does not leadme to that conclusion. The only conclusion I am able to gain from it is that games of tag could possibly result in an injury to a child, and as such should be banned. To which, my response is: what couldn't? And if the potential for physical harm is now the litmus test of whether an activity can be deemed permissable, then schools across the nation would be well-served to ban physical activity of any sort.

You're right.

I can remember many a days when me, and many of my friends, would come home with banged up/scraped up knees and elbows from playing tag, kick ball, and one of our favorite activities (to impress the girls).... jumping out of swings to see who could go the farthest. :lol:

I still carry some of the scars on my knees to this day. I even had to get a couple stitches once in awhile. No big deal.

I grew up in Springfield, Ohio. One of the "bright spots" in that town is it's huge city park (Snyder). It's been there since the turn of the century, and has about everything (golf, tennis, shuffleboard, ball diamonds, and playground area).

Buck Creek runs thru the middle of it, so there is people fishing constantly. And feeding the ducks. ;)

Every kid in that city was raised on that playground.

About 10 years ago, some of the mothers got together (including my sister-in-law), went to the city leaders, and protested that all the playground equipment, that has been there for over 40 years, posed an extreme hazard to kids because of lead-based paint and the equipment design was now, all of a sudden, unsafe for kids to play on.

Of course I reminded my sister-in-law that we all (her included) were raised playing on that equipment, and seemed to survive the "ordeal" OK. And that the study on lead-based paint said it posed no harm whatsoever unless the kids were consuming mass quantities of the paint chips that came off the equipment. Simply being around it, once it dried/hardened, posed no hazard at all.

They ended up shutting that section down until the money could be raised to tear down the old equipment, and replaced with new and much safer equipment for their precious little babies! :lol:

Basically - anything that a kid could climb up on that had height - monkey bars, parallel swing bars, etc., was now prohibited. They lowered the height of swings so kids could not swing as high. They took all climbing equipment out of the huge sand box region, and basically put in a sawdust walk path with tic tac toe boards and "ground level" educational games for the small ones.

The merry-go-round, as well as all slides (they use to have some nice tall ones) were banned. Even the teeter tooters were taken out.

I use to love the merry-go-round.... that one that was low to the ground, and where everyone would sit on it while two or three boys would hold on, run with it, and get it flying round and round. Of course, when you got off, you all were almost getting sick at your stomach.

We had our family reunion at the park, next to the playground area, this past August. It just doesn't seem the same.

I took my Jarts so the kids could have something to do! :lol:

traderumor
10-21-2006, 09:39 AM
The irony (and hypocrisy) in all this is that the issue is "unsupervised" and, having hung out several times where kids are playing with my own kids, there are very few parents paying attention to what their kids are doing. I often have that tension of "do I say something to someone else's kid" but usually do when I see there is clear danger and the parent is not paying attention, all the while taking the risk that I will be considered a sexual predator for talking to their kid, lol. The play place at the mall makes me a nervous wreck as I watch kids climbing things while their parents are talking or sitting there looking into space. But while they're in another's care, if you aren't watching them every second and something happens--lawsuit.

Ltlabner
10-21-2006, 10:34 AM
The irony (and hypocrisy) in all this is that the issue is "unsupervised" and, having hung out several times where kids are playing with my own kids, there are very few parents paying attention to what their kids are doing. I often have that tension of "do I say something to someone else's kid" but usually do when I see there is clear danger and the parent is not paying attention, all the while taking the risk that I will be considered a sexual predator for talking to their kid, lol. The play place at the mall makes me a nervous wreck as I watch kids climbing things while their parents are talking or sitting there looking into space. But while they're in another's care, if you aren't watching them every second and something happens--lawsuit.

While this certinally isn't the case all the time, I think you do hit on something important TR. Through this whole discussion the focus has been on the big, mean and evil corporations and how they are held in check by lawsuits.

But when do the parents of these fragil children assume some responsibility for the injuries that befall their fragil little children. I routinely see children running amok in resturants. Now if a server were to trip over a child and drop a hamburger on them you know lawsuits would fly and the resturant would pay. But what level of contributory negligece can be placed on the lugnut parents that let the child run around in the first place?

Dom Heffner
10-21-2006, 01:14 PM
They ended up shutting that section down until the money could be raised to tear down the old equipment, and replaced with new and much safer equipment for their precious little babies!

It's as if there is contempt for people who want to help your kids be safe.

As for the Jarts thing- I remember when that controversy hit and I think everybody sort of woke up and realized that, hey, maybe a game where we throw flying spears isn't such a great idea.

I'm surpised GAC doesn't sit in his garage and sharpen them up- I mean, accidents do happen, don't they? Boys will be boys!!! :)

traderumor
10-21-2006, 02:40 PM
It's as if there is contempt for people who want to help your kids be safe.

As for the Jarts thing- I remember when that controversy hit and I think everybody sort of woke up and realized that, hey, maybe a game where we throw flying spears isn't such a great idea.

I'm surpised GAC doesn't sit in his garage and sharpen them up- I mean, accidents do happen, don't they? Boys will be boys!!! :)

They could make Jarts a video game, and you have these crazed gang members armed with the flying spears and show them underhand throwing them and have them landing on little old ladies, show blood gushing out of her head and drool coming out of her mouth. You could even have her jerking on the ground for realism, with points ringing up for each convulsion. Then they would be safe. BTW, I played Jarts quite a bit growing up at my grandparents house, apparent ignoramouses that we all were. They weren't sharp, the ends were rounded, I don't even know if they would have injured the family pet if one got away.

Maybe get rid of horseshoes too. Those things are heavy and a kid might be standing too close the pit and get whacked in the head with them. Where does it end? Billiards--gone, those balls are heavy and one can get hit by the cue ball easy enough when someone miss hits the bottom of the ball. The funny thing is that parents have promoted soccer for their little darlings as a "safe" sport, yet I have read about the dangers of heading the ball. A ban on tag is just a bit of overreaction, and in light of more pressing safety issues like keeping killers out of schools, students from shooting or stabbing one another (yep, in elementary) and keeping pedophiles off playgrounds and parents paying attention to what their kids are doing when they are in their own care, it rings a bit hollow, regardless of potential litigation.

GAC
10-21-2006, 03:34 PM
It's as if there is contempt for people who want to help your kids be safe.

Not contempt Dom. Just think it's over-kill and demonstrating a lack of common sense. Kids had been playing on that playground equipment, and similar playground equipment, all over this nation, and that includes those very same parents when they were kids, for the last 50 years. Now, all of a sudden it's a huge cause for concern.


As for the Jarts thing- I remember when that controversy hit and I think everybody sort of woke up and realized that, hey, maybe a game where we throw flying spears isn't such a great idea.

I'm surpised GAC doesn't sit in his garage and sharpen them up- I mean, accidents do happen, don't they? Boys will be boys!!! :)

They're made of a hardened alloy. No need. :D

Some outdoor games are not designed for kids Dom. Horse shoes for instance. They shouldn't be banned because SOME parents can't use common sense when utilizing them, as with any backyard game. Should they ban croquet because a kid could get a concussion with those mallets and/or hard wooden balls?

The fact is Dom... and as it has already been pointed out.... we (and our kids) take risks, and face liabilities everyday and in almost every activity we do.

Aren't you glad you Mom and Dad didn't make you walk around in a bubble? Or maybe they did? ;)

Ltlabner
10-21-2006, 04:01 PM
It's as if there is contempt for people who want to help your kids be safe.

But that's the key. You want to help keep my kids safe. How about this....why don't I keep my kids safe and you worry about yours? I'm not saying you feal this way Dom, but there are those out there who serriously think they know what's best for everyone elses child and want to impose their version of what is/isn't safe on others.

There's a fine line between helping the world be a little safer and creating a nanny society.

I don't know where that line is and that's pretty much the heart of this discussion. How much is needed to legetimatley keep kids safe and punish those who are truely negligent? And when does it become hysterical nanny-ism where every risk is viewed as a horrible threat and parents are deamed too stupid to decide for themselves what is acceptable risk for their children?

It's an interesting debate indeed.

Dom Heffner
10-21-2006, 04:25 PM
They could make Jarts a video game, and you have these crazed gang members armed with the flying spears and show them underhand throwing them and have them landing on little old ladies, show blood gushing out of her head and drool coming out of her mouth.

Video games are not live action activities, and are not comparable with what we are talking about. This is logical fallacy #1 of several introduced. I can hear the emcee warming up: "And now, herrrrrrrrre's the straw man!!!!"


BTW, I played Jarts quite a bit growing up at my grandparents house, apparent ignoramouses that we all were. They weren't sharp, the ends were rounded, I don't even know if they would have injured the family pet if one got away.

Then you weren't playing jarts. If the ends were rounded, TR, how on earth did they stick in the ground?

In a sense, we were all ignorant because I don't think anybody ever stopped to think what they were doing. The fact that you escaped injury free doesn't mean you were safe, it means you were fortunate. Jarts was an accident waiting to happen. Part of the problem is that we were playing a game that was allowed to be sold, and with that comes an inference that it is safe.

They wouldn't sell a dangerous game would they?

There were 7000 injuries reported with the game since 1978, so your argument that it could not hurt the family dog is crazy.

Look up jarts on google and refresh your memory about the points- they were fairly sharp.

The problem with the game was that no matter how you played it, an errant toss was still a projectile you wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of.

Also- people were taking them and throwing them straight up in the air and letting them come back down to earth.

Complicating the problem was that the jart was weighted so it could only land point first. If you threw it up in the air, there was a 100% chance of it landing with the point facing down.

As well- no one ever threw a jart from the point- they always threw it from the end, meaning it was going to fly through the air with the sharp point leading the way. Always.


The funny thing is that parents have promoted soccer for their little darlings as a "safe" sport, yet I have read about the dangers of heading the ball.

To compare a flying dart that was designed to hit its target with a sharp point to a soccer ball is a bit off base, wouldn't you agree?

I doubt you ever read a study comparing the dangers of the two.

I tell you what: you stand in front of a thrown jart and I'll "head" a soccer ball and we'll see which one is safer.

The one flaw in all of the comparisons you offer is that none of the sporting goods you describe has a point on the end: billiard and soccer balls are round. They aren't going to puncture the skin.

Sure a billiard ball travelling at a high rate of speed is dangerous but rarely do they ever do that. If the point of the game was to toss it at high speeds, it would have been banned, too.

Jarts land point first nearly 100% of the time, so at any speed they are dangerous.

As well, jarts are meant to be tossed through the air- you can't play them on a table as billiards is played. The distinction is that whenever jarts is played, there is a sharp projectile going through the air. Billiard balls leave the table, what, 1% of the time?

You are confusing what could happen with what is likely to happen and the difference there is huge.

As far as horsehoes go- the danger there is mitigated as there is no sharp point as well as the horseshoe does not land the same way all the time. You can just as easily get hit with a side as you could an edge. When's the last time somebody got punctured or impaled with a horseshoe?

Jarts land point down. Every single time. You can't throw a jart up in the air and get hit with the dull end. It doesn't happen.


ban on tag is just a bit of overreaction, and in light of more pressing safety issues like keeping killers out of schools, students from shooting or stabbing one another (yep, in elementary) and keeping pedophiles off playgrounds and parents paying attention to what their kids are doing when they are in their own care, it rings a bit hollow, regardless of potential litigation.

See, it isn't a "let's worry about this or that"- we have enough energy to worry about both (for those keeping score at home, that was the "either or fallacy" making an appearance).

You make it sound as though if there were any other danger to children that we couldn't even address it because there are more important things to worry about like sexual predators. We can worry about more than one thing at a time.

No one is trying to ban walking, eating, breathing.

The ban in the article refers to unsupervised play and as parents, I really can't believe you can't connect the dots.

Would you approve of an unsupervised jart game at your child's school?

I'm laughing here because people have suggested that we ban eating and other activites that are essential to life. Sure, there are risks involved with eating, but the alternative to it is that we die.

Life will go on without jarts. And unsupervised tag. No is asking that your children no longer play, they are asking that they play things that are more safe.

We've figured out that the risks involved with eating and walking around in life are miniscule in comparison to the risks associated with children playing unsupervised.

Yachtzee
10-21-2006, 04:50 PM
If you think soccer is safe, you've never played with Zinedine Zidane! ;)

Dom Heffner
10-21-2006, 04:55 PM
But that's the key. You want to help keep my kids safe. How about this....why don't I keep my kids safe and you worry about yours?

This assumes that everybody knows how to keep their kids safe.


I'm not saying you feal this way Dom, but there are those out there who serriously think they know what's best for everyone elses child and want to impose their version of what is/isn't safe on others.

And actually, I don't. My whole argument is this: if you are responsible
for a child's well being, then you can held liable in the event that harm comes to that child and your negligence contributed to that harm.

That doesn;t mean that any little scrape that comes about should spur a federal lawsuit. I'm just saying you're responsible.

If I drop my child off at your house and he gets a cut because you were letting him teach himself how to sharpen a knife, you can bet you're liable.

I do see how jarts was banned. A game where you take an object with a sharp point and throw it around the yard with other people, are you kidding me? That is a legitimate liability issue.

Ask yourself this: If you had a million dollars in the bank, would you use it to insure the manufacturer of a game like that against bodily injury liability?


They're made of a hardened alloy. No need.

GAC, somehow I think you are serious here, based on what I've read of your garage adventures. You are that neighbor, aren't you? ;)


Should they ban croquet because a kid could get a concussion with those mallets and/or hard wooden balls?

Croquet is not inherently dangerous. Jarts is.

The only way to play jarts is to throw the sharp thing through the air. We aren't shuffling the jart across the yard, it isn't round, it isn't inflatable, it has a sharp point, and it is designed to land point first.

Croquet is a game where you hit ceramic balls with a mallot, with not much force. Sure, you could really wack it, but again, it's round. It doesn't have a point. 99% of the time you'd get a bruise.

It's like comparing the victim of a boat and an airplane crash. The potential for injury just isn't the same.


The fact is Dom... and as it has already been pointed out.... we (and our kids) take risks, and face liabilities everyday and in almost every activity we do.

This assumes all risks are the same. There are risks in brushing your teeth and cleaning out your ear, but they don't compare with unsupervised contact sports.

Let's not get to the point where we just throw caution to the wind because we think everything is risky.

Trust me, you honestly don't think walking down the street is a risky proposition, even though there might be some risk involved.


that includes those very same parents when they were kids, for the last 50 years.

I know, and when I was a kid, only nerds wore helmets when riding a bicycle.

Now we realize just how stupid it was. You see people wearing helmets all the time now.

Just because other people did it, doesn't mean we can't learn from their mistakes.

I agree with everyone here that kids need games, but they can be any games, not just tag or jarts.

Just come up with some safer ones, that's all, or supervise the ones being played.

TeamCasey
10-21-2006, 06:13 PM
Don't you just have to touch the person in Tag?

Dodgeball was much more vicious back in the day.

The worst games we played, were played at home and often at night. "Kill the guy with the ball", " Bloody Knuckles", "Pansy Ball", "Capture the Flag" and this one where you had to throw a knife between someones feet. Each turn they had to move their feet closer together.

We also pulled sleds behind snowmobiles, had crab apple and BB gun fights, jumped from hay lofts, sledded on "dead-man's hill in to a frozen creek and dared each other to grab electric fences.

BTW, Jarts were quite pointed. I'm surprised more people didn't die from those things.

traderumor
10-21-2006, 10:55 PM
Video games are not live action activities, and are not comparable with what we are talking about. This is logical fallacy #1 of several introduced. I can hear the emcee warming up: "And now, herrrrrrrrre's the straw man!!!!"



Then you weren't playing jarts. If the ends were rounded, TR, how on earth did they stick in the ground?

In a sense, we were all ignorant because I don't think anybody ever stopped to think what they were doing. The fact that you escaped injury free doesn't mean you were safe, it means you were fortunate. Jarts was an accident waiting to happen. Part of the problem is that we were playing a game that was allowed to be sold, and with that comes an inference that it is safe.

They wouldn't sell a dangerous game would they?

There were 7000 injuries reported with the game since 1978, so your argument that it could not hurt the family dog is crazy.

Look up jarts on google and refresh your memory about the points- they were fairly sharp.

The problem with the game was that no matter how you played it, an errant toss was still a projectile you wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of.

Also- people were taking them and throwing them straight up in the air and letting them come back down to earth.

Complicating the problem was that the jart was weighted so it could only land point first. If you threw it up in the air, there was a 100% chance of it landing with the point facing down.

As well- no one ever threw a jart from the point- they always threw it from the end, meaning it was going to fly through the air with the sharp point leading the way. Always.



To compare a flying dart that was designed to hit its target with a sharp point to a soccer ball is a bit off base, wouldn't you agree?

I doubt you ever read a study comparing the dangers of the two.

I tell you what: you stand in front of a thrown jart and I'll "head" a soccer ball and we'll see which one is safer.

The one flaw in all of the comparisons you offer is that none of the sporting goods you describe has a point on the end: billiard and soccer balls are round. They aren't going to puncture the skin.

Sure a billiard ball travelling at a high rate of speed is dangerous but rarely do they ever do that. If the point of the game was to toss it at high speeds, it would have been banned, too.

Jarts land point first nearly 100% of the time, so at any speed they are dangerous.

As well, jarts are meant to be tossed through the air- you can't play them on a table as billiards is played. The distinction is that whenever jarts is played, there is a sharp projectile going through the air. Billiard balls leave the table, what, 1% of the time?

You are confusing what could happen with what is likely to happen and the difference there is huge.

As far as horsehoes go- the danger there is mitigated as there is no sharp point as well as the horseshoe does not land the same way all the time. You can just as easily get hit with a side as you could an edge. When's the last time somebody got punctured or impaled with a horseshoe?

Jarts land point down. Every single time. You can't throw a jart up in the air and get hit with the dull end. It doesn't happen.



See, it isn't a "let's worry about this or that"- we have enough energy to worry about both (for those keeping score at home, that was the "either or fallacy" making an appearance).

You make it sound as though if there were any other danger to children that we couldn't even address it because there are more important things to worry about like sexual predators. We can worry about more than one thing at a time.

No one is trying to ban walking, eating, breathing.

The ban in the article refers to unsupervised play and as parents, I really can't believe you can't connect the dots.

Would you approve of an unsupervised jart game at your child's school?

I'm laughing here because people have suggested that we ban eating and other activites that are essential to life. Sure, there are risks involved with eating, but the alternative to it is that we die.

Life will go on without jarts. And unsupervised tag. No is asking that your children no longer play, they are asking that they play things that are more safe.

We've figured out that the risks involved with eating and walking around in life are miniscule in comparison to the risks associated with children playing unsupervised.I find it interesting that you are pointing out logical fallacies in the same thread that you introduced Jarts into a debate on the dangers of tag. :laugh:

GAC
10-22-2006, 07:46 AM
GAC, somehow I think you are serious here, based on what I've read of your garage adventures. You are that neighbor, aren't you? ;)

I lost my Jarts in the house fire last year. I've have been trying to get another set since. On the net there are some sites that sell them, and you pay anywhere from $75-$125. A buddy of mine, who frequents alot of garage sales and auctions, found me an original/mint set of Jart - the Missle Game. Cost me $40.

My kids are 17, 15, and 10. We play all the yard games discussed on here, and none of my kids have ever suffered an injury. Games like Jarts and horse shoes ARE ADULT GAMES, and require adult supervision if you allow your kids to play. Says so right on the box and in the directions. And they get it from me.

The risks may not be the same Dom, as all games are designed differently. But there is still the very same potential for injury which occurs 99.9% of the time simply because rules regarding the safe handling and usage, as dictated by the manufacturer, are not followed/honored. There are explicit warnings and safety concerns about improper behavioral misuse.

And that is with any outdoor yard game.

So. if me and/or my kids get injured playing one of these games, and it was because we ignored those warnings on proper usage which resulted in the injury.... is the manufacturer still liable?



Croquet is not inherently dangerous. Jarts is.

Did you ever have a dart board or BB gun when you were a kid? They still sell them. Why?



I know, and when I was a kid, only nerds wore helmets when riding a bicycle.

Now we realize just how stupid it was. You see people wearing helmets all the time now.

The helmet didn't make them nerds. The helmet was simply an outward physical manifestation of the inward inherent trait! :lol:

Now them same nerds are adults and trying to make the rules for everyone else. ;)

Dom Heffner
10-22-2006, 06:03 PM
I find it interesting that you are pointing out logical fallacies in the same thread that you introduced Jarts into a debate on the dangers of tag.

GAC brought up the Jarts, I believe.

And the thread isn't about the dangers of tag per se. The discussion has evolved into the realm of responsibility for accidents that occur when we play games.

You compared a round inflatable ball to a sharp object that flies through the air.


The risks may not be the same Dom, as all games are designed differently. But there is still the very same potential for injury which occurs 99.9% of the time simply because rules regarding the safe handling and usage, as dictated by the manufacturer, are not followed/honored. There are explicit warnings and safety concerns about improper behavioral misuse.


The risks are inherently higher with Jarts. Even if you play it by the rules. Nobody means to let one of those things fly and hit somebody, but there's only one way to play it and that is to toss a giant flying dart across the yard. It's a giant liability issue no matter how careful you are.

There is simply no other game like it.

Regular darts involves throwing them through the air, yes, but they are tossing them at a board that is connected to a wall. Errant throws simply hit the wall, not people. It's impossible to stand behind the dart board because it is attached to a wall. You can stand behind the Jarts' targets, however.

Not sure what games you played as a kid, but I never played one with a BB gun. That's a different scenario altogether.


So. if me and/or my kids get injured playing one of these games, and it was because we ignored those warnings on proper usage which resulted in the injury.... is the manufacturer still liable?

It all depends on the situation, GAC. What if you were playing by the rules and a toss accidentally got away from you?

I'm not saying they are liable for every single thing that happens. What I am saying is that there is an inherent risk involved with Jarts and a company that made them would be uninsurable. End of story.

On a side note, manufacturers cannot waive liability through written warnings. The writing you see in most warnings is just pretty words on paper.

If I put a "Beware of Dog" sign in my front yard it doesn't mean I'm off the hook liability wise. I have a responsibility to make my yard safe, even if I throw up a No Trespassing sign.

It's the same with games like Jarts. To think that a product will only be used as intended is a bit naive. Sure, in perfect conditions and a majority of the time, Jarts is a safe game.

But people aren't perfect, and the public should expect for a manufacturer to create a game that is safe in conditions outside the rules to an extent.

Parents don't always supervise childen and children don't always play by the rules. You know that, I know that and certainly the manufacturer knows that. And if they know that, it's their job to make the game reasonably safe in those conditions.

If the standard was simply "follow the rules and you won't get hurt," then the manufacturer of Jarts could put sharp knife blades on the end and say, "Here ya go...if you get cut it means you didn't follow the rules."

Ltlabner
10-22-2006, 06:28 PM
Parents don't always supervise childen and children don't always play by the rules. You know that, I know that and certainly the manufacturer knows that. And if they know that, it's their job to make the game reasonably safe in those conditions.

Again, I think that is key to the debate...what is "reasonably safe"? And who decides what is reasonably safe?

Part of the "who" is a combination of the legal system, regulations and the marketplace. For the most part I have no problems with any of these groups. There will always be weird cases but for the most part these systems work.

It's the self appointed "safety police" that frankly, I have no use for. Do-gooders who take it upon themselves to impose what they think is safe on others. You used the word "contempt" and I guess that is how I view them. I'd prefer they worry about their own kids and leave it up to me to worry about mine.

Dom Heffner
10-22-2006, 06:39 PM
Again, I think that is key to the debate...what is "reasonably safe"? And who decides what is reasonably safe?


It's really not that tough to answer.

They don't have to point to the exact line between what is reasonable and what is not to come to a good conclsuion.


You may not be talking about Jarts, but if you merely change the direction you throw them - straight up into the air instead of forward- they become very dangerous items. For me, that's reason enough to no longer allow them to be sold.

We didn't have to find at what point they became unreasonably safe, we just look at the above scenario and can see it.


I'd prefer they worry about their own kids and leave it up to me to worry about mine.

I know what you are saying- you do a good job with your kids and you don't want to be told how to raise them.

The problem is that everybody doesn't. Blame them.

Ltlabner
10-22-2006, 06:44 PM
It's a tough question to answer, but it has to be asked. They do it in murder cases with "reasonable" doubt. You always don't get the result you want, but it's better than saying "with absolutely no doubt" or "only when full of doubt."

You may not be talking about Jarts, but if you merely change the direction you throw them - straight up into the air instead of forward- they become very dangerous items. For me, that's reason enough to no longer allow them to be sold.

I know what you are saying- you do a good job with your kids and you don't want to be told how to raise them.

The problem is that everybody doesn't. Blame them.


I was just speaking in general, not a specific product.

I hear you that some parents don't do a good job protecting their kids. But in many cases the liability seems to find it's way back to the manufacturer and doesn't seem to rest on parental neglegect, endangering a minor, etc. Maybe because it's easier to blame a nameless corporation instead of looking back at the parent of an injured child? Maybe it's because the corporation has deep pockets and juries find it easier to take money from them because "they have more than they need anyway".

It's in those cases that it's a shame that parents aren't held liable for basically being ignorant.

OldRightHander
10-22-2006, 06:49 PM
How many games or toys could we make a case for banning because of safety reasons? Let's see.

1. Baseballs and bats. A hard hit baseball can be a dangerous thing.

2. BB guns. I don't think I need to elaborate.

3. Fishing equipment. Hooks on the end of a line that can be carelessly cast. Need I say more?

The list could go on and on. I'm not going to sit here and debate jarts, but just about anything can present a danger if used improperly. Then again, some things can be dangerous even if used properly, as in baseballs. I think what a lot of people resent is a lack of personal responsibility that seems to be prevalent today. Folks just want to find someone else to blame for darn near everything. Nobody ever just says, "That was my fault." Was McDonalds' coffee too hot? Perhaps, but don't you bear some of the responsibility if you spill it on yourself? Ever heard of cupholders?

The other day I was using one of my power tools (not standing on any chairs this time) and I noticed that it had a label warning against using it immersed in water. Come on, what kind of moron would do that? Well, if some moron hadn't done that once, and then wanted money for his own stupidity, that label probably wouldn't be there.

No, I don't think people shouldn't have the right to sue if there is a blatant case of negligence on the part of a company, but sometimes it goes a bit too far. Maybe instead of trying to remove every possible danger from our children's lives we should be teaching them how to take personal responsibility for their own actions.

GAC
10-23-2006, 06:54 AM
The list could go on and on. I'm not going to sit here and debate jarts, but just about anything can present a danger if used improperly. Then again, some things can be dangerous even if used properly, as in baseballs. I think what a lot of people resent is a lack of personal responsibility that seems to be prevalent today. Folks just want to find someone else to blame for darn near everything.

Bingo! :thumbup:



No, I don't think people shouldn't have the right to sue if there is a blatant case of negligence on the part of a company, but sometimes it goes a bit too far. Maybe instead of trying to remove every possible danger from our children's lives we should be teaching them how to take personal responsibility for their own actions.

I agree, but that is hard to do when there are alot of parents who are still "children" and have no concept of personal responsibility and accountablity. So how are they gonna teach it to their children?

Roy Tucker
10-23-2006, 07:31 AM
-- One of the great joys of growing up in the original Tucker family was that you had to be constantly alert. My brothers and I constantly looked for times when one of us wouldn't be looking and then we chuck some object at them to see if they could react in time to catch it (or duck).

Well, we were playing crocquet once and one of us tossed a crocquet ball at my oldest brother (maybe not tossed, it got *thrown*). He didn't see it coming and the *thwock* sound that got made reminded me a bowling ball getting dropped onto concrete from a good distance (of course, we never did that :) ). After he staggered around for an hour mumbling and speaking in tongues, we figured there may be something wrong. Took him to the ER where we found he had a fairly serious concussion.

-- In 2nd grade, a young Roy was playing on the merry-go-round at recess. The one were you can push it around at high speeds and jump on and ride. The young Roy ran to jump on to ride whereupon something went seriously awry. My foot got caught, my leg torqued around, and my femur went *pop*. Busted that sucker clean in half with the bone stuck out of my leg. The gym teacher carried me to the nurses office where they called my mom to come get me. She had to take me to the hospital with a compound fracture to the femur (a reall big bone). I was in a cast from the tip of my toes to up under my armpits (they had to immobilize my hip) for about 3 months. My left leg is still about 1/2 inch shorter than my right with a pretty serious dent in it from the site of the break.

If this were to happen now, the school would have gotten sued from here to Sunday for having the merry-go-round and for the way they just dumped me on my mom.

westofyou
10-23-2006, 11:06 AM
Originally Posted by OldRightHander View Post
The list could go on and on. I'm not going to sit here and debate jarts

I know a guy who tossed one and it went through his brothers foot... the same brother who I threw a dart and he stepped in front of it and it stuck to his leg, the same brother who had his leg broken when were playing Superman and he was still crawling around the room, also the same brother who used swing on the giant vine with us above cars that zoomed down the road in front of his house.

All this occured before we were 12 too.

Roy Tucker
10-23-2006, 11:33 AM
I know a guy who tossed one and it went through his brothers foot... the same brother who I threw a dart and he stepped in front of it and it stuck to his leg, the same brother who had his leg broken when were playing Superman and he was still crawling around the room, also the same brother who used swing on the giant vine with us above cars that zoomed down the road in front of his house.

All this occured before we were 12 too.


Jarts gone bad...

http://cellar.org/2006/javelinaccident.jpg

Dom Heffner
10-23-2006, 11:39 AM
but just about anything can present a danger if used improperly.

And some things present a danger even when used properly and that was part of the discussion.

All dangers are not equal. A golf ball is less dangerous than a jart.


Folks just want to find someone else to blame for darn near everything.

And some folks think that no one is ever to blame. It's all about personal responsibility until it happens to them.


Was McDonalds' coffee too hot? Perhaps, but don't you bear some of the responsibility if you spill it on yourself? Ever heard of cupholders?


The coffee was kept at 185 degrees- 30 degrees more than other restaurants- and McDonald's was warned everal times. They refused.

Do people drink from cupholders? I may be naive here, but when you buy coffee to drink does McDonald's place it in your cupholder for you and then it just sits there? Last time I checked, they hand the coffee to you and then you place it in the cupholder. What if you spill it while putting it in the cupholder? What if you spill it when you drink it?

The lady received severe burns- she had to have skin grafts, for pete's sake- and all she asked for was her medical bills to be paid. McDonald's refused.

The lady's leg's, rear, and private areas were burned. You can blame her all day for that, but I think she should be able to make a mistake and be safe don't you? It's not like she's dealing with a loaded gun, she's getting a cup of coffee- a cup of coffee that you can't even drink at 185 degrees.

Again- McDonald's cannot waive their liability with pretty words on a cup. That would be like Ford making a car with no seat belts and writing "Not responsible for injuries sustained in an accident."

McDonald's puts warning on their apple pies that the filling is hot, right? Does that mean they can make the filling as hot as they want and it's my fault if I get burned?

It is not reasonable to expect that every single cup of coffee that goes into a car will not be spilled. There will always be a percentage of accidents, and you know it, I know it, and McDonald's knows it and all they had to do was lower the temp to prevent it.

You see, you shouldn't serve food at a temperature that if someone has an accident with it it gives them third degree burns on their body.

They paid dearly as well they should have.

Does the lady deserve all that money? It's debatable. But you know what? It finally got the boneheads at McDonald's to lower the temp of the coffee. They wouldn't have done it if they were only held liable for her physical injuries.

registerthis
10-23-2006, 01:20 PM
And some things present a danger even when used properly and that was part of the discussion.

All dangers are not equal. A golf ball is less dangerous than a jart.

Tell that to the friends of my parents, whose son was struck on the side of the head by a golf ball, thus permanently damaging his brain. I'm not entirely sure jarts are worse than golf balls, honestly.

Ltlabner
10-23-2006, 01:24 PM
The coffee was kept at 185 degrees- 30 degrees more than other restaurants- and McDonald's was warned everal times. They refused..

I've tried to avoid arguing over specific products or scenarios and stick to the disucission of personal responsibility versus negligence and liability. But I had to jump in here.

You make a point that a burn from 185 degree coffee as being totally unacceptable because it was 30 degrees hotter than other resturant chains coffee. But my question is, if the lady had burned herself with 155F coffee would McD's not be liable? Would it be ok because that is the defacto industry standard (155F).

I ask because the standard seems to be that the 30F temprature difference is what made McD's liable. To my way of thinking, coffee is designed to be consumed hot. Any coffee served fresh is likely to burn you and caution should be exercised. Putting hot coffee between your legs, in an automobile is not very wise at all and is likely to burn you whether it's 155F or 185F.

So while you deam it excessive for the coffee to be 185F I see it as a burn either way and perhaps the woman should have not be so careless with her coffee.

GAC
10-23-2006, 01:42 PM
-- One of the great joys of growing up in the original Tucker family was that you had to be constantly alert. My brothers and I constantly looked for times when one of us wouldn't be looking and then we chuck some object at them to see if they could react in time to catch it (or duck).

Well, we were playing crocquet once and one of us tossed a crocquet ball at my oldest brother (maybe not tossed, it got *thrown*). He didn't see it coming and the *thwock* sound that got made reminded me a bowling ball getting dropped onto concrete from a good distance (of course, we never did that :) ). After he staggered around for an hour mumbling and speaking in tongues, we figured there may be something wrong. Took him to the ER where we found he had a fairly serious concussion.

-- In 2nd grade, a young Roy was playing on the merry-go-round at recess. The one were you can push it around at high speeds and jump on and ride. The young Roy ran to jump on to ride whereupon something went seriously awry. My foot got caught, my leg torqued around, and my femur went *pop*. Busted that sucker clean in half with the bone stuck out of my leg. The gym teacher carried me to the nurses office where they called my mom to come get me. She had to take me to the hospital with a compound fracture to the femur (a reall big bone). I was in a cast from the tip of my toes to up under my armpits (they had to immobilize my hip) for about 3 months. My left leg is still about 1/2 inch shorter than my right with a pretty serious dent in it from the site of the break.

If this were to happen now, the school would have gotten sued from here to Sunday for having the merry-go-round and for the way they just dumped me on my mom.

Excellent point on the merry-go-round issue. I've had similar situation growing up, though I've never had any broken bones, and the first thing to come in my parent's mind was "Who to sue?" ;)

But your household sounds alot like our household with three very honery boys growing up. We were always finding new ways to maime each other while "playing".

We loved having dirt clod fights. Them things hurt! :lol:

GAC
10-23-2006, 02:05 PM
I've tried to avoid arguing over specific products or scenarios and stick to the disucission of personal responsibility versus negligence and liability. But I had to jump in here.

You make a point that a burn from 185 degree coffee as being totally unacceptable. But my question is, if the lady had burned herself with 155F coffee would McD's not be liable? Would it be ok because that is the defacto industry standard (155F).

I ask because the standard seems to be that the 30F temprature difference is what made McD's liable. To my way of thinking, coffee is designed to be consumed hot. Any coffee served fresh is likely to burn you and caution should be exercised. Putting hot coffee between your legs, in an automobile is not very wise at all and is likely to burn you whether it's 155F or 185F.

So while you deam it excessive for the coffee to be 185F I see it as a burn either way and perhaps the woman should have not be so careless with her coffee.

This elderly woman was originally awarded 3 Mil by the jury.... $200,000.00 in compensatory damages (to compensate her for past and future pain, suffering, emotional distress, lost wages, medical bills, etc) and $2,700,000.00 in punitive damages.

The award of compensatory damages was reduced by the plaintiff's twenty percent of fault. The judge reduced the award of punitive damages to $480,000.00 or three times the compensatory damage award. The case settled for an undisclosed amount before it was appealed.

Her situation fell under the body of laws known as product liability.

Here is an good article on the situation.....

http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Oct/1/130834.html

I can understand McDonalds having to pay for all applicable medical expenses, and if also applicable, lost wages from work.

What bother me are the punitive damages, damages awarded to a plaintiff in excess of compensatory damages in order to punish the defendant.

It's this "pain and suffering" issue... and I love the "emotional distress" aspect.... where over-the-top and excessively large judgments are handed out that alot of people question because it is not only "punitive" to that defendant, but to also each of us who have to possess/purchase insurance. Someone is going to pay "down the line", and that is each of us.

People say they love it when the "Big Guy" gets burned. But that Big Guy is gonna pass that cost on to us in some shape or fashion. So who really is paying? ;)

I am not going to make a generalized statement and say that all these situations are wrong; but I think alot of us would agree that when we read about cases like this, we see them more as someone trying to score a "payday" far more then trying to correct an unsafe situation.

Dom Heffner
10-23-2006, 02:15 PM
Tell that to the friends of my parents, whose son was struck on the side of the head by a golf ball, thus permanently damaging his brain. I'm not entirely sure jarts are worse than golf balls, honestly.

I'm not saying a golf ball cannot be dangerous- I'm saying it isn't likely to be.

That's terrible to hear about your friend. I don't think golf balls are a dangerous item, still.


Putting hot coffee between your legs, in an automobile is not very wise at all and is likely to burn you whether it's 155F or 185F.


The difference is the degree of burn- she received third degree injuries, so not sure 155 degree coffee would do that kind of damage. I don't know- it would seem that if that you would get third degree burns from 155 degree coffee anyway, then that would have been a terrific point for the lawyers of McDonald's to bring up.

However- I haven't seen any lawsuits over 155 degree coffee...would be interesting to look up.

registerthis
10-23-2006, 02:48 PM
I'm not saying a golf ball cannot be dangerous- I'm saying it isn't likely to be.

That's terrible to hear about your friend. I don't think golf balls are a dangerous item, still.

But I think that's the point being made here, Dom. In theory, I agree with you--a golf ball is not an inherently dangerous item. The vast majority of people can--and do--use it safely every day. But, unfortunately, there are times when the ball can become practically lethal. In the case of the child I used in my example, he was on a golf course as part of a junior golf league event. He was stading idly on a fairway, when a ball errantly hit from another hole struck him on the side of the head. He's actually fortunate he wasn't killed.

I use this admittedly extreme example only to show that even the most seemingly benign objects and activities can be dangerous--even under careful adult supervision. Now, as I said earlier, it's possible that the games of tag which were banned were becoming unnecessarily violent and dangerous, and even *with* adult supervision were leading to inordinate amounts of injuries. The article posted doesn't really say.

But I can say that I find it to be both unfortunate and saddening if otherwise innocuous activities are being banned by schools predominantly out of a fear of a lawsuit from a parent whose child might get injured. If that is indeed the case, schools would be well-served to simply ban any type of physical activity in which a child could injure themselves--golf included.

Ltlabner
10-27-2006, 04:07 PM
Ok Dom....currious for your take on this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225957,00.html

So do you think a Rat in a salad is worth $1.7 million dollars?

Assuming the facts in the case are true, should McD's be punished to the tune of $1.7 mil to keep them from continuing to put rats in salads?

Not being snide...interested in your responce.

Yachtzee
10-27-2006, 04:12 PM
Ok Dom....currious for your take on this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225957,00.html

So do you think a Rat in a salad is worth $1.7 million dollars?

Assuming the facts in the case are true, should McD's be punished to the tune of $1.7 mil to keep them from continuing to put rats in salads?

Not being snide...interested in your responce.

I blame T.O. ;)

Johnny Footstool
10-27-2006, 04:48 PM
I blame T.O. ;)

I blame Samuel Jackson. He's so busy keeping snakes off his &*%&$@# plane, he forgot to keep those rats out of the $#%&%# salad.

Dom Heffner
10-31-2006, 01:32 PM
So do you think a Rat in a salad is worth $1.7 million dollars?

Assuming the facts in the case are true, should McD's be punished to the tune of $1.7 mil to keep them from continuing to put rats in salads?

Not being snide...interested in your responce.


Without knowing the specifics of "violently ill" or "long-lasting physical injuries" I couldn't tell you if that's a fair sum.

If their law team can show how they get to this figure, then why not?

McDonald's wants it both ways: they want to make billions of dollars off of selling food to people, but then they don't think they should be held accountable when their food causes physical harm.

What a wonderful business venture that would be. I think I'll sell motorcycle helmets that have brown recluse spiders in their lining and then dismiss anyone who gets bit by one as someone who is just looking for money.

RFS62
10-31-2006, 03:14 PM
What a nutty thread.

We're grooming a generation of ambulance chasers.

Common sense is being litigated out of business.

westofyou
10-31-2006, 03:17 PM
McDonald's wants it both ways: they want to make billions of dollars off of selling food to people,

Food?

So that's what it is.

Dom Heffner
10-31-2006, 03:20 PM
Common sense is being litigated out of business.

Yeah, common sense dictates that coffee should be kept at temperatures that cause third degree burns. :)

RFS62
10-31-2006, 03:40 PM
Yeah, common sense dictates that coffee should be kept at temperatures that cause third degree burns. :)



Nope, common sense tells me that statements like this one are ridiculous.



Another Willett parent, Celeste D'Elia, said her son feels safer because of the rule. "I've witnessed enough near collisions," she said.


I'm not arguing the McDonalds case. I'm replying to the original post. "Near collisions". You can't make that stuff up.

You can NOT insulate children from harms way. They get hurt. Always have, always will.

The definition of "reasonable measures" to prevent such instances appears to me to be the question at hand here, not the motivation to protect our kids.

One might make the case that if a child is protected throughout his or her adolescence, they won't be prepared to take their place in the world. We learn how to overcome adversity by going through it.

And please don't extend that line of thinking to your jarts or 1,000 degree coffee. I'm talking about plain old common sense.

Brutus_the_Red
10-31-2006, 04:02 PM
When I was in middle school and it was a rainy day, we played a game in gym class called Artillery Ball. It was almost exactly like Dodgeball as it was played in the Vince Vaughn film, except with about 15 balls and 40 kids screaming like commanches.

I got hit in the face during that game and broke my nose. My dad was upset that I lost the game. My mother was upset that I got blood on my new shirt. My friends thought it looked sweet. I'm pretty sure I got a girlfriend that day for being so tough.

Never once did my parents think of suing the school.

Lord, How times have changed.

My nose is still crooked. Should I think of suing? HAHA :evil:

SunDeck
10-31-2006, 04:41 PM
When I was in middle school and it was a rainy day, we played a game in gym class called Artillery Ball. It was almost exactly like Dodgeball as it was played in the Vince Vaughn film, except with about 15 balls and 40 kids screaming like commanches.

I got hit in the face during that game and broke my nose. My dad was upset that I lost the game. My mother was upset that I got blood on my new shirt. My friends thought it looked sweet. I'm pretty sure I got a girlfriend that day for being so tough.

Never once did my parents think of suing the school.

Lord, How times have changed.

My nose is still crooked. Should I think of suing? HAHA :evil:

When I was a freshman at Elder, Coach Callahan used to unleash the gym class jocks in a game called "war ball". It was basically dodgeball, with one twist. The game started with the half line of the basketball court dividing the teams. Then, Coach Cal would blow his whistle and the dividing line became the foul lines. For the most part this usually ended up in a massacre as all these kids hurled seeds at the class nerds as they huddled against the wall.
And he let us inflate volleyballs to about 50 psi for this, too.

Yachtzee
10-31-2006, 06:51 PM
Yeah, common sense dictates that coffee should be kept at temperatures that cause third degree burns. :)

Actually, I have heard that, in order to get the best flavor from the beans, coffee should be brewed at just below boiling and then kept in a vac-pot in order to retain the heat of the water without having to leave it sitting on a heating element all day. And then there's espresso, which involves forcing steam through the grounds at high pressure. So what may not seem like common sense to the general public may make perfect sense within a subsection thereof.

MrCinatit
10-31-2006, 07:15 PM
Egads, I thought rats were high in fiber and nutrients!

Chip R
10-31-2006, 07:31 PM
When I was in middle school and it was a rainy day, we played a game in gym class called Artillery Ball. It was almost exactly like Dodgeball as it was played in the Vince Vaughn film, except with about 15 balls and 40 kids screaming like commanches.



So you guys were dressed in S&M gear too?

Dom Heffner
11-01-2006, 11:33 AM
Actually, I have heard that, in order to get the best flavor from the beans, coffee should be brewed at just below boiling and then kept in a vac-pot in order to retain the heat of the water without having to leave it sitting on a heating element all day. And then there's espresso, which involves forcing steam through the grounds at high pressure. So what may not seem like common sense to the general public may make perfect sense within a subsection thereof.


There's no doubt about this, but if coffee tasted better served at 400 degrees, would it be okay to do that?

The point I was making was not to ask what's common sense to make things taste better -it's what common sense tell us is a safe temperature at which to serve it.

And I'm really not very articulate this morning. :)

Ltlabner
11-01-2006, 01:50 PM
I often wonder about this sudden desire to protect people, especially children, from each and every possible harm. And any harm that befalls us is bound to have long lasting physical and psycological effects than will haunt us to the end of time.

I think back to the WWII generation. They survived a depression, working at a young age, being exposed to all sorts of danger at the workplace, fighting in a war, being exposed to all sorts of danger at the workplace again in the 1950's and 1960's till labor safety became more of a focus, etc etc.

Did they sue? Did they look to blame everyone around them but themselves? Where they fixiated on "self esteme" and making sure children were raised in a harm proof bubble? NO.

I'm not suggesting that we should expose children and workers to undue harm, or that the WWII generation was perfect, but I wish we could get back to the time were people took responsibility for themselves, didn't look towards sueing as a get-rich-quick scheme and didn't view children as these delicate, fragile beings not able to deal with any difficult situations without at least $1.76 million dollars of "pain and suffering".

registerthis
11-01-2006, 06:15 PM
There was also a time when employees were slaves to their employers and worked in unsafe conditions for pitiful wages and ridiculous hours.

And my father used to stick his foot in the x-ray machine at shoe stores to look at his bones.

I think a lot of the progress we have made has been for the better--employees can no longer lock the doors of the garment factory to prevent time wasted on breaks, for instance. There are times when I believe our increasingly-litigious society crosses the line between common sensical protectionism and simple greed or buck-passing. But lawsuits and punitive damages serve an important role in keeping powerful corporations in line. I'm as irked as anyone at the occasionally ridiculous or excessive verdict. But one can only take "personal responsibility" so far, before forces more powerful than themsevles step in and right the wrongs.

GoGoWhiteSox
11-03-2006, 12:36 AM
When I was in middle school and it was a rainy day, we played a game in gym class called Artillery Ball. It was almost exactly like Dodgeball as it was played in the Vince Vaughn film, except with about 15 balls and 40 kids screaming like commanches.

I got hit in the face during that game and broke my nose. My dad was upset that I lost the game. My mother was upset that I got blood on my new shirt. My friends thought it looked sweet. I'm pretty sure I got a girlfriend that day for being so tough.

Never once did my parents think of suing the school.

Lord, How times have changed.

My nose is still crooked. Should I think of suing? HAHA :evil:
I remember when I was in middle school and we were playing soccer in gym. I got a soccer ball kicked right in my eye. Here's the kicker: two weeks prior to that incident, I got elbowed in the same eye playing basketball (not in gym, but for the rec team I was playing for)! I guess since my eye got re-injured right after it finally healed, I guess I should sue the school(I'm being sarcastic).:rolleyes: My dad pretty much told me to be a man and shake it off.