From the article: "One of the boys had played previously in the car, which was owned by Anibal's maternal grandmother. It had been sitting for about three weeks in a shaded, weedy corner of the Cruz family's yard."

Interesting.

So, what's the standard for negligence? Do they simply need a jury to agree that he knew or should have known that the abandoned vehicle posed a risk of injury to a child? This would meet the requirement?

Wouldn't it be possible to convince a jury that any injury to a child is negligence? For example, the neighbor's kid is over at my house and is playing in the yard. I'm not watching them every minute. The kid runs out into the street and gets hit by a vehicle. It could be argued that I am negligent for failing to watch the kid while the kid was in my care.

This goes back to Bot's position. If any harm comes to a child, up to the age of 12, an adult is negligent.

I've got a problem with this entire approach to negligence. But, I'll bet the jury won't (with a good lawyer, of course). ;)

OK, that clears it up. I was thinking that you were concerned about the vehicle rolling. I was not thinking about the possibility that the vehicle would be converted into an oven.

The entire deal with "attractive nuisance" really frosts my ass. You own a piece of private property, which, in theory, should be off limits to anyone else. However, you can be held liable if a child trespasses on this property and gets injured. :pukeface:

They actually broadcast TV commercials here encouraging people to kick car windows in if there are pets or children in need of rescue during the summer.

The entire case hinges on 1. Did he have a duty to protect these children from getting trapped in that car?

I think you could easily argue that he did.

But, this comes around full circle to Bot's position. Anytime you have a child under a certain age (say 12), it could successfully be argued that the adult has a duty to protect the child from harm. And, if any harm comes to the child, for whatever reason, the duty was breached. And, then, by definition, the adult was negligent.

I just refuse to accept this argument in many situations.

With regard to this specific case, I suppose it could go either way.

Precisely.

Why should I be hung out to dry on "attractive nuisance" when the parent is negligent?

I thought you were in agreement with it? :confused:

It would have to be pro bono.

I didn't mean to imply any legal entrainment. I'm talking guilty conscience.

pro bono.............Narwhal.............. :eek:












:D

Hell, if I lived where you live I'd kick-in my own windows.

Well, guilty conscience is a matter of personal emotion, so, it could go either way.

All my discussions were relevant to legal "negligence".

As far as an individual feeling "negligent" if something happens to a child under their care, I'm sure that's a distinct possibility in many cases.

But, the term is really a legal term and should be discussed as such.

Shoot, we could've save a lot of hot air and electrons if we'd only known.

Or as Rosanna Rosanadana said, "Nevermind!"

A vast majority of molestations occur by someone the family knows.

If you protect the kids too much, its just as bad as being neglegent. It goes to the same concept of germs, grow up in a bubble, and you dont develope anti bodies.

It isnt to say parents should be wreckless, but its just that I see today over protection is the name of the game, and its harmful. It partly because of the PC crowd and women having more power now. It needs to be more balanced. Women have a natural inclination to protect, men to explore and take risks.

A great example is women bundling up their babies. They think its better safe than sorry, yet factually, it turns out that overbundling your baby while sleeping is more harmful than underbundling them and allowing them to be too cold. However, the affects of overbundling them cannot be directly correlated as easily as the "supposed" effects of underbundling them, hence women overbundle, even if you explain why its harmful.

I saw a kid fall off his bike and landed on his head, he had a helmet on, he never even put up his arms to protect his head, no need. I have 5 kids, two adults now, they grew up just fine, no major injuries. The three younger ones, 8, 10 and 10 just spent a year plus, living in a house totally under construction, there were alot of dangerous situations, but they learned how to avoid them and no major injuries occured.

We still dont have a railing on some parts of the second floor, they know to avoid it.

Dont think it is so much different today than in Beavers world. Its just that when something occurs today, we are much more readily made aware of it. Believe it or not, they had molesters back then too.

You have to have a balance, but having a car with a broken trunk is just plain stupid. I doubt the guy was so busy he didnt have time to fix something to prevent this.

.....ahh......yeah. ;)