Accident in a retail store

Brooker_Dave

Tozer wrote: »

Sorry but this is wrong. The OP's daughter is not a "brat". This is insulting.

In my experience not many 2 year olds are "brats".

Mine is.

A little hooligan in fact.

Tozer

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Mine is.

A little hooligan in fact.

Possibly down to the parenting?

Halloway

Tozer wrote: »

Possibly down to the parenting?

More likely the inherited genes.

foxxymynx

Tozer wrote: »

Oh, and I am not sure there can be any criticism of the OP for failing to supervise. If there was a notice saying "No children", then fine. But the OP and family were able to visit the store and expect to be safe.

If there is something which could be improved, the OP is entirely right to point this out. Can't believe there is even a debate about this.

I agree that if things can be improved, pointing them out appropriately is a good idea and resonable etc etc.

However, your other point about "no children signs" - there isn't "no children signs" next to roads, but you expect to cross the road with a child and be safe - the difference being that you'd be mad not to supervise a child crossing the road, IYSWIM? Public place, general hazards, children need to be supervised.

IMHO it simply sounds like an unfortunate accident, which everyone has at some point, especially toddlers. People can whinge on about children not being properly supervised but it could have happened to any 2 year old, 2 year olds get into alsorts of mischief and sometimes it seems like you need eyes on the back of your head to avoid genuine accidents with young children.

Tozer

foxxymynx wrote: »

I agree that if things can be improved, pointing them out appropriately is a good idea and resonable etc etc.

However, your other point about "no children signs" - there isn't "no children signs" next to roads, but you expect to cross the road with a child and be safe - the difference being that you'd be mad not to supervise a child crossing the road, IYSWIM? Public place, general hazards, children need to be supervised.

IMHO it simply sounds like an unfortunate accident, which everyone has at some point, especially toddlers. People can whinge on about children not being properly supervised but it could have happened to any 2 year old, 2 year olds get into alsorts of mischief and sometimes it seems like you need eyes on the back of your head to avoid genuine accidents with young children.

Not quite sure I understand the point of your post. Was OP at fault?

It was an unfortunate accident. But, hey, if we can avoid the same accident occuring again, isn't that a good thing??

Finefoot

Sorry the ittle one was hurt.
From my perspective, placing the something to attract children(the boots) in the vicinity of something dangerous (An unprotected metal spike) is NEGLIGENT. Surely, they should consider that they are trying to attract children (who would no doubt bring the paying adults), and it is in everyones interest to make sure it is safe?
Accidents never mean to happen, but shortcuts and carelessness can be prevented.
If you go to a restaurant, you dont expect to wander about in the kitchen, do you? Why should this child NOT expect to be safe when looking at boots?

foxxymynx

Tozer wrote: »

It was an unfortunate accident. But, hey, if we can avoid the same accident occuring again, isn't that a good thing??

I agree with you. I just think it was a general accident and no one was at fault, the OP (or other responsible adult) or the shop. Technically the OP was at fault and the child should have been better supervised, but with young children, if you so much as blink they can hurt themselves or whatever, so I do genuinely think that it's just an unfortunate accident and no one is really to blame.

Suggestions to shops, restaurants and other such places, to impove saftey of customers can only be a good thing IMO.

foxxymynx

Finefoot wrote: »

Why should this child NOT expect to be safe when looking at boots?

It's a shop, not a playground.

If you went too close to a "peg" in a shop and banged your head on it, would it have been negligent? No, it would have been your own stupid fault for being careless.

Sounds like you're the kind of person to try to claim compensation from a council for tripping over a kerb - because of course the kerb being there is a hazard and therefore the council were negligent by putting an obstical there. :rolleyes:

vyle

If it was a full on metal spike, it should probably be rubber tipped, but most shop prongs are rounded, or point downwards, so while you could still graze yourself on them, or poke your eye out with enough intent, there isn't a whole lot else that can be done to make them "safer". You can still poke your eye out with a rubber tipped prong, it just wouldn't hurt as much if used to bludgeon.