Sue sue sue

DCodd

dizziblonde wrote: »

Have you not realized yet? QUOTE]

WOW!! How long has that been brewing?:rotfl:

When I was at school many decades ago , we had no supervision at breaks in secondary school. We just had the spectre of the CANE to deter us! and believe me it was 99% effective and cost effective!!!

flufflett

DCodd wrote: »

PLEASE!!! I work for a company that operates within the construction industry, one of THE MOST legislated industries in the country!! We have to do risks assesments for picking up a sweet wrapper!!!!! The fundamental danger in any situation is the lack of personal responsibility on the part of the individual!!! No amount of supervision or paperwork will stop an individual, especially one who keeps getting told that someone else has the responsibility for their actions, from acting in a dangerous manner!!!

But this is about children - not adults - as a careful, responsible parent I have to allow my children to go to school. I don't take unnecessary risks with my children and I expect their school to do the same. If my children have friends to play, I always ensure that they too are not exposed to risk - I supervise them - if they throw stones, firstly I'd be here supervising them and would tell them not to do so. Kids tend to do things that they know are naughty when they're not supervised - I remember clearly having a great party when my parents when away and I was 17yrs of age. Clearly you are not in tune with responsible parenting and you have forgotten what it's like to be a child/teenager. If you really believe we should just let kids gather in playgrounds in numbers of 300+ with only one adult supervising - I'm jolly pleased I don't work for your construction company!

DCodd

flufflett wrote: »

But this is about children - not adults - as a careful, responsible parent I have to allow my children to go to school. I don't take unnecessary risks with my children and I expect their school to do the same. If my children have friends to play, I always ensure that they too are not exposed to risk - I supervise them - if they throw stones, firstly I'd be here supervising them and would tell them not to do so. Kids tend to do things that they know are naughty when they're not supervised - I remember clearly having a great party when my parents when away and I was 17yrs of age. Clearly you are not in tune with responsible parenting and you have forgotten what it's like to be a child/teenager. If you really believe we should just let kids gather in playgrounds in numbers of 300+ with only one adult supervising - I'm jolly pleased I don't work for your construction company!

On the contrary! I remember what is it like to be a child! I had a childhood, I was allowed to play unsupervised and I may have got hurt but bumps and scrapes were all part of the learning process. I could play anywhere and with or without toys or other kids, i learnt to make my own games and Living on a farm I learnt to take responsibilty for my own actions! I learnt that if I did something that was stupid or dangerous that I would get hurt or I might hurt someone else!

Responsible parenting is letting your child learn and learn the hard way if necessary. This constant supervision society we have become is producing a generation of ineptly skilled and experienced teen/young adults who's first response to any situation is "it's not my fault, you should have....":mad:

DrScotsman

DCodd wrote: »

Responsible parenting is letting your child learn and learn the hard way if necessary.

Go on, DCodd, what punishment should a child get for ruining someone's eyesight?

They should be made to apologise to the kid? Definitely
They should be barred from TV and the like? Yup
They should get no pocket money? Uhuh
They should get grounded? Sure
They should get smacked? Debatable, and depends on the kids age, but I don't think there'd be too much disagreement.
The school should expel them? Also debatable, but if the child is a danger to other kids then it should be considered
They should be held liable for everything in criminal and tort law!? SERIOUSLY!?

I don't think anyone is suggesting the kid gets away scot free, but to suggest he is fully liable is amazingly naive. Even in your old values which allow the cane that's absurd.

DCodd

DrScotsman wrote: »

Go on, DCodd, what punishment should a child get for ruining someone's eyesight?

They should be made to apologise to the kid? Definitely
They should be barred from TV and the like? Yup
They should get no pocket money? Uhuh
They should get grounded? Sure
They should get smacked? Debatable, and depends on the kids age, but I don't think there'd be too much disagreement.
The school should expel them? Also debatable, but if the child is a danger to other kids then it should be considered
They should be held liable for everything in criminal and tort law!? SERIOUSLY!?

I don't think anyone is suggesting the kid gets away scot free, but to suggest he is fully liable is amazingly naive. Even in your old values which allow the cane that's absurd.

So instead of the child taking legal responsibility at age 13 (over the age of legal responsibility) you think it ok to blame someone or something that didn't throw that stone?

If a teenager stabs someone are you truly saying that you would expect the parents to be imprisoned or the school to sued and the child to be merely expelled????

Carry a knife it's not your fault!!!!!!! I THINK BLOODY NOT!!!!!!!!

DrScotsman

DCodd wrote: »

So instead of the child taking legal responsibility at age 13 (over the age of legal responsibility) you think it ok to blame someone or something that didn't throw that stone?

Duty of Care, forseeability and loss. Those are the three things required to establish liability.

a) Duty of Care: The school clearly have a duty of care to protect the children that are in that school, including the kid who got hit. That is obvious.
b) Forseeability: I already outlined in my previous post that it depends on whether the kid had thrown one stone or fifty. If the kid had thrown 50 stones, it'd be foreseeable that he'd throw another, if he'd just thrown one then not so much.
Likewise - and I don't entirely agree with this - the court seems to have concluded that it is foreseeable that if there isn't adequate supervision, kids will do stuff they shouldn't. Like throw stones.
c) Loss: The guy lost part of his vision. Clear cut.

Of course if the kid is old enough then he satisfies all of those as well, so he would be held jointly negligent. Don't pretend that I'm saying the child is completely blameless.

(By the way, in case you didn't know these are principles in Tort enacted way before your time. I guess schools weren't originally considered to have a duty of care towards the kids?)

If a teenager stabs someone are you truly saying that you would expect the parents to be imprinsoned or the school to sued and the child to be merely expelled????

Of course not, it depends what level on the "Boys will be Boys" meter the incident comes under (sorry if my post implied otherwise, but I'm pretty sure it was clear I was just talking about the stone). Of course stabbing doesn't, hence it isn't foreseeable in the slightest, hence the school wouldn't be liable. It probably isn't foreseeable for the parents either (unless they saw him take a knife to school and he said "I'm gonna kill Johnny", duur)

flufflett

DCodd wrote: »

So instead of the child taking legal responsibility at age 13 (over the age of legal responsibility) you think it ok to blame someone or something that didn't throw that stone?

If a teenager stabs someone are you truly saying that you would expect the parents to be imprisoned or the school to sued and the child to be merely expelled????

Carry a knife it's not your fault!!!!!!! I THINK BLOODY NOT!!!!!!!!

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED THIS SPELT OUT - or would you like to go back to the good old days when kids were made to work in workhouses - and everyone was so happy - and all building sites were a complete death threat?????

The kid throwing the stone was throwing them at a seagull - he wasn't trying to hurt the pupil - it was an accident waiting to happen. You have to embrace modern society and structure - of course there's frustrations.The school was negligent because it didn't do ANY risk assessments - which meant it didn't work out the ration needed to supervise the children so they didn't do silly things - like children do - some throw stones, some bully other kids - etc etc etc etc etc. Dear oh dear - it really isn't that difficult to grasp - and if you are so frustrated with today's modern legislation for safety - then I suggest you go work for a construction company in another country - say Turkey or Africa or India - where it is similar to the good old days - when all kids learn about risk the hard way.

DCodd

flufflett wrote: »

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED THIS SPELT OUT - or would you like to go back to the good old days when kids were made to work in workhouses - and everyone was so happy - and all building sites were a complete death threat?????

The kid throwing the stone was throwing them at a seagull - he wasn't trying to hurt the pupil - it was an accident waiting to happen. You have to embrace modern society and structure - of course there's frustrations.The school was negligent because it didn't do ANY risk assessments - which meant it didn't work out the ration needed to supervise the children so they didn't do silly things - like children do - some throw stones, some bully other kids - etc etc etc etc etc. Dear oh dear - it really isn't that difficult to grasp - and if you are so frustrated with today's modern legislation for safety - then I suggest you go work for a construction company in another country - say Turkey or Africa or India - where it is similar to the good old days - when all kids learn about risk the hard way.

You are missing the point here! Risk assesments and supervision will not stop these things from happening! I wonder if that boy has ever thrown a stone since that day without first checking if it was safe to do so? I very much doubt it! He has more than likely learnt his lesson and at an horrific cost!! But that should not mean that the school is negligent for not stopping him! If there were 50 staff 6:1 who is to say that this still woild not have happened?

You say the boy did the crime but the school does the time!! If the parents of the boy who threw the stone were multi-millionaires whats the betting the parents would have been sued and not the school! Sue the boy (who was in their mid twenties at the time of the case) not the school!

DCodd

DrScotsman wrote: »

(By the way, in case you didn't know these are principles in Tort enacted way before your time. I guess schools weren't originally considered to have a duty of care towards the kids?)


QUOTE]

The only duty a school had was for the education of the children and discipline, as my year head once told me as he threw me against the wall for fighting at lunchtime.

DrScotsman

DCodd wrote: »

If there were 50 staff 6:1 who is to say that this still woild not have happened?

The court did.

They have more evidence than me or you have, and are more qualified to talk about this. They believe that given the evidence if there was more supervision this incident would not have happened. Are court cases forced to be public? If so, why don't you look up the details and if it turns out their evidence is rubbish then go on about it.

The only duty a school had was for the education of the children and discipline, as my year head once told me as he threw me against the wall for fighting at lunchtime.

Pity no one else agrees with you in this day and age.