Trampoline in my backyard- my responsibility?

amother

Ruby

Mon, May 22 2017, 1:47 pm

Amarante wrote:

You can't be too careful with the life of a child - IMO. If you can't afford the cost of safety for a pool, you shouldn't get a pool.

The number of drownings in Florida in pools of children in pools is so sad Crying

because the measures taken buy MagentaYenta would really have made it almost impossible for even the most determined child to get in the water without an adult supervising.

And even sadly sometimes adult supervision isn't enough. There was a sad case in California a few years ago. A birthday party where a child drowned DESPITE there being a lifeguard hired to watch the child. With so many children in the pool, there was just too many children all at once for one adult to safely supervise.

I live in a building with a pool. The parents complain bitterly that they are expected to watch their kids, and to be close to younger children (in the water, or at least on the edge). But even the best lifeguard can't be aware of 20 kids at every moment.

Amarante

Mon, May 22 2017, 1:48 pm

Ruchel wrote:

People will sue because their kids came into your yard? wow.

The issue is that children are not felt to have the mental ability to protect themselves from some dangers.

Children are treated differently by the law in all kinds of ways because their brains aren't fully developed.

In terms of liability the law will determine a "reasonable child" standard - I.e. was there enough protection such that it would prevent a child from gaining access to a dangerous situation like a pool.

Amarante

Mon, May 22 2017, 2:05 pm

Amarante wrote:

ETA. I wanted to add that imposing liability is a way to ensure that there is more safety. Sadly many people are more persuaded by a hit to their pocketbook than a danger to a child so this is a way of making people ensure that their premises are as safe as possible.

One of the most egregious examples of why you want to make it expensive is the famous Ford memo which calculated that the cost of paying out for the loss of human lives causes by explosions from the Pinto gas tanks was less than the cost of redesigning the car and moving the gas tank so it wouldn't explode on impact. Mind yiu, the cost to move the gas tank was minimal - lets say $10 per car but Ford decided that the human lives lost were less valuable to the company's bottom line.

MagentaYenta

Mon, May 22 2017, 2:19 pm

Amarante wrote:

...

And even sadly sometimes adult supervision isn't enough. There was a sad case in California a few years ago. A birthday party where a child drowned DESPITE there being a lifeguard hired to watch the child. With so many children in the pool, there was just too many children all at once for one adult to safely supervise.

This^

I swim at our muni pool in the summer. They often close admission until extra lifeguards become available.

amother

Ruby

Mon, May 22 2017, 2:22 pm

Amarante wrote:

Lee Iacocca demanded that the Pinto be priced under $2000, and that Ford make a specific profit on it. Ford was aware of the issue, and knew it could be fixed cheaply, but that would have driven the price over $2000, or reduced the profits by a small amount. Ford didn't want to do either, and concluded that the expected payments to people injured or killed by the defect was less than the cost of the fix. Instead, the damages were huge.

amother

Ruby

Mon, May 22 2017, 2:26 pm

tulips12 wrote:

Did I understand right? If someone wants to have a trampoline it must be gated in and never allow anyone except your own kids to use it.
What about happens to guest and play dates?

(1) Insurers will require that it be gated and locked in order to insure it. Further, it (may) limit your liability should kids try to use it without your permission.

(2) You can allow anyone you want to use your trampoline. You just need to be aware that you'll be responsible if they are injured.