From: rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:39:20 GMT
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. For info contact: info@BTR.COM

In article <1992Oct9.214237.15827@eagercon.com> eager@eagercon.com writes:
|In article 8101@public.BTR.COM, rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com) writes:
|>
|>If a child drowns in a pond or a pool or a cave or a mineshaft... why is
|>to *so important* to assign blame?  Yes it's tragic, yes it's sad. *Yes*
|
|On the contrary, society is saying that a person who maintains a hazzard has
|the personal responsibility for the consequences of maintaining such a hazzard.
|It seems your argument is to deny that the owner has any responsibility by saying
|that there are other things which are hazzardous.

Almost,  I'm trying to draw a line that describes what *I* think is hazardous.
I believe that current laws place too  much of the responsibility on the
property owner and not nearly enough on the parent.  People will vote themselves
bread and circues everytime..  current laws do not, to me, reflect a proper
balance between parental and civic responsibility.

Perhaps if a child drowns in a neighbors pool, the parents property should
be examined.  If a similar hazard is found on the parents property, then
the fact that the child died on a neighbors property could be considered random
chance.   The property owner should not be responsible.  Perhaps the
average degree of household safety should be considered. I don't know.
I *do* know that liability seems to be out of control.  People are refusing
to accept responsibility for their own actions in record numbers  :-( 
|>
|>If I'm not comfortable with the amount of difficulty required to reach
|>your pool, be damn sure I'll talk to you about it.. and pay part or all
|>of the amount required to bring the security system up to *my* standards.
|
|That is a kind offer.  But what if the owner does not want to put a lock on
|the gate, or replace the missing fence boards, or whatever?  Who has the
|obligation to make the hazzard less hazzardous? You or the owner?

That would depend on a number of factors.  If I want my child to be safe,
the responsibility is mine alone.  As long as the loose boards are present,
I *must* control my child.  The question of who pays to fix the problem is
another question entirely.  I'm not opposed to some safeguards, I just
believe the concept of liability has moved too far away from the parent
and towards the neighbor.
|
|>
|>I talk to my neighbors all the time?  Don't you?  Don't you work *together*
|>to make the neighborhood a safe, comfortable place?  Why not??
|
|Again, this is a great idea.  But, if you have been reading this thread, you
|will find that there are a number of people who believe that their rights to 
|their property is absolute and that any suggestion that they be curtailed is
|total abomination. When push comes to shove, the attractive nuisance laws 
|say that the property owner is responsible for the property.
|

'm not sure that's true.  I think the discussion has been running at cross
purposes for some time.  One side is arguing law, the other, morality and
responsibility.  As a result of this mis-communication, tempers are flaring
and extreme statements are being made on both sides.  I'm sure that
no one want to see a child die.  The question is who has the primary 
responsibility for said child. 
|
|---
|Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
|Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
|1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141

I never had a chance to tell you how much I enjoyed your 'C' class two
years ago...   Thanks!


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Richard Hyde  |  RaH@btr.com  |    This space intentionally left blank   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------