From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:37:48 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <1992Oct6.005207.23916@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <6998@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.053355.26183@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>> ...
>>|> You don't have to have uncontrolled children to view an unsecured
>>|> attractive nuisance as a dangerous threat. Fencing children in
>>|> is unacceptable.
>>
>>That is the point I was making earlier, it is your view and only a view
>>not the end all truth.  Fencing children is unacceptable ... WHY!  It's
>>done all the time.   ...
>
>  It isn't done "all the time", it is only done on occasion.  There
>is a dangerous time of 10 - 15 years in a child's life (perhaps
>age 2 to about age 15) in which one worries particularly about an
>attractive nuisance.  I don't consider it acceptable to keep children
>fenced in all that time.

So, you let your children between the ages of 2 and 5 play outside
unsupervised?  No wonder you want the neighbors to fence off
everything you consider an AN.  By personal experience, my children
simply were not left to roam the neighborhood, especially at ages 
of 5 or less.  Even today, my 7 year old will ASK for permission
to go to a neighbor's/friend's home before doing so.  Guess I'm
a parental dictator in some folks eyes.  I probably am constraining
the kid's freedom of expression, creativity and God knows what else.
BUT, I'm not worried that any of my kids are going to trespass on
someone else's property for any reason.  

The fundamental flaw in this AN discussion (IMHO) is that the advocates
of AN seem to presume that kids can not be brought up to obey certain
fundamental rules of socuiety...respect for other's property,
following rules sset down by parents, etc.  That's bull!

As to fencing in a pool.  Yes, I would do that myself just out
of common sense.  But, as others and I have mentioned, that still
doesn't eliminate a sympathetic jury from awarding damages to
the parents of an injured or dead child in cases where the child
climbed the fence, broke a lock, etc to gain entry to the pool.
Why can't the legislators indemnify the pool owners (or other AN
owners) by (1) specifying the safety requirements needed for a pool
such as a 5 foot fence, locked gate, etc, and (2) include language
that clearly removes any liability on the part of the pool owner
as long as those safety requirements have been met?

I, like most of those commenting, am sickened by the (too many)
cases of juries awarding damages to children/people who have
been injured/killed while in the act of trespass and/or during the
commission of a criminal act (eg. burglary).  Why society places
any prospect of reward in front of those trespassers/criminals is
still beyond my comprehension.

I'll venture another opinion and that is the main reason there
are proponents of AN is that the biggest gainers in the AN
arena are the lawyers.  Eliminate the concept of AN by placing the
responsibility where it belongs and you eliminate a major area
of lawyer enriching lawsuits.  I suspect (and the majority of commentators
in this discussion seem to bare this out) that a majrity of folks
do NOT feel that the responsibilty for injury/death to a child, etc.
should be laid at the doorstep of the owner of an AN.  It seems
the jury verdicts that come out as they do are based less on
logic/law and more on sympathy for the child/parents (little Johnny
needs life-long care, etc. and the pool owner's insurance is 
available, and the parents have no (or little) insurance, so let's
find for the child/parents.  

Oh well, I could ramble on and on, but it still is one of the
great inequities as I see it.  AND there are so many different
ways in which individuals and juries have failed to lay the blame
at the door of the individual responsible, the person who 
acted on his/her own and trespassed, etc.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Xref: sparky ba.general:4210 misc.kids:25287 misc.legal:18170