Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's say a babysitter or nanny took the 5 year old to the restaurant. And they looked away, got distracted, allowed the child to wander and explore on his own... you would not think they were responsible? At all?

Nobody has answered this. You know if it were anyone other than the parents, they would have been torn to shreds for letting the child wander away.

I'll answer it. No. I wouldn't blame a caregiver I'm this case because there is no way this was a foreseeable accident. Decades of no incidents, no signage, and no one really around to bother? ACCIDENT. No one was negligent. It just....Happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's say a babysitter or nanny took the 5 year old to the restaurant. And they looked away, got distracted, allowed the child to wander and explore on his own... you would not think they were responsible? At all?

Nobody has answered this. You know if it were anyone other than the parents, they would have been torn to shreds for letting the child wander away.

Anonymous wrote:The lack of empathy on this board is appaling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's say a babysitter or nanny took the 5 year old to the restaurant. And they looked away, got distracted, allowed the child to wander and explore on his own... you would not think they were responsible? At all?

Nobody has answered this. You know if it were anyone other than the parents, they would have been torn to shreds for letting the child wander away.

Anonymous wrote:Let's say a babysitter or nanny took the 5 year old to the restaurant. And they looked away, got distracted, allowed the child to wander and explore on his own... you would not think they were responsible? At all?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused how people can be arguing that the danger was so obvious that a responsible parent should have kept their child away, and also that it's not the restaurant's fault. Either it was a freak accident no one could have anticipated, in which case it's no one's fault, or it was a glaring safety hazard that the restaurant ignored for years.

You don't have to keep your eyes on your child every single second. But you don't let your child get up and wander around - which is what all articles say. The family was seated at a window table, and the child got up and wandered, and is said to have gotten stuck between a table and wall.

My guess would be he wandered, climbed up on one of the rounded booths, and tried to look down the small space between the booth and the wall, and his head was impacted. That's not a design flaw - there has to be a small space in order for the rotation to occur.

The parents paid the ultimate price, but it looks like they were negligent in allowing their child to treat the restaurant like a jungle gym. Doesn't mean you have to stare at your child 24/7 - but you're their guardian - keep them with you in unknown places.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused how people can be arguing that the danger was so obvious that a responsible parent should have kept their child away, and also that it's not the restaurant's fault. Either it was a freak accident no one could have anticipated, in which case it's no one's fault, or it was a glaring safety hazard that the restaurant ignored for years.

You don't have to keep your eyes on your child every single second. But you don't let your child get up and wander around - which is what all articles say. The family was seated at a window table, and the child got up and wandered, and is said to have gotten stuck between a table and wall.

My guess would be he wandered, climbed up on one of the rounded booths, and tried to look down the small space between the booth and the wall, and his head was impacted. That's not a design flaw - there has to be a small space in order for the rotation to occur.

The parents paid the ultimate price, but it looks like they were negligent in allowing their child to treat the restaurant like a jungle gym. Doesn't mean you have to stare at your child 24/7 - but you're their guardian - keep them with you in unknown places.

[]

Anonymous wrote:I am confused how people can be arguing that the danger was so obvious that a responsible parent should have kept their child away, and also that it's not the restaurant's fault. Either it was a freak accident no one could have anticipated, in which case it's no one's fault, or it was a glaring safety hazard that the restaurant ignored for years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame the parents but I hate all the people blaming the restaurant too. How long has it been operating without incident? Sometimes shitty things just happen. There isn't always someone to blame. Nevertheless I'm sure the poor restaurant will have to pay.

Their insurance will pay, and they will need to do something so it doesn't happen again. Not blaming the parents, but a child needs to stay seated and remain seated in a restaurant. Put them a a booster seat strapped in.

When the appeal of a restaurant is the view, a child walking up to the glass windows to look out is totally appropriate.

I generally agree that kids should stay seated in restaurants, but there's a difference between walking through an almost empty restaurant to look out a window, and running around wildly in a crowded situation.

I think the accident is no one's "fault". I also think that the restaurant designers and owners were responsible for designing the restaurant in a way that crush injuries weren't possible. If it's found that a faulty design, or a poorly designed or maintained stopping mechanism contributed, then I think it's appropriate for the restaurant and/or the design firm to pay. Those kinds of lawsuits are what provides the incentive for corporations to prioritize safety.

The restaurant rotates - there's no need to walk around an look outside the windows.

There is no perfect design - life is inherently dangerous. But it requires people to exercise basic due diligence - in this case, the caretakers of a young child to take care of their young child. It doesn't exactly look like a "family friendly" or kid friendly restaurant.

Again you're blaming the parents. I wouldn't imagine that a 5 year old needed supervision when looking out a window, even or especially in a revolving restaurant. Nor did these parents.

It may have been a freak accident. It may be that the restaurant can redesign or fix the window to prevent a future accident from occurring.

Yes, I'm absolutely blaming the parents. Doesn't mean that it was deliberate. Doesn't mean that they aren't going through immense pain. Doesn't mean that they should be punished, as losing your child is punishment enough. Doesn't mean that I'm perfect, or that other parents are perfect.

But when you have a young child, you are responsible for their wellbeing. You are responsible for monitoring them. You are responsible for seeing risk where they cannot. Given that something like this has not happened in the restaurant's long existence, it's unlikely to really be a serious design flaw. The world is flawed by design - bottom line is that the parents should have been watching their child, especially at a restaurant that is clearly not designed specifically for kids.

oh how very generous of you. you idiot.

watching your kids every single second is not normal, and is not possible. parents are responsible for foreseeable risks. this one was not foreseeable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame the parents but I hate all the people blaming the restaurant too. How long has it been operating without incident? Sometimes shitty things just happen. There isn't always someone to blame. Nevertheless I'm sure the poor restaurant will have to pay.

Their insurance will pay, and they will need to do something so it doesn't happen again. Not blaming the parents, but a child needs to stay seated and remain seated in a restaurant. Put them a a booster seat strapped in.

When the appeal of a restaurant is the view, a child walking up to the glass windows to look out is totally appropriate.

I generally agree that kids should stay seated in restaurants, but there's a difference between walking through an almost empty restaurant to look out a window, and running around wildly in a crowded situation.

I think the accident is no one's "fault". I also think that the restaurant designers and owners were responsible for designing the restaurant in a way that crush injuries weren't possible. If it's found that a faulty design, or a poorly designed or maintained stopping mechanism contributed, then I think it's appropriate for the restaurant and/or the design firm to pay. Those kinds of lawsuits are what provides the incentive for corporations to prioritize safety.

The restaurant rotates - there's no need to walk around an look outside the windows.

There is no perfect design - life is inherently dangerous. But it requires people to exercise basic due diligence - in this case, the caretakers of a young child to take care of their young child. It doesn't exactly look like a "family friendly" or kid friendly restaurant.

Again you're blaming the parents. I wouldn't imagine that a 5 year old needed supervision when looking out a window, even or especially in a revolving restaurant. Nor did these parents.

It may have been a freak accident. It may be that the restaurant can redesign or fix the window to prevent a future accident from occurring.

Yes, I'm absolutely blaming the parents. Doesn't mean that it was deliberate. Doesn't mean that they aren't going through immense pain. Doesn't mean that they should be punished, as losing your child is punishment enough. Doesn't mean that I'm perfect, or that other parents are perfect.

But when you have a young child, you are responsible for their wellbeing. You are responsible for monitoring them. You are responsible for seeing risk where they cannot. Given that something like this has not happened in the restaurant's long existence, it's unlikely to really be a serious design flaw. The world is flawed by design - bottom line is that the parents should have been watching their child, especially at a restaurant that is clearly not designed specifically for kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame the parents but I hate all the people blaming the restaurant too. How long has it been operating without incident? Sometimes shitty things just happen. There isn't always someone to blame. Nevertheless I'm sure the poor restaurant will have to pay.

Their insurance will pay, and they will need to do something so it doesn't happen again. Not blaming the parents, but a child needs to stay seated and remain seated in a restaurant. Put them a a booster seat strapped in.

When the appeal of a restaurant is the view, a child walking up to the glass windows to look out is totally appropriate.

I generally agree that kids should stay seated in restaurants, but there's a difference between walking through an almost empty restaurant to look out a window, and running around wildly in a crowded situation.

I think the accident is no one's "fault". I also think that the restaurant designers and owners were responsible for designing the restaurant in a way that crush injuries weren't possible. If it's found that a faulty design, or a poorly designed or maintained stopping mechanism contributed, then I think it's appropriate for the restaurant and/or the design firm to pay. Those kinds of lawsuits are what provides the incentive for corporations to prioritize safety.

The restaurant rotates - there's no need to walk around an look outside the windows.

There is no perfect design - life is inherently dangerous. But it requires people to exercise basic due diligence - in this case, the caretakers of a young child to take care of their young child. It doesn't exactly look like a "family friendly" or kid friendly restaurant.