|
|
|
|
Liability: I'm not responsible for your kids!
wrote:
Mike Foss wrote:
Well said. Parents are responsible for their minor children, not
complete strangers.
[snip]
I don't want to get into a debate, but I did want to point out that
according to the news article Ms. Newkirk was a friend of the boy's
father, so she was not a complete stranger. Perhaps the father saw his
son rejoin Ms. Newkirk and expected she would either watch him or bring
him back.
I think he was wrong to assume that, and I think parents often wrongly
assume, sometimes with tragic results, that either their kid won't
wander into harm's way or that someone will prevent the worst from
happening.
But, that said, I can't fathom how this situation came about( and the
description of both the incident and the case were inadequate.)
They came there for the father to do repair work -- a task that
presumably would preoccupy him to the point where he couldn't watch an
active toddler. (A point driven home when she brought the child back
after he followed her to the river).
But even if she hadn't expected to babysit, and was angry that her
friend expected her to, why would she return to the river, knowing that
it fascinated the boy and that his father was preoccupied? If the
father was indeed her friend, why would she want to jeopardize her
friend's kid's well-being?
That's the behavior I think most people would have trouble with -- not
with her failing to sacrifice herself in a doomed rescue attempt.
Lori G.
Milwaukee, WI
|