News Headlines
Comments for City Appeals Sledding Ruling
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Search:
Gray Television, Inc - Copyright 2002-2012 - Powered by Gray Interactive Media
AMEN
Give me a break...it's the parents fault. Did they NOT notice the trees. To say it's always been a sledding hill...sorry that doesn't hold water...things change and we need to adapt. Poor parenting!
Does every hill in the city need a "sled at your own risk" sign posted for foolish parents. The city is not to blame...the parents are. Nothing but a sue happy society who blames everyone else for their poor choices.
so say some parents were to allow their children to play touch football near a wooded area of a park. and one of these children were running to catch a ball and smacked into a tree, should the city then be required to put a sign saying "THERE IS A TREE HERE" in front of the tree???
Finally, a speaker of wisdom. As a taxpayer, I went to the courthouse, checked out the court file, read the judge's orders, which offer a thorough analysis of the evidence (which none of you were privy to), and realized that the evidence was abundant as to the City's negligence. Any of you who do the same, if you have an iota of intelligence - heck, even common sense - will realize that your frustration should rest with the City and that if the same happened to your child under the same set of facts, you would do the same. Please just try being informed before passing judgment.
i.e., someone who let their 5 and 9 year old sled toward the trees? No?
Anonymous, your post should be enshrined and children should recite it before the start of each school day. This would allow us to always remember how absolutely senseless liberalism can be. Thank you for the best example of why it is dying a quick death.
the parents turned the deaf ear....the parks department didn't buy the sled, drive the kids to the park where the snow covered hill was located, take the kids to the top of the hill, and lastly push the kids down the hill. stupid is as stupid does. just because I can ski the bunny hills doesn't mean that I wont apply common sense where need be, for instance, not ski in or around trees to avoid injury?
This is a sledding hill. Always has been and always will be. The city had been warned by others prior that the newly planted trees had been hit by other sledders, and the slope of the hill pushed sledders towards the trees. The city knew and did nothing...that's called negligence folks. As a taxpayer it irks me as well, but the blame should rest on whomever turned a deaf ear to the situation...i.e someone in the Parks Department.
Make people buy a sleding permit, and proof of insurance, and take a course in sleding safety. Charge a hefty "fee" say 10 grand. if you get caught sleding without your permit, a very hefty fine, say 50 grand, until the 2.5 million is recovered. That way we all lose our freedom to enjoy sleding due to parents who didn't give a "damn" about the saftey of their children, and then were rewarded handsomely for it.
if you read Jim's comments below there apparently was an injury to another child preceding the injuries in this case. If the city did nothing to change the situation or post warnings the law will provide that due to prior knowledge they left themselves open to liability and the public uninformed while they were aware of an injury that already occurred.
This was a bench trial, meaning the judge DID decide this case, and a jury DIDN'T decide this case. The Judge determined as a matter of law that the City's actions in planting the trees there were willful or wanton, but the court didn't even address the fact that the trees are an open and obvious danger. It's very likely this will get reversed.
Bull! The parent NEVER should have let the young children sled down by themselves! Child neglect. You must not live in Omaha.. Suppose the city should remove any lampposts near the hill also?
Pretty big assumption on your part, Joe. So you know that everybody commenting on this forum knows absolutely nothing about this case. That is amazing that you know everybody here, and what they know. You are the one that needs to get a clue.
What is "just plain ignorant," but unfortunately all too easy in this day and age, is to comment on a topic - in this case a lawsuit - about which you know absolutley nothing. Do you really think the case was decided in the family's favor BY A JUDGE (NOT A JURY OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO RUSH TO JUDGMENT) and reached the level of the Supreme Court if the case was as slam-dunk as you seem to think it was? Get a clue.