Liability - personal injury

[tasty_tang0]

Question,

if a child has an accident in theme park by falling off a wall which are just part of the fixtures and fittings, and breaks a limb, how does this stand in liability?

Are there height restrictions on walls or fixtures etc that are not connected to the rides, if so does anyone know what these are?

Tasty

[tasty_tang0]

Does anyone have an answer for this post? it would be much appreciated as the child in question has limited movement in the arm since the fall?

[GlasweJen]

I think I may be missing something. What on earth was the child doing on a wall in the first place? You can't go suing a company when walls are meant to mark boundaries and not to be walked upon, I don't think even a complaint is justified in this case.

[tasty_tang0]

Originally Posted by Jenschnifer

I think I may be missing something. What on earth was the child doing on a wall in the first place? You can't go suing a company when walls are meant to mark boundaries and not to be walked upon, I don't think even a complaint is justified in this case.

It may be courtesy your missing, I was only asking a question on behalf of my friend who had to cope with the aftermath of her child breaking her arm which was highly traumatic for her. Walls are to mark bounderies but should not be easily attainable to climb if this is the case hence my question about height restrictions.

The child was in uncle's care at the time who was looking after another child with special needs and was attending to them whenthe child fell off. It is unclear of actual circumstances but my point is here the fact a child could access the wall and able to mount it, to me there is a health & safety issue here!!!! Would you be saying the same to the next parent if this happens to another child?

[patdavies]

I would suspect that the liability lies with the uncle, as the injured child was not in his care at the time of the incident (as he was caring for another child).

Businesses (even a theme park) cannot wrap every visitor in cotton wool and thus remove the individual's duty of care for themselves.

If the wall is particularly dangerous (unlikely), then the theme park do have a duty of care under H&S. They would be liable if the danger was obvious or had previously been brought to their attention and they had not acted to mitigate the danger.

Where do you stop? A child has been injured falling off a wall where they had no business being; if the park fenced off the wall and the next child injured himself climbing the fence, are they then required to fence off the fence?

It seems to be a general thing that people are no longer accepting that there are such things as accidents and that individuals have to take some responsibility for themselves, and not simply look for someone to blame and sue when an accident does happen.

[whirlybird]

Hi Tango,

As a theme park employee, i can assure you that we are risk assessed to the eye-balls! Wherever possible, we use fencing, signage etc and yet i still see parents/carers putting their kids in a position likely to be a danger.

For example, one area i can think of has a walled pathway with a 25ft drop the other side. Where practicable, there are fences.Where not, there are clear signs asking that children not be seated. If i had a quid for every parent ive had to ask to remove their child from this wall i would not need to work on a theme park.

Im sorry that a child was injured and im even sorrier that the first question asked is usually "how much can i claim". Common sense could prevent a fair few accidents and to my knowledge, the insurance cos will drag cases like that out for years.
This is not a personal attack on you Tango (enough on your plate at mo ) i just feel that sometimes we are banging our heads against a brick wall and spending more and more time having to protect people from themselves.

[GlasweJen]

I'm sorry I don't think that it is curtesy that I'm missing, I don't post up what people want to hear just because they want to hear it and I think that's an advantage to anyone who i'm trying to help.

Children don't wander into theme parks on their own, they have to be with a responsible adult. It is not the theme parks fault if the adult in this question couldn't be responsible and this led to the childs arm being broken. the uncle should have had more sense and it was not up to the theme park to provide this sense for him. When I asked if i was missing something earlier I meant along the lines of was it an elevated walkway on top of a wall or something that would require a child to walk on a wall.

I realise you have a lot on your plate but as a special needs person myself I do not have the elaboration of english required to "sugar coat" what I am thinking.

Incidentally I find your personal attack at me is disgusting.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Originally Posted by whirlybird

Hi Tango,

As a theme park employee, i can assure you that we are risk assessed to the eye-balls!

So what?

You are just fulfilling your obligations-it doesn't mean you forfeit any liabilities.

Almost every summer there is reported an incident of unsafe rides somewhere in the UK for instance.

What can be annoying about a forum like this is when a rather vague question is posted yet answers are given which, logically, can only be as vague as the originating post!

The OP should provide a bit more meat on the bone about the circumstances. They have already stated they are 'unclear about actual circumstances.'

eg Is it possible that a theme park employee had been working near the wall but left a large tool case or even a ladder which enabled a small child to climb onto the wall in the first place?

If a parent took a child to McDonalds but an employee had left an open bottle of detergent on a table and the child drank from it then is the parent to blame?

Please find out more about this incident and the circumstances of it.

[tasty_tang0]

Originally Posted by patdavies

I would suspect that the liability lies with the uncle, as the injured child was not in his care at the time of the incident (as he was caring for another child).
Yes I agree liability in this respect is with uncle, who clearly couldn't cope with the responsibility of having two children to care for!
Businesses (even a theme park) cannot wrap every visitor in cotton wool and thus remove the individual's duty of care for themselves.
Again a valid point!
If the wall is particularly dangerous (unlikely), then the theme park do have a duty of care under H&S. They would be liable if the danger was obvious or had previously been brought to their attention and they had not acted to mitigate the danger.
If there has been another incident then I'm not sure if this has been reported.
Where do you stop? A child has been injured falling off a wall where they had no business being; if the park fenced off the wall and the next child injured himself climbing the fence, are they then required to fence off the fence?
Point taken....
It seems to be a general thing that people are no longer accepting that there are such things as accidents and that individuals have to take some responsibility for themselves, and not simply look for someone to blame and sue when an accident does happen.

I didn't post to look for blame, I wanted advice, your post has helped me understand the validity of my initial question.

Thank you Pat

[tasty_tang0]

Whirly,

I understand, I think perhaps my question was a learning curve for my own common sense. If my friend wanted to be dishonest she wouldn't have asked me to post the question, it would be with a solictor by now!

But thanks anyway!:o

[tasty_tang0]

Originally Posted by Jenschnifer

I'm sorry I don't think that it is curtesy that I'm missing, I don't post up what people want to hear just because they want to hear it and I think that's an advantage to anyone who i'm trying to help.
So you think these words are informative or lacking manners?

When I asked if i was missing something earlier I meant along the lines of was it an elevated walkway on top of a wall or something that would require a child to walk on a wall.
You should have asked this question then!
I realise you have a lot on your plate but as a special needs person myself I do not have the elaboration of english required to "sugar coat" what I am thinking.
Special needs? I don't understand I have real problems not special needs, maybe it is your inability to sugar coat things that has erroeously lead you to believe I have personally attacked you!
Incidentally I find your personal attack at me is disgusting.

Elaborate in what way I personally attacked you please for my clarification, as this was not my intention and disgust is a strong word Jen! aplologies

[GlasweJen]

You were personally attacking me here:

It may be courtesy your missing

and I enquired of the extenuating circumstances here:

I think I may be missing something.

I may have a neurological disorder and learning difficulties and I may look 12 years old when I am in fact in my twenties but I must assure you that I have perfect understanding of common curtesies and societys views on the people who lack these curtesies. To imply that one does not have them is insulting and as it was you who told me that I may be missing curtesy then I have taken this to be a personal insult which appears (to me) to be entirely justifiable. I am sorry but my previous remark on feeling nothing but disgust that you would address me in such way still stands.

Incidentally your remark about your "real problems" is just plain insulting as well, I'm sorry if having a degenerative neurological condition is not a "real problem". Perhaps I should come from a deprived background, be in the middle of court proceedings due to discrimination, have lost 5 relatives in the year 2007 alone, be told that I have 2 copies of a faulty gene that will most likely lead to me suffering from cancer and be questioning my place in a society that favours those with able bodies rather than able mind. Oh wait, I am!

[JonCris]

OP if the child had free & uninhibited access to a wall along which they could walk that IS a foreseeable risk as children walk along walls all the time - therefore suggest your friend consults a solicitor. The fact that the child might have been supervised is not relevant as far as the child is concerned. The child is the innocent victim & the solicitor will be acting for them not the parent - the court will be involved in any payment of compensation - also if the parent fails to seek advice & it's later found there was a case to answer the child could end up suing the parent for negligence - it has happened

To the Park employee - warning signs are all very well but children don't, & some can't, read signs. To avoid liability there must be a physical barrier stopping children gaining access

[postggj]

please dont attack me
i feel this country has gone compensation fever
when i was a kid bumps and bruise,falling out of a tree was part of growing up, lifes lessons
when somebody has an accident now its solicitors
this has to effect the kids if we wrap them up in cotton wool

[JonCris]

According to the OP this wasn't just a bump or a bruise this accident resulted in a broken arm the resulting problems of which can last a lifetime.

Also don't believe the hype - research by both the insurance industry & the government has revealed that there are fewer personal injury claims now than 10 years ago - they just don't like to mention it as it's a great excuse to increase everyones premiums

[postggj]

i agree, i was talking in general
any kid having an acident is traumatic
i know my eight year old fell off a skateboard and broke his arm