Version: 2008

Comments on: Manhole swallows teen texter

A 15-year-old in Staten Island is so busy texting that she doesn't see a manhole and falls into it. According to a report, her parents intend to sue.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 2 of 3 pages (88 Comments)
by skspartan117 July 13, 2009 2:33 PM PDT
After reading all of the comments, i have to say i like "MagicLand" comment the best is the most correct for this situation. Both parties are to be blamed.
Should the workers be fired? Probably
Should the girl be reimbursed for her clothing? Sure
Should the family sue and they get money out of it? Hell no.
Just my opinion of course...
Reply to this comment
by happygolucky101lol July 13, 2009 2:41 PM PDT
Well at least she wasn't playing a video game, because you can actually take your eyes of your phone while waiting for a reply :)
Reply to this comment
by niko_osokin July 13, 2009 3:00 PM PDT
Ridiculous lawsuits are starting to annoy me. From birth and kindergarten, children are taught that they are not at fault, that they're perfect, and when they grow older they refuse to take responsibility. Granted, if I was texting and walking, I too would've probably fallen in (texting is pretty preoccupying) but I wouldn't blame the city for my own stupidity.
Reply to this comment
by jonarosen July 14, 2009 11:12 AM PDT
*applause*
I wholly agree. This nation... from soup to nuts, children to politicians, laypeople to PhD's, need a simple, gargantuan sized dose of something called COMMON SENSE.
by Vurk July 13, 2009 3:01 PM PDT
At last report the parents were planning to sue for $10 million dollars. "To teach DEP a lesson!"
Reply to this comment
by Dleon84 July 13, 2009 3:14 PM PDT
This is probably one of the funniest articles I've read all week. Cheers to you!
Reply to this comment
by ChrisMatyszczyk July 13, 2009 3:41 PM PDT
@Dleon84,

Thank you. But it's only Monday.

Chris
by Inconnux July 13, 2009 4:38 PM PDT
LoL too funny, texting is crap!

scary thing is that people actually drive while texting
Reply to this comment
by Electronic_Dreamer July 13, 2009 4:39 PM PDT
the Department of Environmental Protection should have the right to sue that girl for being so stupid to fall in there in the first place and sue her parents for trying to sue them for her IDIOCY. even if there were no barriers there's still a huge hole in the ground you dont just walk into to it you IDIOT!!! This is what happens when you text message so much.
Reply to this comment
by TheUsD July 13, 2009 5:03 PM PDT
If anything, her parents should sue'DEP because the workers didnt cover up the manhole while she was still in there. Then, maybe...just maybe she might have learned something
Reply to this comment
by snakeburm July 13, 2009 5:06 PM PDT
if the case does go to court, i hope the judge throws it out. It is ridiculous for the parents to sue the dep. The girl should have been looking where she was walking, not texting. We should be teaching our children to be responsible for themselves and their actions, not ok, you fell into a hole, you weren't injured, your fine, so lets sue whomever we can and see how much money we can get. It is ridiculous to what lengths everyone must go to keep themselves from being sued and trying to keep the public from hurting themselves, remember way back when holes in the road just had those little black steel balls filled with kerosene and a flame to signal a danger in the road?? Now they have to have day glo orange cones, flashing lights, chains, etc, etc, etc, to protect someone from hurting themselves. People have to take responsibility for themselves. Hey, she will have a great story to tell her grandkids one day.... Oh yeh, are her parents going to sue everyone who is making comments about their daughter too?? People should stop texting when walking, driving, etc, etc, its getting past the point of stupidity.
Reply to this comment
by bbjw82 July 13, 2009 7:45 PM PDT
Plain and simple like another poster said its a three way liability. The DEP for not erecting barriers, The girl's fault for not paying attention, but most importantly its the parents fault for not teaching their daughter how to be aware of her surroundings.
Reply to this comment
by ace10134 July 13, 2009 11:00 PM PDT
Is she blonde? (Couldn't resist!)
Reply to this comment
by Tod Smith July 14, 2009 1:41 AM PDT
Only a human would sue for something like this. This is why our government is broke!
Reply to this comment
by odubtaig July 14, 2009 6:05 AM PDT
Well, the bears would sue but they can't fill in the paperwork without thumbs and the lawyers have trouble understanding the grunts.
by El_Segfaulto July 14, 2009 11:12 AM PDT
I think Manbearpig could fill out the requisite paperwork.
by InuHanyou1701 July 14, 2009 2:09 AM PDT
4 words. Put down the phone.
Reply to this comment
by alexacker July 14, 2009 3:29 AM PDT
Big oops. Rather...

...but people are texting while driving and killing people too (NOT funny)
Reply to this comment
by kytribefan21 July 14, 2009 5:28 AM PDT
The sad thing is this kid will be driving in a few years and doing the same thing, like all the other kids out there now. Who are the parents going to sue when she takes out a pedestrian in a crosswalk that she doesn't see or turns in front of a motorcyclist?
Reply to this comment
by odubtaig July 14, 2009 6:17 AM PDT
So, here's the situation:

- It's a legal requirement to cordon off and signpost a manhole cover _before_ opening it.
- It's therefore not an unreasonable expectation that if such a cover is open there will be a cordon and signposts.
- It's therefore the case that the minimum requirement for paying attention that any pedestrian should have expected of them is to look out for obstacles above ground level.
- It also follows that no-one here knows that she wasn't doing that considering it doesn't say she walked into a person, a tree or in front of a car/van/truck/lorry.
- If it's not an unreasonable expectation that all major hazards will be above ground level then pedestrian areas can be considered safe enough for walking+texting within limits.
- This means her behaviour was not especially stupid.
- This also means that at least 80% of people commenting here are ignorant *********.
- LOL Internets.
Reply to this comment
by odubtaig July 14, 2009 6:34 AM PDT
PS

I see the usual suspects are bandying about imaginary figures when no amount has been stated anywhere. Yes Monkeyfun, I'm looking at you. Where's your source for how much the lawsuit is for? Hmmmm? You don't have one? Full of **** as usual?

Vurk. Where are these reports? Verified or Fox? People like you are why the internet can't be relied on for ****.
by PrimalZed July 14, 2009 6:53 AM PDT
If you actually read the comments, most people agree that the DEP is at fault here, at least partially. They did not follow the proper procedure (marking the location before opening up the manhole). The workers involved are likely to lose their jobs, or have some other reprecussion.

However, if you think they should be held liable to this family, the question arises: liable for what? Clothing, medical bill? Sure. That could probably be arranged without a lawsuit. Anything more? Absolutely not.
by odubtaig July 14, 2009 8:16 AM PDT
See my other comment regarding the usual level of culpability in large organisations. It's increasingly the case that civil litigation is the only way to have some people held responsible for their actions.
by PrimalZed July 14, 2009 8:27 AM PDT
I don't know about that. Like you demanded a source for someone else's information, I'd have to see evidence that such a trend towards organizations ignoring everything outside of lawsuit.

Even if such a trend did exist, that does not mean an individual's immediate choice of action should be to take the organization to court. Believe it or not, things can be dealt with without costing the government a ton of money. Other articles pertaining to this incident state that DEP is already investigating the occurance, before any lawsuit is filed.

Even if this does go to court, I again ask, what do you think is owed to the family? Like I said, since there was no serious injury, there is very little that DEP can be held liable for.
by odubtaig July 15, 2009 6:07 AM PDT
With reference to NHS complaints: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4799575.ece

In fact, googling 'pointless complaints system' brings up a full page of NHS. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pointless+complaints+system&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official

UK universities' Ombudsman: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/may/20/highereducation.administration

I've seen numerous examples but the one common thread between all of them is that in every case the complaints system failed because the organisation was also the complaints handling body. Self-regulation is unworkable and this is demonstrated by the increasing number of people using the courts as a first resort.

Most of the time it's not even about personal gain, it's about hurting the defendant.
by SandlapperJohn July 14, 2009 6:29 AM PDT
Like this is the greatest story...EV-ER-AH
Reply to this comment
by DigitalFrog July 14, 2009 8:38 AM PDT
If she wins, they should turn around and fine her for unauthorized entry into a restricted area...
Reply to this comment
by dataJONBOY July 14, 2009 9:42 AM PDT
can you here me now?
Reply to this comment
by shiningdevil July 14, 2009 10:31 AM PDT
I bet that ***** would've just slammed through the barriers anyways. Then the idiot mother would've sued because "the barriers weren't strong enough."
Reply to this comment
Showing 2 of 3 pages (88 Comments)
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Technically Incorrect

Chris Matyszczyk brings a fresh and irreverent perspective to the tech world in his CNET blog, Technically Incorrect. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Technically Incorrect topics

advertisement
advertisement