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.
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.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
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.
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
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...
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.
Thank you. But it's only Monday.
Chris
scary thing is that people actually drive while texting
...but people are texting while driving and killing people too (NOT funny)
- 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.
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 ****.
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.
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.
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 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."
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (88 Comments)