# Aquarium Sued After Fall In Pool



## fish_doc (Jan 31, 2005)

A suit seeking $20,250 in damages has been filed against the Tennessee Aquarium after a 3-year-old slipped in a wading pool outside.

The suit was filed by the child, Kollin H. Kennedy, and his mother, Amy Kennedy.

It says last Sept. 24, the child visited the Aquarium with his grandfather.

The child was walking in the pool when he slipped and hit his head on a metal sign. The suit says it pierced his ear and caused a knot on his head. It says he also got a rash and suffered severe pain.

The suit, filed by attorney Marvin Berke, says the Aquarium was negligent in having a sharp-edged sign and in having slippery steps at the pool.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_92627.asp


----------



## fish_doc (Jan 31, 2005)

$20,250 ???
It seems like a very odd amount. I think she has some bills to pay off and is looking for someone else to pay them. Lawyer fee plus credit card or a car.

How about next time if you can't watch the kid dont take him with. 

It sounds like a amount that was set because the lawyer knew if it was to high it would get thrown out of court. The smaller amount could just be paid and written off. Lawyer fees and a long trial could eaisly cost more than that.


----------



## Ringo (Apr 10, 2006)

People.... do anything wont they?


----------



## CaysE (May 21, 2006)

Medical bills aren't cheap. And surely we need more of the story than this to make a judgement call.


----------



## fish_doc (Jan 31, 2005)

Still, any medical bills aside. People need to stop blaiming others for thier own clumsy ways. 

I mean there are times where things are neglected and need to be delt with because they are a saftey hazzard. But most of these lawsuits are because of basic stupid behaviour. I mean it was a 3 year old. They fall even without having obstructions in their path. I think the aquarium should sue the parents for abuse/neglect since the guardian at the time did allow him into the wading pool without water wings or holding on to his hands. 

People need to grow up and accept blame for their own actions. 

I just read a story online about people on bicycles and how cars drive closer to those wearing helmets than those without. And how your odds of getting hit are greater if you wear a helmet because of this. No that is somthing to sue over.


----------



## rywill (Nov 22, 2005)

yea pretty rediculous i have to say


----------



## Zoe (Feb 26, 2006)

I'm from Canada where we're far less sue-happy, but it is not responsible to have a sharp sign where children are playing.

I would not sue if that happened to my child (free passes, maybe? ) but I wouldn't necessarily assume that she's doing it -just- for the money.


----------



## fish_doc (Jan 31, 2005)

You never know. Maybe the sign said no playing in the pool. LOL


----------



## Gump (Aug 2, 2006)

any piece of metal will cut you if you fall hard enough on it. how about pay attention to your kid while its in a pool... wow parenting what a consept.


----------



## Zoe (Feb 26, 2006)

fish_doc said:


> You never know. Maybe the sign said no playing in the pool. LOL


lol that's so funny  




Well how hard could a 3 year old have fallen? Parenting is a lot harder than ya might think, it's hard to keep track of your kids every second - they fall easily and they can get hurt easily.

Would I sue over that? No way. Could it happen even with a responsible parent nearby? Definitely. She may well have been paying attention and just could not move fast enough to stop her kid from falling.

Who where didn't fall lots as a kid?


----------



## emc7 (Jul 23, 2005)

I don't think grampa will get to keep babysitting. I understand the suit though. You ask for triple in the hopes of settling for enough to pay the hospital and the lawyers.


----------



## Puffer Pita (Jun 16, 2006)

Speaking as someone who works on both sides of personal injury lawsuits, there's always more to the story than gets reported. Just like the McDonald's coffee lawsuit, there's much more to the story than most people know.


----------



## HybridS130 (Aug 27, 2006)

Not a true american until you sue somebody ya know. lol


----------



## emc7 (Jul 23, 2005)

Most businesses don't have medical insurance for customers hurt on their premises, but they do have liability insurance. This mean to get anything, even an apology, the injured must sue.


----------



## mr.dark-saint (Aug 16, 2005)

Whatever happend to people who used to put harness on their kids? You'd go to a mall and see this kid running then all of a sudden "WHAM" on their but as the line goes taught. It was funny for me to see and at the same time very good parenting. 

I recon being 3 the kid wasn't too sure footed but they still have a soft head. Now if he has the Jean Claude Van Dam "Knot" I'd chalk it up as a life lesson. It's three how high off the ground was it? I wonder if the "tard" I mean kid had to wear one of those bike helmets? Severe pain? Nothing a ice cream couldn't fix. Why not go for Post Traumatic "Aquarium" Syndrome and can't bathe so it stinks. Only if the kid sliped and fell in a desert and the parents blaming the walks being too dry? As Bill Cosby used to say "Have a coke and smile".


----------



## emc7 (Jul 23, 2005)

I'm not arguing the bad parenting, but once a kid is hurt, the hospital bill can be bigger than college tuition.


----------



## fish_doc (Jan 31, 2005)

Update


> *Lawsuit Against The Aquarium Is Dropped
> *[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]posted September 15, 2006[/FONT]
> 
> A woman who brought a lawsuit against the Tennessee Aquarium after her child was injured outside in a wading pool said she is dropping the suit.
> ...


http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_92865.asp

I like how they said they were razor sharp plaques. The first story said metal sign. Still trying to justify her story even though she backed out.

"I did not know at that point that the property belonged to the city of Chattanooga"

Could that be another reason she backed out. Knowing she was not going to get money out of a city. Who pays the judges checks?


----------



## Puffer Pita (Jun 16, 2006)

You'd be surprised how much money you can get out of a city in a lawsuit that has little basis. They'll pay it off because its cheaper than fighting it in many cases. Happens all of the time, everywhere.


----------



## fish_doc (Jan 31, 2005)

Well at least the aquarium wont have to pay out money. It seems some of them struggle to get by while ocassionally you get the one with a big generous supporter.


----------



## aaa (Jan 19, 2005)

i am glad that she actually drop the suit. people need to learn to watch their kid. yes parenting is hard, but if you can't handle it, don't have a kid. that's why there is plan b out there.


----------



## TheOldSalt (Jan 28, 2005)

Well, I for one am on the side of the kid. Think about it--> little kids are GOING to fall down, and in a pool, it's a given. Why on earth was some sort of sharp metal sign anywhere near that pool, let alone close enough that it would be in the falling range of some 3 year-old? Just how close did it have to be for that? Pretty darned close, I'd think.


----------



## Zoe (Feb 26, 2006)

aaa said:


> i am glad that she actually drop the suit. people need to learn to watch their kid. yes parenting is hard, but if you can't handle it, don't have a kid. that's why there is plan b out there.


Oh c'mon, that's pretty ignorant  LOTS of people have kids, and accidents do happen. Skinned knees, falls out of trees, muddy clothes, fall out of bed - accidents happen to every kid regardless of whether the parents are responsible or not. Now I'm not saying to sue everything anytime anything happens to your kid but, just because the kid fell, doesn't mean his guardian wasn't watching. Kids fall quickly and frequently :console: 

 

So, if you don't have kids / grandkids, it's not really fair to state that it's so easy to watch your kids 24/7 and avoid every single mishap. I mean it's quite possible that that sign WAS sharp, and WAS in the way of playing kids. Not saying to go and sue about it, necessarily...

Edit spelling


----------



## emc7 (Jul 23, 2005)

The hardscape outside the aquarium is pretty but hard, its all bricks,signs, and concrete. The are interesting ramp-like things sticking up that no one is supposed to climb. Its not a good place for children to play at all, but kids will play whereever they have to wait. Good safe play areas are scarse everywhere.


----------



## Puffer Pita (Jun 16, 2006)

Just because someone sues doesn't make them irresponsible parents or sue-happy. If there was a metal sign in a designated children's area that was sharp enough to cut an earlobe in half, then it was a badly designed area and I applaud her for suing to make them fix it, especially if they weren't responding to her non-suit requests to fix the problem. Sometimes some people don't listen to reason until you force them to.


----------



## aaa (Jan 19, 2005)

my last statement was kind of extreme after i read it again... i take that back....

but seriously, there are so many unresponsible parents out there. that's the first thing i think of.

the aquarium was stupid enough to put a sign out there that is sharp.... they deserve to get sue. i know parenting is not easy... i have a cousin i have to take care of and i understand that you can't watch over him 24/7

but from another point of view, isn't the parents just to watch over kid for every second? if they got hurt, it still count as your fault, there is no excuse for that. a parent should know that they should not let their kid go to unsafe area to play


----------



## fish_doc (Jan 31, 2005)

> Sometimes some people don't listen to reason until you force them to.


The story said they kept contacting the aquarium. And the pool area was owned by the city. People might fix things if the right people were contacted. Would you fix the sign it you were contacted and threatened with a lawsuit and it was not your property.

And other times things are done by different divisions. Without knowing what the sign was you dont know who put it there. My dad was general manager for a radio station and they were constantly getting drug into court about debris on the property. It was several acers. When they got to court they found out it was stuff other neighbors had dumped there including the fact some of them were storing boats on the property. Once my dad told them they would scrap anything that was not owned by the station on the property, the neighbors cleaned up what they had dumped there. And there was nothing left to clean up.

My point being it may have been a lawsuit in the traffic division of the city that created a law stating that a 'no parking" sign had to be placed in that type of area at a certian height and size. So a general sign was created for that function. Policys and procedures are crazy in many citys and there are times it takes weeks to get answers. Trust me I gave up trying to get my money for my mailbox that the city destroyed when repaving the street in front of my house 3 years ago. I even had a legal document from their lawyers stating they would reimburse me.


----------



## Puffer Pita (Jun 16, 2006)

If I was working in a building and someone came in and said they tripped over a broken piece of sidewalk and that it should be fixed, I certainly wouldn't blow them off simply because I didn't own the building or the sidewalk. I'd let whoever owns the building know so they could deal with the problem. Sometimes its difficult to know who to complain to. As she said, she complained numerous times to the aquarium and got nowhere. It was the aquarium staff's responsibility to notify whoever WAS in charge, if only to warn them that they might be facing a lawsuit. To do otherwise is irresponsible IMO. Yes, people might fix things if the right people were contacted. Then again, very often they don't. I work in a law firm and that's what keeps me employed, the fact that people DON'T fix things they know they should and someone gets hurt, loses property, loses money, etc.


----------



## fish_doc (Jan 31, 2005)

> It was the aquarium staff's responsibility to notify whoever WAS in charge, if only to warn them that they might be facing a lawsuit.


It was property adjacent to theirs it was not theirs. If someone trips on your neighbors sidewalk why is it your job to notify your neighbor. You were not involved in the incident in any way.Stay out of it. The way lawsuits go your best bet is to stay out of a situation unless it involves you or you will end up paying for someone elses problems. Esp if it involves a injury.


----------



## fish_doc (Jan 31, 2005)

Now here is a real lawsuit



> A man who claims he had a heart attack during a dispute over an ill-fitting hairpiece that didn't match his hair color is suing the wig shop.
> Paul Lewis claims he suffered a heart attack after refusing to pay for the hairpiece that was not only the wrong size but also the wrong color. He is seeking more than $15,000 in damages.
> Lewis filed a counter lawsuit in Superior Court after Paula's Wig Boutique of Orange filed a small claims action seeking $1,200 in payment for the hairpiece.
> Lewis claims he fell ill in December 2004 after Paula Wood, the owner of the wig shop, threatened to call police because he refused to pay, according to court records.
> ...


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14853950/?GT1=8506

Sorry I saw this and couldnt leave it alone.


----------



## Puffer Pita (Jun 16, 2006)

Yup, I saw that. I see a lot of weird lawsuits. There's one right now where a woman fell in a parking lot of a vet clinic. She'd tripped over a speed bump and suffered a wrist injury that allegedly required surgery to repair. Now, she wasn't actually going to visit the vet clinic for a pet, she was leaving a stack of flyers about her dog walking service on their counter, which she had done before. She's walked across the same parking lot over a hundred times over the period of a couple of years, walking over the same speed bump. Yet now all of a sudden, its a dangerous speed bump so she's suing the vet clinic. Go figure.

Like I said though, its crap like this that keeps me employed. Job security is a good thing.


----------



## fish_doc (Jan 31, 2005)

Irony at its best. She TRIPS while pushing her dog WALKING service.


----------



## aaa (Jan 19, 2005)

well, sue is not the only solution. maybe you can get media's attention in other way. the local tv station report the sidewalk problem and such that complain by the viewers and city get the work done quickly. one tv station even report how the police office went to eat during their work hour and they end up getting fire. this is far better than sueing someone for something that you shouldn't take in my opinion. 

on the heart attack thing, this is his problem. this is just like you got flu from school and you miss a few days of class and you are sueing the school for having flu. this is just stupid. to this day, i still can't believe mcdonald's actually have to pay that one woman. this one case actually make the world think american people sueing over everything even it is their fault. this actually give americans a bad name.


----------



## Zoe (Feb 26, 2006)

Before you judge Stella, I suggest you read this:

Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup. 
Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs. 
McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent. 
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously, resulting in some number of other claims and lawsuits. 
Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it is too hot. 
While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20 percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages that were awarded. 

(Taken from stellaawards.com)

Again, should a person sue? or sue for more than medical bills? Perhaps not ; but not all lawsuits are bogus. But yeah... americans are very litigious


----------



## Puffer Pita (Jun 16, 2006)

Yup, the majority of them were punitive damages because McDonalds was fully aware of the fact that their coffee was a problem but continue to use super heated water to make the coffee because they can use a lesser quality of beans and less of them, which increases their profit margin. That's why I said earlier that people judge these things based on very limited information available in the press. If they knew the full details, they might not be so quick to write this poor old woman (yes, she was elderly as well) as looking for a deep pocket. She required multiple skin grafts on her thighs.


----------



## BV77 (Jan 22, 2005)

everybody gotta sue now a days. What happened to taking responsibility for one's actions.. Duh...there may be water by the pool. Sounds llike the money should be used to train the parents to train the kid. Just my 2 cents


----------



## aaa (Jan 19, 2005)

well, she spill the coffee and isn't it her own fault still? if her grandson stop the car, that should make her easier to not to spill. if you say an elderly person can't get the job done because she has some medical problem, shouldn't her grandson help her? mcdonald was stupid too because it is just a simple sign that say coffee is hot and that would solve the problem and the lady won't get any money. i am not saying mcdonald was entirely right, but i know that the lady is not 100% right. of course you will get hurt when hot stuff spill on you. i believe the lady already aware that the coffee is hot, or his grandson will not stop for her to open the lid. i believe being a old woman is not an excuse on this one because her grandson could have help her out and this whole thing will not happen. 

of course mcdonald try to save money, heck, that's what every business man do or they will lose money. 

i don't judge things based on limited information. this whole thing happen because she accidentally spill coffee and it happen to be the mcdonald coffee that is hot. she has to go thur all those operation all because of her fault. if she has some medical problem then it is her grandson's fault for not helping her out. 

let's sum up what i have said, mcdonald's fault for not labeling hot drink, grandson's fault for not helping his grandma, the woman's fault for not being careful with a hot drink.


----------



## aaa (Jan 19, 2005)

Zoe said:


> From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously, resulting in some number of other claims and lawsuits.


ok, that's more than 700 people get burn in 10 years, and more than 70 people in a year getting burn and that's about 5-7 people getting burn a month, so that's about 1-3 people each week. what is not mention is how many people out of the total people that purchase coffee that actually getting burn, let alone serious burn. so clearly that statement above is playing trick on our eyes.


----------



## ghostangelhunny (Jul 24, 2006)

wow that seems kinda odd I also think someone was out to just get some money and using your kid to get it sounds pretty pathetic..


----------



## Zoe (Feb 26, 2006)

1-3 people per week is an awful lot to be burned by coffee. Sure, it's a very small percentage of the people who actually drink the coffee... But I would expect maybe three-four times per year someone would get burnt by coffee badly enough to say something about it.

She certainly knew the coffee was hot. But did she know that the temperature at which her coffee was could cause severe burns in a few seconds? Probably not...

It's not a trick statement, it's just a fact. I mean think about it - about every other day someone out there is being burned by mcdonald's coffee - that's an awful lot, isn't it?

I mean, people spill / drop stuff all the time. However one would not expect that several people per month/year require SKIN GRAFTS because they spill some coffee on them. Yes, it's probably her 'fault' she spilled the coffee - but if McDonalds did not warn the coffee drinkers that their coffee was a whopping 170-190 degrees, then they are liable for the injuries caused.

When Stella originally tried to get a settlement from McDonalds, they refund to pay her the 20,000 for medical bills. Which, when you factor in the skin grafting and recovery, is not that much.

There IS a reason she won the lawsuit, after all...

You seem to expect everyone everywhere to watch everyone everywhere all the time, never trip fall or stumble, never drop anything, never have an accident or spill something, to never be distracted or look elsewhere, or to be fast enough to catch something falling... Let's face it, accidents happen, they happen all the time, everyone has them. One should have a reasonable expectation that a minor lapse of judgement or attention would not require in serious injury, right?


----------



## aaa (Jan 19, 2005)

Zoe said:


> 1-3 people per week is an awful lot to be burned by coffee. Sure, it's a very small percentage of the people who actually drink the coffee... But I would expect maybe three-four times per year someone would get burnt by coffee badly enough to say something about it.
> 
> She certainly knew the coffee was hot. But did she know that the temperature at which her coffee was could cause severe burns in a few seconds? Probably not...
> 
> ...


nope, you misunderstood my point. my point is, if it is you are not being careful, it is still your fault. when you drive a car, even you didn't pay attention to the road for one tenth of a second and cause an accident, it is still your fault right? that's my point. i don't expect anyone to be perfect. this world is not perfect anyway. i always spill stuff too, i do understand, but you can't just expect someone pay for your problem if it is your fault right? if you ask me, mcdonald should pay for the lady's medical bill, but not all of them as it is not entirely their fault. i just don't think it's fair for someone who is not entirely being wrong to pay full price for it. that was my point all along. 

i didn't say the number is a trick statement. i just saying that the way it present is playing trick to my eye. i know it is a fact, when you look at it, you are like, wow, 700+ people injury by the coffee... but when you think about, it is 700+ over 10 years period. yes, 1-3 injury by coffee across United States(i just assume US because it didn't say anything, but remember mcdonald is all over the world) is not a small number, but did it show the number of other place that people injury by coffee? i am sure they serve the same hot stuff since everyone try to make the most profit. 

if the lady drink the coffee and cause some medical problem, i agree that mcdonald should pay full price. but in this case, i just think both side have their fault and should spit the cost.

by the way, she win the case not only by some of the strong point on her side, her lawyer must did a great job too, don't forget the give credit to that lawyer, he did a good job.


----------



## Puffer Pita (Jun 16, 2006)

That seems to be a general misconception about these kinds of cases. You seem to be under the impression that its find one side guilty or the other. Its not. Juries assign a percentage of fault to every party involved. In the McDonald’s case, she was found to be 20% responsible for the accident and McDonald’s was found to be 80%. Then the jury decides how much she should be compensated for her medical bills (past and future), any loss of earnings (past and future), pain and suffering (past and future) and how much if any the liable company should pay in punitive damages. Then the amounts the jury decides on are split between the liable parties, so her award was reduced by the 20% that she was found to be responsible for.


----------



## Zoe (Feb 26, 2006)

As BoxerMom said, it doesn't necessarily matter whose "fault" it is - in this case, the jury did determine that she was partly at fault - that's why she did not get 100%.



> if you ask me, mcdonald should pay for the lady's medical bill, but not all of them as it is not entirely their fault


 That is exactly what happened...




> when you drive a car, even you didn't pay attention to the road for one tenth of a second and cause an accident, it is still your fault right?


 Well, yes, because you know to watch the road. It's not the road's fault or the city's fault or whatever. But what if you're driving, paying decent attention, you turn a corner, and you look at a bird or something for a few seconds, and without realizing it, you go over a bridge that's not finished construction, or broken or whatever. Is that really your fault? Yes, you weren't not paying 100% attention, but there should have been signposts, road blocks, a FIXED bridge... Once an accident has happened, it's not as much about whose fault it is - it's about who is responsible for the damages / medical bills etc.



> but did it show the number of other place that people injury by coffee?


 Again... numbers don't really matter here. If tomorrow morning a million people were burned by 190F coffee or one person, that isn't relevant. 

Oh, and frankly, her lawyer may have been great, but McDonalds can afford the best of the best, no? Anyway, lawyers can be very convincing but they can't work miracles. McDonalds had lawyers, too, anyway.


----------



## aaa (Jan 19, 2005)

bottom line, 20/80 is still not fair... this is getting way off topic... let's get back to the kid... how is he doing?


----------



## emc7 (Jul 23, 2005)

I does say "designated play area" you would expect they would make some effort to make it safe for kids.


----------

