Boy awarded payout - your opnion?
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
While I think this judgement might be overkill, you'd have to be an idiot to allow an underage guest to use a bunk bed after you've removed the guard rail.
Pouring from his ear? The number one sign of a fractured skull. I'm willing to bet his head around the ears turned black and blue too (Battle's sign) and got 2 big black (racoon's) eyes.
So, completely unsafe
So, they knew the kid got hurt, he had blood pouring from his fucking ears, and they didn't even call an ambulance or take him to the hospital? Well fuck them. They deserve more than just getting sued.
I think that the Shaws were at least partly, if not totally, responsible for the child's fall because they had removed the guard rail and ladder. Given that fact I think that they were stupid not to have settled out of court, for a smaller amount, rather than taking the case as far as the Supreme Court.
The child might have been skylarking but the Shaws did have a duty of care.
I am a little shocked at the nasty comments against the boy on the newspaper's website.
The child might have been skylarking but the Shaws did have a duty of care.
I am a little shocked at the nasty comments against the boy on the newspaper's website.
The amount of judgement is sickening. $860,000?!?! 
I won't make that much in a lifetime!
Also, Mr. Thomas is a dick. I can't even begin to count how many times I fell down the stairs as a child. "Learning and behavioural problems" my ass.
However, the Shaws are idiots and as disgusting as the whole thing is, they were in the wrong. Bunk beds have guard rails and ladders for a reason. Were there not other beds available? Or the bottom bunk, and put their own kid in the top bunk? Especially in this day and age, you can't be too careful.
I won't make that much in a lifetime! Also, Mr. Thomas is a dick. I can't even begin to count how many times I fell down the stairs as a child. "Learning and behavioural problems" my ass.
However, the Shaws are idiots and as disgusting as the whole thing is, they were in the wrong. Bunk beds have guard rails and ladders for a reason. Were there not other beds available? Or the bottom bunk, and put their own kid in the top bunk? Especially in this day and age, you can't be too careful.
It is only about $690,000 in US dollars. Still a lot and most likely to much but they should have settled out of court for a lesser amount.
The amount of judgement is sickening. $860,000?!?!
Do you work at Walmart?
If you worked 45 yrs (say 20-65) at 40,000 a year, you'd make more than twice as much as that.
The amount of judgement is sickening. $860,000?!?!
Also, Mr. Thomas is a dick. I can't even begin to count how many times I fell down the stairs as a child. "Learning and behavioural problems" my ass.
Bleeding out the ear is a sign of a Basiler skull fracture and following CT scans could would reveal a possible skull depression which would lead to not only the skull itself pushing into the brain, but also exposing the brain to bacteria and infection. It's serious shit.
The amount of judgement is sickening. $860,000?!?!
Do you work at Walmart?
If you worked 45 yrs (say 20-65) at 40,000 a year, you'd make more than twice as much as that.
Ok, I exaggerate.
Although I don't anticipate making much more than 30K a year ever (well, my own part of the potential income anyway). But at my current salary, 860,000 would be roughly 33 years of pay, and that's with two jobs. Nobody goes into seminary for the money, after all. The amount of judgement is sickening. $860,000?!?!
Also, Mr. Thomas is a dick. I can't even begin to count how many times I fell down the stairs as a child. "Learning and behavioural problems" my ass.
Bleeding out the ear is a sign of a Basiler skull fracture and following CT scans could would reveal a possible skull depression which would lead to not only the skull itself pushing into the brain, but also exposing the brain to bacteria and infection. It's serious shit.
Of course it's serious shit. Skull fractures always are, and I'm glad the kid didn't come out in worse condition. Again, the Shaws were dips and should've called an ambulance immediately once the bleeding from the ears started. Some sort of punishment was warranted.
And yet, I just wish it was something other than the trite old suing. Brief prison stays maybe, or requirements to pay medical bills - but specific, itemized amounts. Why does everything automatically mean suing? Personally, I hate the courts, I hate the very concept of suing. Obviously I'm too young to have had to deal with it myself, but it repulses me. It strikes me as greedy and sleazy if it's for anything beyond an itemized bare minimum. And especially for that amount of money. Maybe I'm coming across as naive, but that size a sum staggers me. How can that family possibly be expected to pay it in any reasonable manner without being absolutely crushed? And what will that do to their own child(ren)?
Last edited:
I'm inclined to agree if this was true. How long had he been there like that before his father came to collect him?
Although where will all this money actually come from?
This is why people should have personal liabilty coverage n their house insurance.
The boy was in their care. They removed the safety rail. He fell and fractured his skull, some kids are naturally uncoordinated which is really no fault of their own. It is the reason we see so much care taken for safety such as putting guard rails and ladders on bunk beds. And the payout is also to pay for past medical bills resulting from the accident, the amount of which we do not see stated but could likely be quite substantial.
Yes, I see it being a just ruling. He was their responsibility and they blew it. Why didn't their own kid sleep on the top bunk if it was so safe supposedly?
Yes, I see it being a just ruling. He was their responsibility and they blew it. Why didn't their own kid sleep on the top bunk if it was so safe supposedly?
The article said the father came to get him the next day
Agreed.
Shit happens. Be prepared for it.
Although their removing of the safety precautions for the bed may have made the insurance company not pay due to negligence.
So they failed to fix the guard rail in violation of law and didn't get help for a kid who fell and was bleeding from the nose and ears? Yes, they should be both sued and criminally prosecuted.
A few years ago I was babysitting five children when one of them fell and burnt her arm on the woodheater (he parents didn't have a firescreen). After looking at the burn, I wrapped a cold wet towel around the burn and decided she needed to be seen at the hospital. The child's uncle lived with a friend of mine so I rung them up and asked if the uncle could come and look after the other four children while I took the child over to the hospital in a taxi. My friend told me not to worry about a taxi that she would try and locate the child's parents up and they could come home and take her over to the hospital - I found out later that the uncle had been drinking and didn't want to drive around and look after the children. I told them not to worry I would take all five children over to the hospital with me in two taxis.
However as I was getting the children ready the parents phoned and said they were on the way home. They arrived 20 minutes later. They had stopped at a pharmacy and bought bandages etc and said that the girl wouldn't need to go to hospital. I wasn't happy with this as a was certaint hat the burn was bad enough to warrant being treated by a doctor.
The parents "patched" her up and sent her to school a couiple of days later. The school eventually contacted them asking about the child's condition. The school was not legally allowed to remove the bandage but told the parents that they wanted proof that the child had been seen ny a doctor. If her parents didn't proof it Child Services would be contacted. Only then did the parents take the child to the doctor (who told them off for not getting treatment earlier).
As soon as the child was injured I was willing to get medical treatment for her. Yet this family doesn't seem to have bothered to do this with this boy, only waited to the father arrived.
However as I was getting the children ready the parents phoned and said they were on the way home. They arrived 20 minutes later. They had stopped at a pharmacy and bought bandages etc and said that the girl wouldn't need to go to hospital. I wasn't happy with this as a was certaint hat the burn was bad enough to warrant being treated by a doctor.
The parents "patched" her up and sent her to school a couiple of days later. The school eventually contacted them asking about the child's condition. The school was not legally allowed to remove the bandage but told the parents that they wanted proof that the child had been seen ny a doctor. If her parents didn't proof it Child Services would be contacted. Only then did the parents take the child to the doctor (who told them off for not getting treatment earlier).
As soon as the child was injured I was willing to get medical treatment for her. Yet this family doesn't seem to have bothered to do this with this boy, only waited to the father arrived.
I find it hard to believe that a child can go to school in Tasmania with a bandage on and if the parents don't tell the school the child's medical history they'll have social services knocking on the door.
That said, bandaging a burn is the last thing anyone should do. Idiots.
That said, bandaging a burn is the last thing anyone should do. Idiots.
Exactly so. The parents hosting the sleep-over were irresponsible, if the facts are as presented here.
Bear in mind that the hosting parents and the kid told completely different stories about what precipitated the injury - so the court had to decide who was telling the truth. Once having decided, essentially, that the adults on the scene were lying or misrepresenting what had happened it's not too hard to justify holding them responsible - they seem to know they were doing something real wrong, after all.
I'm loathe to second-guess civil judgments simply because they sound excessive to me when I hear them in the news - I know that I'm not hearing all of the evidence presented. What most people think they know about the infamous "hot McDonalds coffee" case in the United States fifteen years or so ago is a classic example of an interest group distorting and lying about the facts of a case in order to push a lobbying agenda.
if the child was bleeding i would have thought it would have become a police matter because they did not ring for a ambulance.
See, this is my issue. When did the kid bust his skull, and when did Dad come to get him?
If my daughter was at a sleepover and was bleeding from her ear and/or nose, I'd expect a phone call IMMEDIATELY, regardless of how it may have happened.
Similar threads
