[ShepherdsDog]

We have an 8ft fence around our backyard because we had two large hybrids.

[Benn]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Benn Benn:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Am I off base thinking that the parents need to hold some or the majority of responsibility in this too?

If they knew there was an opening in the fence they should.

Regardless, whether there was a gate or not, you're responsible for your children.

Kinda what I meant but failed at doing so lol

Kids are crafty, well more curious, and can pull things off one will not expect such as "oh look Joey just learned how to unlock and open the front door. Thank god I was not sleeping and he decided to get up and learn that trick early in the morning." But regardless of how they get into trouble under your watch it is still no one else's fault you lost track of them.

[BeaverFever]

A 2-year old doesn't understand boundaries. Having to fence-in your pond/pool is not a state secret, it's common knowledge. Yes, the parents should have SOME blame, but so should the property owner.

A by-law officer should have enforced the fencing issue with the property owner years ago, but I'm guessing his "overpaid government job" was probably the victim of budget cuts.

[cougar]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Regardless, whether there was a gate or not, you're responsible for your children.

I don't think it's right for a parent to lose their child then blame someone else when they get hurt or die.

I agree completely.

Too bad that there are laws that will make the poor pool owner liable for this accident.

Such accidents have happened all the time in the past when there was no private property. Today, when there is an owner of the land, it is so convenient to blame him.

[Lemmy]

cougar cougar:

Too bad that there are laws that will make the poor pool owner liable for this accident.

This wasn't an accident. It was negligence. Contributory negligence.

[cougar]

Lemmy Lemmy:

This wasn't an accident. It was negligence. Contributory negligence.

On the part of the boys grandmother or mother I believe...

The boy could have also ended up on the street under some car.

[Lemmy]

And if the kid ended up under a car, the driver of that car would be negligent if he/she wasn't following the standard of care required by drivers when operating their vehicles. In this case, he ended up in the neighbour's pond and, since the pond wasn't fenced, the property owner did not live up to his duty of care as a property owner. That's negligence.

[Yogi]

The pond, whether actually designed for swimming will be covered under the swimming pool by-laws. Here in Ab. ponds/pools are referred to as 'attractive nusances', and must also be fenced with locked gates in an attempt to avert such tradgedies.

In Ontario:

The Ontario Swimming Pool Safety Act requires owners of in-ground swimming pools to erect a fence around the pool. The fence must be tall enough to ensure that children cannot enter the area immediately around the swimming pool unless they enter through a gate, which must be kept locked unless there is a certified lifeguard in the immediate area of the pool.



Read more: Ontario Swimming Pool Regulations | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6662402_ontari ... z1yoHDrnx4


Read more: Ontario Swimming Pool Regulations | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6662402_ontari ... z1yoFqThxQ

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

And if the kid ended up under a car, the driver of that car would be negligent if he/she wasn't following the standard of care required by drivers when operating their vehicles. In this case, he ended up in the neighbour's pond and, since the pond wasn't fenced, the property owner did not live up to his duty of care as a property owner. That's negligence.

It's horse shit is what it is.

But it's good to know that if my kid runs off due to me being irresponsible and gets hurt or dies, there's always someone else to blame.

At any rate, I'm guessing that the pond was less than 50cm deep which is a common standard for by-laws. If it's less than 50cm deep, it doesn't need to be fenced.

[OnTheIce]

Yogi Yogi:

The pond, whether actually designed for swimming will be covered under the swimming pool by-laws. Here in Ab. ponds/pools are referred to as 'attractive nusances', and must also be fenced with locked gates in an attempt to avert such tradgedies.

In Ontario:

The Ontario Swimming Pool Safety Act requires owners of in-ground swimming pools to erect a fence around the pool. The fence must be tall enough to ensure that children cannot enter the area immediately around the swimming pool unless they enter through a gate, which must be kept locked unless there is a certified lifeguard in the immediate area of the pool.



Read more: Ontario Swimming Pool Regulations | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6662402_ontari ... z1yoHDrnx4


Read more: Ontario Swimming Pool Regulations | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6662402_ontari ... z1yoFqThxQ

It was a small backyard ornamental pond:

[Lemmy]

Clearly you're grasping the concepts of contributory negligence and allurement. And it doesn't matter how deep the pond is. "Someone else" isn't being blamed. Why would you conclude that holding the neighbour responsible for his part in the tragedy somehow excuses the parents of their contribution?

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Clearly you're grasping the concepts of contributory negligence and allurement. And it doesn't matter how deep the pond is. "Someone else" isn't being blamed. Why would you conclude that holding the neighbour responsible for his part in the tragedy someohow excuses the parents of their contribution?

The depth of the pond has everything to do with it.

Reasonable care was taken. A fence around the pond was not required by law if it was less than 50cm deep.

If you have a little garden pond on your front lawn and some drunk guy falls into it and drowns, does the home owner get charged?

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If you have a little garden pond on your front lawn and some drunk guy falls into it and drowns, does the home owner get charged?

Charged or sued? Is the drunk a child that would be allured by the property feature? You're making up irrelevent hypotheticals.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Charged or sued? Is the drunk a child that would be allured by the property feature? You're making up irrelevent hypotheticals.

Charged...as this man was.

The child was "lured" by a pond, hundreds of feet away and in a backyard of a home?

I guess if there was a red rake and the kid picked it up and hurt himself, you could say he was "lured" by the pretty red rake regardless of it's location.

[Lemmy]

You're arguing with me and yet I didn't make the law. I get that you don't like it, just as I don't like the marijuana prohibition law. But it is what it is and you can argue all day long about it. The property owner is still negligent.