[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy 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.

What law was broken?

Criminal negligence. Also civil negligence. Will he be convicted in the criminal case? Maybe, maybe not. Will he be found responsible for damages in the civil case? Absolutely.

Let's suppose the kid, rather than drowning, was hit by a car driven by a drunk. Does the drunk driver get a pass because it's all the parents' fault? What if he had been abducted and murdered by a psycho? Is the murderer not to blame because it was the parents' job to supervise better? Two parties are at fault here. That's what contributory negligence is.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy 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.

What law was broken?

Criminal negligence. Also civil negligence. Will he be convicted in the criminal case? Maybe, maybe not. Will he be found responsible for damages in the civil case? Absolutely.

Let's suppose the kid, rather than drowning, was hit by a car driven by a drunk. Does the drunk driver get a pass because it's all the parents' fault? What if he had been abducted and murdered by a psycho? Is the murderer not to blame because it was the parents' job to supervise better? Two parties are at fault here. That's what contributory negligence is.

Of course the drunk would be charged, he's doing something illegal.

Criminal negligence is:

$1:

omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

If he wasn't required by law to keep his pond fenced due to the depth, there is no negligence on the part of the home owner.

[Brenda]

So it is ok for the parents to be negligent and let their kids wander off, but not for the neighbour, who has no kids, to have an unfenced pond in his yard?
The neighbour is fully responsible for the child wandering off?

Or do you suggest the neighbour sues the parents for trespassing, causing him a lot of damage?

I feel for the parents very much, but to blame the neighbour because you do not want to take responsibility is too much, in my book.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If he wasn't required by law to keep his pond fenced due to the depth, there is no negligence on the part of the home owner.

You obviously don't grasp the difference between criminal and civil law. Civil law isn't codified.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You obviously don't grasp the difference between criminal and civil law. Civil law isn't codified.

Really? Do you?

He's been criminally charged. This isn't a civil matter.

The parents can sue the man 'till they're blue in the face.

[Lemmy]

It's both a criminal matter and a civil matter. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Zipperfish]

bootlegga bootlegga:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

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

No, not at all. They are responsible for their children, not their neighbour.

Still, having a two year old myself, I can empathize with their loss. If something like that happened to my daughter while I was watching her, I'd probably jump in front of a bus because of my guilt.

This is exactly what happened to my sister. Same age too. Different country, different time. There were no lawsuits and stuff back then. My heart goes out to the parents. Nothing worse.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It's both a criminal matter and a civil matter. You don't know what you're talking about.

I guess that makes two of us then.

[Lemmy]

uhh, no.