-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: Not Ob/Gyn: Lawyers! Gotta luv 'em! From: Anna Meenan, MD (annam@uic.edu) Thu Jul 28 00:09:25 2005 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Elrod Darryl G MAJ 48 MDOS/SGOBO: "Re: positve hpv dna" Previous message: Garry E. Siegel, M.D.: "Re: EMTALA" In reply to: DoctorJoe@aol.com: "Re: Not Ob/Gyn: Lawyers! Gotta luv 'em!" Next in thread: art fougner, md: "Re: Not Ob/Gyn: Lawyers! Gotta luv 'em!" I knew we could count on Joe for the legal stuff. The river runs right through the middle of town, including the entire downtown area. It is lined with parks, bicycle paths, private residences, and marinas. Downtown there are office buildings and restaurants on either side, plus the library. I believe the parks, paths, and the area behind the library were laid out by the city for people to recreate in. Does that mean that the river should be lined on either side by 6' chain link fence as it flows through the entire town? I've just never heard of natural features being termed attractive nuisances. So is Lake Michigan as it surrounds Navy Pier an attractive nuisance? This could really get out of hand. Glad to hear that the river that flows behind my house is probably not, as it is still pretty much in its natural state. -- Anna Meenan, MD At Wed, 27 Jul 2005, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote: > >In a message dated 7/27/05 8:44:56 PM, annam@uic.edu writes: > >> A lawyer here in Illinois had the audacity to call the river that runs >> through our town an "attractive nuisance" (direct quote from the local >> paper).  A 9-year-old boy was allowed to go to the library without an >> adult and decided to go out the back door and across the parking lot to >> play on the edge of the river, where he fell in and drowned.  Now his >> mom is suing the city and the library for not fencing off the RIVER. >> >Legally, an attractive nuisance is any inherently hazardous object or >condition of property that can be expected to attract children to investiga e or play >(for example, construction sites and discarded large appliances). The >doctrine imposes upon the property owner either the duty to take precaution that are >reasonable in light of the normal behavior of young children--a much higher >degree of care than required toward adults--or the same care as that owed t >"invitees"--a higher standard than required toward uninvited, casual visito s >(licensees). > >So the question here would be, did the city (?) "build up" around the river >to make it an attractive nuisance to kids like this, or does the river run >through in its natural state? Generally, when you go out of your way to dev lop >something, you become more liable for whatever happens there. > >Joe P. Next message: Elrod Darryl G MAJ 48 MDOS/SGOBO: "Re: positve hpv dna" Previous message: Garry E. Siegel, M.D.: "Re: EMTALA" In reply to: DoctorJoe@aol.com: "Re: Not Ob/Gyn: Lawyers! Gotta luv 'em!" Next in thread: art fougner, md: "Re: Not Ob/Gyn: Lawyers! Gotta luv 'em!"

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Fri May 2 04:41:28 2008

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.