Re: Not Ob/Gyn: Lawyers! Gotta luv 'em!
From: Anna Meenan, MD (annam@uic.edu)
Thu Jul 28 10:27:59 2005
"safe" for a 9-year-old whose mother is stupid enough to let him hang
out unsupervised at the downtown public library, would probably have to
be a ten-foot chain link fence topped with barbed wire.
I guess we have to keep all the lawyers employed, but trying to write
exemptions for every entity and situation just seems like an exercise in
futility (not to mention just reading that stuff gave me a headache).
And did they write an exemption for the streetcars? My brother told me a
mom collected several mil because her daughter stood up in the seat next
to an open window and fell out.
--
Anna Meenan, MD
At Thu, 28 Jul 2005, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 7/28/05 12:10:08 AM, annam@uic.edu writes:
>
>> 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.
>>
>But there's the rub. It's not "natural" any more. You put parks and paths a d
>recreational areas around it. If that's the case, then you need to make it
>"safe." LOL
>
>What you do is, you pass a law (yeah, I know, "they oughta pass a law")
>denying liability for stuff like this.
>
>In La, for example, we have this:
>
>La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795:
>..
>B.(1) Except for willful or malicious failure to warn against a dangerou
>condition, use, structure, or activity, an owner of land, except an owner o
>commercial recreational developments or facilities, who permits with or wit out
>charge any person to use his land for recreational purposes as herein defin d
>does not thereby:
>
>(a) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purposes.
>
>(b) Constitute such person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to
>whom a duty of care is owed.
>
>(c) Incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by any
>defect in the land regardless of whether naturally occurring or man-made.
>
>. . .
>
>C. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the provisions of Subsection B sh ll
>be deemed applicable to the duties and liability of an owner of land leased
>for recreational purposes to the federal government or any state or politic l
>subdivision thereof or private persons.
>
>. . .
>
>E. . . .
>
>(2)(a) The limitation of liability provided in this Section shall apply o
>any lands, whether urban or rural, which are owned, leased, or managed as a
>public park by the state or any of its political subdivisions and which are used
>for recreational purposes.
>
>(b) The provision of supervision on any land managed as a public park by the
>state or any of its political subdivisions does not create any greater duty
>of care which may exist and does not create a duty of care or basis of
>liability for personal injury or for damage to personal property caused by he act or
>omission of any person responsible for security or supervision of park
>activities, except as provided in Subparagraph (E)(2)(d) of this Section.
>
>(c) For purposes of the limitation of liability afforded to parks pursua t
>to this Section this limitation does not apply to playground equipment or
>stands which are defective.
>
>(d) The limitation of liability as extended to parks in this Section sha l
>not apply to intentional or grossly negligent acts by an employee of the pu lic
>entity
>..
>
>There are a half-dozen or so more sections in this part of the law which
>remove liability (except for intentional acts) for such things as Mardi Gra
>parades, St. Patrick Day and other religious holiday parades, some of the m rathons
>and runs, and etc.
>
>So if there's a problem with a "river running through it," you need to
>immunize that river, so to speak, against lawsuits. I would imagine San A tonio's
>Riverwalk area must have some laws in that regard. It looks awful easy for
>kids to fall in there.
>
>Joe P.
