Comments on: Stories that shouldn’t get away, part II

By: dannyinla

dannyinla — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:03:17 +0000

Learning a little more about the Jordan Sandels death at Lanai Road Elementary might change your mind.

This school, in a congested, hilly part of Los Angeles, was a disaster waiting to happen. Parking and traffic is atrocious. Parents and parent groups were vocal in their attempt to make changes to the parking situation. The driver of the vehicle that killed Jordan complained about the paking situation. The principal complained to the district about the parking situation. Nothing was done. Yes it was “forseeable.”

Jordan Sandels died three years ago today.

By: Republican Patriot

Republican Patriot — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:17:25 +0000

Stories like these lead me to believe that freedom and responsibility in this country are doomed.

By: Frank

Frank — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:36:20 +0000

I realize this is thought to be a far different world than when I grew up, but since when can’t kids walk to or from school alone or with their pals?

I can’t see that the proximate cause of the injury was the early release. “But for” that? Seems very likely to me that had the child been released to a gaurdian, once home he would have sought to play with friends and could/(would?) have been in exactly the same circumstance 2.5 hours after dismissal.

Keep the kids in custody?

I suggest you watch the opening credits of “The Simpsons”. It well illustrates how kids feel (and react) when the “School’s Out” bell rings.

By: Ilya

Ilya — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:03:41 +0000

Re: school case

Why should 3rd graders be kept in custody by default?

If parents did not like the policy THEY should have opted out.

The point here is this:

1. The school’s policy WAS NOT NEGLIGENT in any significant way.

2. No matter how you look at it, parents share a lot of blame for what happened.

Which means that, school district should not have paid 6M to them.

By: nevins

nevins — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:41:51 +0000

The burned kid does not deserve any money from the clothier. They pretend to be so stupid as to state that they thought the clothing was fireproof when it probably cost a tenth of the cost of clothes labeled and capable of shielding one from flames. They confuse fire retardant (the cloth will not burn when REMOVED from flame) with fire proof. And any fabric saturated with liquid gasoline will do little to protect a person because it is not the fabric that is burning

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:43:29 +0000

The school case was correctly decided — the default position for 3d-graders should be keeping them in custody, not turning them loose unless the parents opt otherwise.

Pretty bad outcomes in the other two, though – let’s hope for reversals. (Note also the random nature of the judgments – $10M for a dead 1st-grader, $41M for a burned 7th-grader?

By: ben tillman

ben tillman — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:04:52 +0000

Foreseeability? That has nothing to do with it. The issue is duty, and there is no duty to protect against such foreseeable events.