Comments on: Babysitter and mom to pay $1.1 million in drowning death

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:00:14 +0000

My wife at the time and I were very poor when my son was born. I told the life insurance salesman that we did not need life insurance on our son because his demise (God Forbid) would relieve us of the expenses of raising him. The life insurance man was appalled.

Seriously, how was the family of the child harmed to the tune of $1.1 million dollars? Blaming the babysitter is the classic post hoc error. Drowning is the second leading cause of death (second to automobile related fatalities.) Unfortunately parents losing children can work themselves into an evil frenzy or, in some cases, expect a lottery win. We as a society have an obligation to shun such people.

By: Commentor

Commentor — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 04:21:42 +0000

Do these people have insurance that covers this? Where is the $1.1 million coming from?

By: grockster

grockster — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 02:57:57 +0000

If one hires a young teen, one must expect the reasonably range of potential performances of a young teen. Among these reasonable possibilities is panic, freezing, confusion; since this is a not atypical response from this cohort of young people under such a stressful event, then she can hardly be considered liable for having deviated from the standard level of care of a 13 year old babysitter.
The veerhuis should have spent more for an adult with lots of training and experience if that is the level of care they demand; anything else is just cheap on their part.
Too bad they are so full of spite, vitriol and self loathing that they have to drag others through their self imposed pitty.