Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards

Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/)
-   The Podium (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f23/)
-   -   Stop the world, I want to get off. (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f23/stop-world-i-want-get-off-14902.html)

lonewolfpoet 05-06-2010 08:34 AM

Stop the world, I want to get off.
 
This sad world just keeps getting crazier and crazier. The bible says money is the root of all evil and that may be true, but lawyers are a close second.

Teen babysitter sued over fire - Yahoo! Canada News

Acie 05-06-2010 09:37 AM

Awesome. :sigh:

Add insurance companies to the list of evil as well.

ClingRap 05-06-2010 10:15 AM

fuck. disgusting. awful.

Barracuda 05-06-2010 10:31 AM

Lovely.

Poor girl. Babysitting at 12 is hard enough, but to be sued because it? Jesus.

And this Douglas guy must've REALLY pissed off his parents when he was younger, if they're so quick to sue their own son now.

Acie 05-06-2010 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barracuda (Post 374732)

And this Douglas guy must've REALLY pissed off his parents when he was younger, if they're so quick to sue their own son now.

Sounds like he lives in a trailer on their property. Maybe this is their attempt to get him to leave the nest? :dancing:

Barracuda 05-06-2010 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acie (Post 374734)
Sounds like he lives in a trailer on their property. Maybe this is their attempt to get him to leave the nest? :dancing:

Totally. They should've just sued HIS ass and left the poor kid out of it.

thought 05-06-2010 12:34 PM

They say money's the root of all evil but I can't tell
YouknowhatImean, pesos, francs, yens, cowrie shells, dollar bills
Or is it the mindstate that's ill?
Creating crime rates to fill the new prisons they build

'trane 05-06-2010 01:20 PM

i can't believe what i am reading here. this kind of stuff grinds my gears, big time. and i'm talking about the responses in this thread, not the story.

first, to lwp's point that lawyers are evil, or at least at the root of it... what gives you the right to tar and feather an entire profession? what about human rights lawyers? or public defenders? or the office of the public guardian and trustee that acts on behalf of kids when their parents are too selfish to look out for their best interests? or what about the lawyers that come to save your ass when you get in a troubling situation, either of your own fault or because you are caught up in something beyond your control? there are countless fantastic and underappreciated lawyers out there that are tirelessly working on behalf of the marginalized and underpriviledged, and tons of lawyers that do amazing and vital work in our society. you just grouped all of these people together with any low-life sleezeball lawyer that you really want to criticize. so open up your eyes and think before you cast judgement on an entire profession. fuck this pisses me off.

second, on insurancee companies and this case: the neighbour of this family had their house badly damaged. they should not be on the hook to pay for this. that's why they have insurance (which is a vital aspect of our economy because disasters happen, and people are not all rich. there is a need to protect property and a need to give financial compensation to those that undergo hardship for which they were not the cause). now that insurance company will have to look at what the cause of the disaster is and find fault, because someone will have to pay. and that's why businesses are insured for the work they do. if i have a contractor working on my house and blows the house up, he'd better be insured against that kind of risk. and if i'm hiring him, it's up to me to make sure he has that insurance.

so what happened here? a family hired a 12 year old to look after their kids. firstly, i think this is way, way to young to do that. secondly, she obviously did a terrible job. if, indeed, the fire was started because a 5-year old was playing with a lighter, it was the babysitter that fucked up. how does a 5-year old get a lighter? why isn't he stopped from playing with it? is he being watched? is the babysitter not paying attention? there is fault here and it caused major damage that the neighbour should be compensated for. the hassle to deal with all of this lands with the insurance company. they will sue who they need to in order to seek damages. the family might be at fault for hiring a babysitter that was no good, and for hiring someone that was uninsured, but certainly the neighbour who's house was damaged was not at fault. who's going to pay for the repairs? they need an insurance company to protect their home, and they need a lawyer to help them seek a reasonable settlement. all of this is directly in line with the basic values of property ownership.

if a girl is going to be a babysitter, some responsibilty needs to come with that. she made a massive mistake. to me there is no question. she should be insured or the family should be insured, because if something happens, compensation is going to have to be paid to other innocent parties that have been effected.

none of this means she wasn't a hero for saving the kids and pets, but being a hero for saving people from something you should have prevented does not excuse you for contributing to the disaster in the first place. she assumed responsibility by taking the job, and the family assumed responsibility by hiring her. they are all at fault, and fault definitely matters.

Bill Haverchuck 05-06-2010 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 374783)
i can't believe what i am reading here. this kind of stuff grinds my gears, big time. and i'm talking about the responses in this thread, not the story.

first, to lwp's point that lawyers are evil, or at least at the root of it... what gives you the right to tar and feather an entire profession? what about human rights lawyers? or public defenders? or the office of the public guardian and trustee that acts on behalf of kids when their parents are too selfish to look out for their best interests? or what about the lawyers that come to save your ass when you get in a troubling situation, either of your own fault or because you are caught up in something beyond your control? there are countless fantastic and underappreciated lawyers out there that are tirelessly working on behalf of the marginalized and underpriviledged, and tons of lawyers that do amazing and vital work in our society. you just grouped all of these people together with any low-life sleezeball lawyer that you really want to criticize. so open up your eyes and think before you cast judgement on an entire profession. fuck this pisses me off.

second, on insurancee companies and this case: the neighbour of this family had their house badly damaged. they should not be on the hook to pay for this. that's why they have insurance (which is a vital aspect of our economy because disasters happen, and people are not all rich. there is a need to protect property and a need to give financial compensation to those that undergo hardship for which they were not the cause). now that insurance company will have to look at what the cause of the disaster is and find fault, because someone will have to pay. and that's why businesses are insured for the work they do. if i have a contractor working on my house and blows the house up, he'd better be insured against that kind of risk. and if i'm hiring him, it's up to me to make sure he has that insurance.

so what happened here? a family hired a 12 year old to look after their kids. firstly, i think this is way, way to young to do that. secondly, she obviously did a terrible job. if, indeed, the fire was started because a 5-year old was playing with a lighter, it was the babysitter that fucked up. how does a 5-year old get a lighter? why isn't he stopped from playing with it? is he being watched? is the babysitter not paying attention? there is fault here and it caused major damage that the neighbour should be compensated for. the hassle to deal with all of this lands with the insurance company. they will sue who they need to in order to seek damages. the family might be at fault for hiring a babysitter that was no good, and for hiring someone that was uninsured, but certainly the neighbour who's house was damaged was not at fault. who's going to pay for the repairs? they need an insurance company to protect their home, and they need a lawyer to help them seek a reasonable settlement. all of this is directly in line with the basic values of property ownership.

if a girl is going to be a babysitter, some responsibilty needs to come with that. she made a massive mistake. to me there is no question. she should be insured or the family should be insured, because if something happens, compensation is going to have to be paid to other innocent parties that have been effected.

none of this means she wasn't a hero for saving the kids and pets, but being a hero for saving people from something you should have prevented does not excuse you for contributing to the disaster in the first place. she assumed responsibility by taking the job, and the family assumed responsibility by hiring her. they are all at fault, and fault definitely matters.

I love you, rationality. :heart:

'trane is okay, too.

Acie 05-06-2010 01:37 PM

You think 12 years old is too young, but the law doesn't. ;)

FWIW the insurance companies are quarelling and seem to be at the root of the dispute and the divide between son and parents, which is what I was referring too.

'trane 05-06-2010 01:44 PM

i hear ya acie, and that's my point. this is about insurance company vs insurance company, which is the logical outcome of this situation. it has to be, because compensation is clearly owed, and it's much better to do that between insurance companies than to have neighboiurs warring over damages. that's the basis of our notion of property ownership.

and the issue of her age is irrelevant. i think it's too young, but it has nothing to do with what happened. 12, 15, 18, 65, whatever. the place burned down because she wasn't properly looking after a 5 year old who was playing with a lighter (if indeed that is what happened - i can only go by what is in the article).

XiaominWu 05-06-2010 02:20 PM

the only way it is the baby-sitter's fault is if the lighter was hers... and i'm guessing it wasn't.

the fault here is with the kid obviously, because he KNEW that what he was doing was wrong. but since he is 5, an insurance company needs to find someone else to blame. i can't blame the baby-sitter based on the evidence given, because at 5, you don't get 100% constant supervision.... you just don't. .... so for me, it (blame) is with whoever left a fucking lighter lying around. totally irresponsible.

'trane 05-06-2010 02:29 PM

sure xw, but when the 5 year old starts playing with it, and you have the responsibility of taking care of that kid, it is undoubtedly your fault. that's precisely what a babysitter does. and frankly, you have toi give a 5 year old constant supervision. as a babysitter, that's what you are being paid to do.

Acie 05-06-2010 02:30 PM

I blame the lighter company. Aren't those things supposed to be child proof? :p

XiaominWu 05-06-2010 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 374814)
sure xw, but when the 5 year old starts playing with it, and you have the responsibility of taking care of that kid, it is undoubtedly your fault. that's precisely what a babysitter does. and frankly, you have toi give a 5 year old constant supervision. as a babysitter, that's what you are being paid to do.

do you go with him to the washroom? do you make the other kid come along when you do? do you go to the washroom yourself? do you make both kids come along when you do? do you go to the kitchen to get them a juice? do you make them stop playing their video games and come with you when you do?

it doesn't take very long for a kid who is intent on mischief to sneak away and start a fire with his shiny new toy that daddy left lying around.

lonewolfpoet 05-06-2010 02:50 PM

I blame the parents who taught the child how to operate a child proof lighter and left it around where apparently a 5 year old could reach it.

Trane, sorry if my remark about lawyers offended you, but I thought it would be understood that it was made with the context of the article in mind and that of course I am not referring to all lawyers just those that think it is a great idea to sue a 14 year old girl.

By the way, in my experience the public guardian and trustee had nothing to do with parent neglect/abuse, but rather the Children's Aid Society.

Personally I think the insurance company of the owner of the trailer should pay for all damages. I mean these are trailers, they aren't even that expensive.

By the way trane, you wouldn't happen to be a lawyer working for an insurance company would you? :mischief:

'trane 05-06-2010 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lonewolfpoet (Post 374835)
I blame the parents who taught the child how to operate a child proof lighter and left it around where apparently a 5 year old could reach it.

Trane, sorry if my remark about lawyers offended you, but I thought it would be understood that it was made with the context of the article in mind and that of course I am not referring to all lawyers just those that think it is a great idea to sue a 14 year old girl.

By the way, in my experience the public guardian and trustee had nothing to do with parent neglect/abuse, but rather the Children's Aid Society.

Personally I think the insurance company of the owner of the trailer should pay for all damages. I mean these are trailers, they aren't even that expensive.

By the way trane, you wouldn't happen to be a lawyer working for an insurance company would you? :mischief:

the suing of a 14 y/o girl is not the issue. it doesn't matter how old she is, damages were cauised and need to be sought. her age is irrelevant.

the opgt isn't there for issues of abuse, but it does represent kids when parents are in a divorce and are using the kid as a bargaining tool, for instance. it has many functions.

no, i am not a lawyer. when you say 'lawyers are a close second as the root of all evil', it's hard to think that you meant that with the limitation of only certain types of lawyers. :face4:

'trane 05-06-2010 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XiaominWu (Post 374832)
do you go with him to the washroom? do you make the other kid come along when you do? do you go to the washroom yourself? do you make both kids come along when you do? do you go to the kitchen to get them a juice? do you make them stop playing their video games and come with you when you do?

it doesn't take very long for a kid who is intent on mischief to sneak away and start a fire with his shiny new toy that daddy left lying around.

it is the responsibility of the babysitter to look after the kids. if the kids cause major fire damage, the babysitter didn't do a good job. i'm not saying it's easy - that's why 12 is too young - but they can't be unassailable because the job is hard. that's the responsibilty that you take.

and to answer your questions -

-depends on the kid for both q1 and q2.
-no not unless you are sure they are in a safe situation.
-yes but you keep an eye on them, you take them with you or you child proof the house first.
-if you don't stop them from playing games, you make sure the area is safe.

if you read my post, i left plenty of responsibility with the parents as well. if the lighter was dad's, he bears some responsibility. teh babysitter also should have taken notice and done something about it. both are at fault. the neighbours clearly aren't, but they are certainly owed damages.

Gurk 05-06-2010 03:58 PM

But if your saying 12 is too young, wouldn't it be the parents fault for hiring a young girl to take care of their children?

Bill Haverchuck 05-06-2010 04:06 PM

There is a difference between 'trane's personal opinion about age and what he's saying about the way things occur in reality.

Quote:

and the issue of her age is irrelevant. i think it's too young, but it has nothing to do with what happened. 12, 15, 18, 65, whatever.
Quote:

the suing of a 14 y/o girl is not the issue. it doesn't matter how old she is, damages were cauised and need to be sought. her age is irrelevant.

For example, by saying 12 is too young, he could just mean that he wouldn't hire a 12 year old babysitter. However, given that some are hired by others, mechanisms, like inusurance, have to be in place to deal with the possible negative outcomes of such situations.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24