How would you decide if on the Jury?

[angrybroadhead]

I have a a buddy who is an attorney and we started talking about a case he heard about. If you were on the jury would you decide for the family or with the door company?

Here is the issue...

A family was at their house which had a pool in the back yard. Upon moving into the house, they had a company install a doggie door so their new dog could come and go. They also have a toddler.

While the parents were doing something for a brief minute or two, the baby who is around 9 months old...still crawling...got through the doggie door and accidentally drown in the pool.

Obviously the family is heartbroken over losing their baby. I would be devistated if I ever had to deal with losing one of my children. But, if the family sues the doggie door manufacturer, who would you side with?

As I understand it, there have been about 35 deaths of similar nature from this manufacturer and at this time they do not have any warning label on their door.

Would you side with the family or the door manufacturer. If with the family, how much would they be compensated and what else would the company have to do for warning labels? Or is the family at fault for not keeping an eye on the toddler?

My best friend and I were on opposite sides of the issue and thought I would ask the green screeners...

[SPUD]

Tough Spot...

why have a door like that knowing a toddler can get through it. I can understand how you take your eye off a kid to watch another. They can move fast.

why would the door company be responsible for a 2 way door. It did what it was designed to do.


Of course, going after someone in the event of an accident isn't going to bring them back either.


Door Company

[Shane]

I'm sorry, but there is NO WAY it's the doggie door maker's fault. It's beyond tragic that they lost their baby, but they chose to install an opening in their door near ground level that is always open and it leads to the pool with no fence between the door and the pool. They know their baby can crawl, get to the doggie door, and fit through the door. Do the math.

You don't need a warning label for the obvious.....well, you shouldn't. The lady that spilled hot coffee on herself got a big judgement. It was reduced on appeal, but she still got money I think. I guess the biggest variable in the case will be the particular jury pool for the court venue.

[JMG]

Its a doggie door and not pool door. Family should have a fence around pool with the little one. Does the family get to sue the door maker if they were to leave the regular door open and the toddler crawled out and it happened?

[LeifBarnes]

Im with door manf.

[Rudey]

Manufacturer. Not their fault the parents weren't watching their kid. PArent negligence, plain and simple.

[SmTx]

I'd side with door mfg, it doesn't take much sense to realize a baby may be able to slip through there. If you want to blame the door mfg, you might as well sue whoever filled the pool up as well....

[Osceola]

I would have to side with the door company.There was not a defect with the door so they should not be held responsible.Too many people want to hold someone else responsible for their own mistakes.

[bdchorn]

Wow....worst case scenario.

Lets say the door did have a warning label. Would the parents have not turned their back for a "minute or two?"

Im not a parent, but it seems like any parent could turn their back for that length of time.

A dog door is purchased to fit a dog. My guess is a 9 month old could fit through most any door. In my opinion this is just a terrible accident, but not the fault of the door manufacturer unless it was somehow installed improperly.

[Cajun Blake]

my vote ..... door manufacturer NOT at fault

the doggie door is not the actual " cause of death "

i would hate to be in the parents situation.....prayers sent for all who have lost a child

[Sparzo]

tragedy for sure but a warning would not fix the problem...manufacturer

[LeifBarnes]

Which side is your buddy representing?

[Mike]

I guess the biggest variable in the case will be the particular jury pool for the court venue.

Nail on the head.

We live in a litigous society, people will bring a case for just about anything. Very sad deal but truly the parents are at fault. In the right venue with the right jury, the family will be awarded some judgement I would bet from the door maker or the pool contractor that did not insist on a security fence/barrier around the pool. It will also mandate decals and more warning labels that small children can pass through the door.

What about playing the Devil's Advocate in this case, why are the parents not held liable by the state for not watching the child?

[angrybroadhead]

Which side is your buddy representing?

No representing, but he believed the door company was at fault. His side is that the company has had complaints and offers another door that is safer. It provides an electronic collar that will allow the door to open only when the dog is close.

At the most they should have to post a warning, but nothing else. I agree that nothing will bring the child back or make the parent not take their eye off of them if there were a warning.

Sad story all around...I just believe personal accountability ranks far above finding others at fault. Just my .02

[angrybroadhead]

Don't know where the case is being tried or if it will even go to court. Just something that came up while at the local pool...thought I would share.