Posted on 08/05/2005 11:12:08 AM PDT by JZelle
MARION, Va. (AP) -- The mother of a 5-year-old girl who died in a coin-operated washer sued the machine's manufacturer, saying it started up with the child inside even though no money had been put into the machine.
Rebecca Hope Wagoner was asphyxiated June 17 after the 30-pound girl became trapped inside the triple-load washer. The washer, the suit contends, "started immediately without the insertion of any coins."
The washer requires 11 quarters to operate and will not accept coins until the heavy door is shut, officials have said. The door cannot be unlatched while the machine is operating.
Rebecca Billings Wagoner, Hope's mother, had to use a rock to smash the door and pull her daughter out.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.washingtontimes.com ...
Conservative Babe, I'm with you. The people who definitely ARE responsible are passing that on to the manufacturer. "I didn't do it." Some great way to pad the income. I think there is deep mischief afoot here.
I think her brother did her in. The girl could not latch the door from the inside. The washer cannot start without latching the door FROM THE OUTSIDE.
Every time I go to a service station, I put the fuel nozzle in my mouth for a few second before I use it. I figure one of these days, it's going to squirt gas down my throat, and then I'm on Easy Street, courtesy of Big Oil.
Whoa. From the other article posted, the police reviewed the video camera and examined fingerprints on the coins in the machine. That's when they turned their attention to the brother, and arrested him.
Hmmm. . . .
The issue here isn't whether kids get into mischief. The issue here is the mom suing the manufacturer.
like i have said. bill 397 should not be a gun bill it should be a general liability bill. your stupidity, negligence, criminal activity, etc is not cause for lawsuit or justification to turn you into an independantly wealthy person. in many cases we already pay your welfare so you can live better than some of us, now we should pay so you can live better than most of the rest of us too?
"...but their suit specifically charges that these machines are prone to starting without any money being inserted."
-----
That will be good news to the laundromat users, and bad news for the owners! But, I'd bet the chances of it happening are slim to none. Wonder if they will have documentation of it ever happening before this incident?
Yup, it is extortion.
I mean, let's assume for a minute that the machine DID start on it's own with no money inserted, the facts remain that the kid should not have been able to get in the machine and the door had to be closed by someone (the brother).
The real fault is not the "faulty" machine, but a faulty parent.
It's a sad and horribly unfortunate case, but the company can't be held responsible about how their machines are used once they leave the factory. They assume they are being used appropriately.
I suspect the company will have to pay up anyway, then post waring labels on the machine "Do not crawl inside of machine".
Plus, install emergency stops, which may be appropriate.
The manufacturer is responsible by not having an emergency shut off switch on the machine.
IMO, the mother is responsible for none of this, except for the fact she obviously has an idiot for a son.
Seems the manufacturer has history of malfunctioning machines.
Sorry, but a preventable death occurred.. regardless of who and how she was put in the machine, the fact is the machine could not be stopped or opened... in spite of knowlege of her being in there and attempts to get her out. That is a design issue that needs to be addressed.
Just as we now have latch release levers mandated in trunks of automobiles and no longer have latching residential refrigerators.
I don't think the manufacturer is culpable in the death, but it is clear that it looks like a design change is needed. This death was tragic, and preventable.. even after the actions that wound up with the child in the machine... That is undeniable.
Just like escape latches for trunks, and no longer locking refrigerators... an over-ride shut down and unlock should be part of the design of these things... and hopefully will be.
Yeah, I suppose that some sort of emergency release could be implemented, one that results in all the water spilling out. (I'm not being snarky, that's just the consequence that an "open immediately" function is going to have.) I have a feeling that many laundromats will just return to top-loaders instead of install those things.
I'm not saying that the manufacturer should be held responsible, though...
Understood! We're discussing hypotheticals here.
Or a history of extortion by people not taking responsibility.
This episode repeat was just on CSI last night. Two kids got drunk at an older sisters party while the parents were away on vacation(not too far fetched). The kids got kicekd out of hte party by the sister, and they went thru the town doing stupid things. THey went into a laundry mat and oen asked the other to turn on the dryer while he was inside. The other kid did so, then took off when the kid ended up dying from the injuries. At the time the managet had gotten laundry detergent thrown on him by a customer(not exactly sure about this part) as the kids were running amuck and ruined some of the customers cloths. When the manager returned, he found the kid and wheeled him out to the bus stop that was right outside the door.
The reason he did it was the liability concerns. Sounds about right, given this story.
I notice she's not sueing the laundromat. Obviously, their pockets are too shallow to be of any use to the lawyer$.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.