Replies

638 posted on 07/24/2006 6:07:50 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)

RE: Post #615

My first post on this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1671216/posts?page=245#245

It looks more and more like wal mart will be paying out on this one (My opinion) even though the child was doing some thing both he and his mom should have known was not smart.

(some would say Darwin awardable, is awardable a word?)

Why was there a mirror that was heavy enough that two people were needed to lift it off of a three year old set up in such an unstable manner that a three year old could (when admittedly it's not a wise thing to do and contributory negligence to allow) playing on it?

717 posted on 07/24/2006 10:51:21 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

Thanks DJ - The article can help us put this in perspective.

I've just gotten back on-line and need to catch up a bit.