Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PAR35

There is nothing childproof; the case is based on the water present in the house on the floor not on the access to the pool.

Nowhere in the article was it stated that the pool and its surroundings were in violation of the applicable standards.

The father wasn’t present one assumes, his presence now would make a good story to see how the suit might affect all parties.


49 posted on 10/10/2007 12:54:36 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: Old Professer
Nowhere in the article was it stated that the pool and its surroundings were in violation of the applicable standards.

So if the locality has weak standards, you aren't responsible for your child?

There is nothing childproof

A deadbolt lock in the door, with the key not present isn't childproof? A gate with a latch at least 48 inches from the ground won't keep out a one year old? My, your children must have been really advanced at that age. An old fashioned hook and eye latch on the door would be effective for most one year olds. (There's a reason most of the pool drownings are in the 3 - 5 year age group.)

51 posted on 10/10/2007 2:32:49 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson