There are times when I really can't understand the people in my state.

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2006/10/18/features/feature37.txt

First it was dodge ball, Now it's Touch Football and Tag.

I saw that...

Things like that really bug me...

And people wonder why kids are roly polly little balls of fat.

If i was a parent at that school i'd flip out

The schools are afraid of being sued, they say it about five times in the article. If I ran a budget-strapped school, I might do the same thing.

Blame the ridiculous legal system, not the people who try to protect themselves from it.

i'll blame both thank you.

Oh, I do blame the legal system and peoples desire to make money at the expense if it over trivial matters. We're talking about childhood games like Tag, not some dangerous game involving spiked clubs and lawn darts. (though, that sounds like it could be fun)

In this case, it's at the expense of kids. It's doing nothing but fostering the wussification of the next generation afraid to doing anything.

In all of this, kids are going to learn one thing way to late. Life is risky in general. I'm glad I'm not a kid now days. At least not one at that school.

I guess "Smear the Queer" is clean out these days.

If you've ever had the displeasure to listen in on schoolchildren talking amongst themselves, say in a guild chat, or even in the general channel in some zones of your favorite online game, or even the VN Boards on a bad day, the standard term of derison is to insult each other's sexual orientation.

Children's ability to be cruel to one another will never change, nor should it. It thickens the skin, and a thick skin is what society today needs, rather than lawsuit after lawsuit of utterly trivial sh1t claiming, "I waaaaas offfeendddeedd, make them stop! Or giiiive me lots of money!"

Since, in my estimation, we never had the right not to be offended (yes Fyyr, there's the word "right"! again :D ), people should learn that at a young age, there will be those that offend you. You can ignore them, kill them, or offend them back, but whining like a 3 year old who fell and skinned her knee, complete with pouty lower lip, is not and never should be, an option for consideration as an mature adult.

If you really want to toughen them up, why not whack 'em with a switch twice a day?

We used to play a recess game called "Kill the man with the ball" - now, that was some good, wholesome fun.

I played tag as a kid, I remember climbing up a tree to escape someone and then jumping into a bunch of bushes.

I think 3 teachers ran over, but I was disapointed that the game was paused because I had successfully escaped by jumping.

We used to play British Bulldog as kids. It was also called Red Rover. You started with only one person being 'it'. The person that was 'it' would catch/tag/tackle someone else. Winning had its consequences though. If you were one of the last players, you'd have twenty kids chasing and tackling you. My strategy was to get caught early in the game :) .

Another neat game was the swimming pool version of dodge ball. If you were hit, you came out of the pool. Last person wins. A neat strategy I used was to hold my breath and stay submerged. I would swim underwater and quickly raise my head to catch a breath (very similar to swimming the butterfly). The people on the side had to time things perfectly to hit me.

We also used to play pickup tackle football. Happily, we played on grass. Unhappily, there was no equipment, except the football. Touch or flag football was just too wimpy for us.

The schools are afraid of being sued, they say it about five times in the article. If I ran a budget-strapped school, I might do the same thing.

Blame the ridiculous legal system, not the people who try to protect themselves from it.

You know, I can't seem to find a single case in which an elementary school was sued because a child was hurt by accident while playing tag or dodgeball...

I'll keep looking though...

Ok, I've found one, in '04 in New York for dodgeball.

However, the main reason dodgeball has taken hits in schools is not liability, but an increase in the pansy philosophy that its too warlike and exclusionary.

There are plenty of cases of playgrounds closing because they can't afford rising insurance costs.

Maybe the real culprit here is the insurance companies bullying schools to stop games that "might" result in a suit.

Ok, Lindaman v Vestal something school district in New York.

The only case I could find.

Appellate court upheld the initial court's decision to not dismiss the suit, reasoning that a school had a duty to provide the same vigilence for the safety of the children as a parent and that it was a viable question of fact for a jury.

The jury ended up finding the school district not liable, defense verdict.

If insurance is increasing, its because the insurance companies know they can count on people to automatically believe them when they increase insurance rates based on specious claims of rising litigation costs...

We used to play a recess game called "Kill the man with the ball" - now, that was some good, wholesome fun.
We called that "maul ball" when I was a kid. That and dodgeball were both a blast to play because of the risk/reward involved. There are few things more satisfying in life than clipping some kids foot while he's running and causing him to face-plant.

Games were rough when I was a kid, we didnt even play tag football, that started comming about when I was in HS when we were forced to play "flag" football.

Im sad to see that parents are spending less time with thier kids, and at the same time being more extreme about kids injuries. Like they forgot that being a kid involves getting hurt in as many different ways possible.

I am going to be very sad if this progresses, and how kids will turn out in the next few generations.

If you really want to toughen them up, why not whack 'em with a switch twice a day?

mm, the taste of hyperbole.

If you really want to toughen them up, why not whack 'em with a switch twice a day?

Heh... I've seen something not too different from this. I watched a hockey practice for 12 - 13 year old boys. This is the age when kids have growth spurts. Many of the kids were big, while others were still shrimps. These kids would soon enter bantam leagues where bodychecking is allowed.

To 'toughen up' the kids, the coach lined up the three biggest (fattest) kids about 3 feet from the boards. The rest of the team had to skate the 'gauntlet' between the three kids and the boards. The big kids would bodycheck the skaters into the boards with all their strength.

I remember one particularly small player who was just getting hammered. The first kid checked him off his feet about three times. The kid always managed to stand up and made it to the second big guy... whack... he was smacked off his feet another couple of times. Third big kid -- repeat performance.

No tears, no complaints... just high fives from his teamates when the little kid finally made it through the gauntlet.

All players were fully protected by hockey gear, but they still took a beating.

You know, I can't seem to find a single case in which an elementary school was sued because a child was hurt by accident while playing tag or dodgeball...

I'll keep looking though...How are you going to "find" the case if it was settled (confidentiality, of course) or was never appealed? Obviously, the school is very worried about liability, as they said it over and over. In the era of suing for millions when you spill your own coffee, I don't blame them.

How are you going to "find" the case if it was settled (confidentiality, of course), or was never appealed?

Confidentiality agreements are not for settlement, but merely the amount. In most states the settlement itself is a matter of court record. Its appellate status matters not at all. Its still going to be on record somewhere.

Obviously, the school is very worried about liability, as they said it over and over. In the era of suing for millions when you spill your own coffee, I don't blame them.


It so happens that I've found some more cases relating to school liability for injuries during recess, in general, most of them older, circa '70's and '80's.

The prevailing theme is that so long as the school makes reasonable efforts to supervise the children and maintains the safety of the playground equipment, it cannot be held liable. in loco parentis requires a school accept the responsibilities as well as the privledges of acting in a parent's stead.

This scare over liability costs because of tag or dodgeball are specious and most likely based on the fear propaganda of insurance companies trying to bolster sales.

There are circumstances where a school district should, undeniably, be held liable for negligence. A child's parents should not have to bear the costs if a school's slide collapes due to ill maintainence causing injury, for instance. But the standard for negligence is strongly in a school favor.

One essay on the issue (http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/p&r698.htm)

The prevailing theme is that so long as the school makes reasonable efforts to supervise the children and maintains the safety of the playground equipment, it cannot be held liable.After a long, very expensive trial which causes so much bad press the school might be shut down, yes, they might win that pyrrhic victory. Or, they might have to pay out millions because a stupid jury was charmed by a skillful lawyer. They don't want to take either risk.

After a long, very expensive trial which causes so much bad press the school might be shut down, yes, they might win that pyrrhic victory. Or, they might have to pay out millions because a stupid jury was charmed by a skillful lawyer. They don't want to take either risk.

Yeah because public schools get shut down over bad press? What manner of bull**** reasoning is that? Public Schools get all sorts of bad press for plenty of other **** and they are still around.

Long expensive trial? Again, bull****. The vast majority of liability suits brought against schools for recess injuries are dismissed by the judge.

Again, even though I know you will continue to erroneously insist otherwise, if liability insurance is getting too expensive for schools its because insurance companies are filling the school board's head with fear mongering exaggerations and then rooking them for higher premiums.

We used to play a recess game called "Kill the man with the ball" - now, that was some good, wholesome fun.
That is Smear the Queer, duh.

There are plenty of cases of playgrounds closing because they can't afford rising insurance costs.


Just make them immune from lawsuits like judges, and we would save 25% of education costs.

Just make them immune from lawsuits like judges, and we would save 25% of education costs.

Yeah, because a school pays 25% of its costs in paying suits brought against it <eyeroll> ****ing moron.

Its hard to sue a school. They aren't responsible for much.

aintain your building and equipment so it isn't injurious. Keep kids from bullying other children in front of the teachers (if the teacher's don't see it...the school isn't liable, mind you). Keep unnatural accumulations of ice and snow cleared.

Its not that ****ing difficult.

Goddamn idiocy ridden ****wads.

Why can't you understand that tort protects you, you goddamn ****ing pricks? Its there to reduce your risk of being screwed by a goddamn idiot, because that goddamn idiot doesn't care if you screws you unless he stands a chance of loosing money out of it.

Imagine if you couldn't sue folks. Assholes like Fy'yr would determine that you aren't worthy of reproducing in his misbegotten elitist view of the world and sterilize you on some trip to the hospital...and you'd have no recourse.

Goddamn you guys are really ****ing rocks.

Yeah, because a school pays 25% of its costs in paying suits brought against it <eyeroll> ****ing moron.


I did not say that.

If you factor in all the things that schools do to prevent themselves from being sued, 25 is far to low a number.

Hell, I am going to be a registered nurse, and upto half the work we do is NOT patient care, but lawsuit protection. Half.

That means there are double the nurses out in the world that are really needed to provide care. Double the expense on the healthcare system, to protect from lawsuits. Great for me, I got a great job out of it. Thanks lawyers.

In California, we spend 150K on each classroom of kids to educate them. Out of that the teacher makes 50K. The rest is overhead, much of which is being spent to not get sued, to pay for past suits, or to provide for future suits.

Aidon, you need to get out and get a real job in the real world. You need to stop working in your dad's law office and get out into the real world. I especially dare you to start your own business. Until you stop getting your nutrition by sucking on the cock and balls of the legal system, you will never quite realize that you are getting face phucked.

Why can't you understand that tort protects you, you goddamn ****ing pricks?We've had this argument before. All I see it doing is inflating my insurance rates and increasing the cost of services. A "lawyer tax", sucked right out of our GDP. The funny thing is, advanced countries that <i>don't</i> have the "lawyer tax" seem to have products, services, and facilities that are just as safe, proving the tax isn't necessary.Imagine if you couldn't sue folks. Assholes like Fy'yr would determine that you aren't worthy of reproducing in his misbegotten elitist view of the world and sterilize you on some trip to the hospital...and you'd have no recourse.He could be sent to prison, which would deter him from doing so. Either way, I'd still be sterile, so I fail to see how the "lawyer tax" protects me.

I did not say that.

If you factor in all the things that schools do to prevent themselves from being sued, 25 is far to low a number.

Hell, I am going to be a registered nurse, and upto half the work we do is NOT patient care, but lawsuit protection. Half.

That's because you deal with human life. Its damn important to ensure the safety of the people there. The amount of malpractice committed in the US is ridiculous as it is, I would hate to think what would happen given the absolute lack of accountability that doctors and hospitals are held to, outside of torts. Right now the only thing the holds doctors accountable, for the most part, is the fear of being sued.

That means there are double the nurses out in the world that are really needed to provide care. Double the expense on the healthcare system, to protect from lawsuits. Great for me, I got a great job out of it. Thanks lawyers.

So be it, then. Perhaps if the medical profession would hold the doctors to a standard where malpractice actually had consequences, there would be less suits. A wild idea might be to have the nurses working on protecting the hospital from lawsuits...actually do nursing to provide for a safer environment for the patients. But no, rather than improve conditions, they would rather fight lawsuits. Probably because its cheaper, still.

In California, we spend 150K on each classroom of kids to educate them. Out of that the teacher makes 50K. The rest is overhead, much of which is being spent to not get sued, to pay for past suits, or to provide for future suits.

We have mandated that our children must attend school. With such a mandate comes the responsibility of our schools to provide for the safety and welfare of the students while they are participating in school activities. Why should a family have to pay the medical bills for their child when the kid fell off a swingset that broke and seriously injured themselves?

Aidon, you need to get out and get a real job in the real world. You need to stop working in your dad's law office and get out into the real world. I especially dare you to start your own business. Until you stop getting your nutrition by sucking on the cock and balls of the legal system, you will never quite realize that you are getting face phucked.

Ah, so I don't have a real job in the real world? Why, because I work at the family business, or because the family business has proven successful? By your reasoning every family who starts their own business and works it doesn't have a real job.

Our family started its own business. We deal with the same insurance costs as most other family businesses. We have to pay insurance to cover us in case someone hurts themselves in our office. We have to pay insurance to cover us for malpractice. We have to pay insurance to cover us in case a former employee gets irate and decides to sue us. We have to pay insurance to protect ourselves from fire and theft, etc. (more than most, since if something destroys the case files and the computer we could potentially have a malpractice claim against us if something gets missed in the chaos or something important got lost while restoring the system from tape backup stored elsewhere). We have to deal with labor issues with our employees. We are a ****ing business, a family business. It was started by my father, my mother has worked here since it began (she was an x-ray tech before that), I've worked here whenever I was in Toledo since I was 16 and will continue to work here in whatever capacity is required. My cousin works here, my siblings have all worked here. I will not be ashamed because I work for the family business or that the business is successful. You're a bitter little person who presumes that your business attempts were more "real" than our families...despite the fact that your business is gone and ours is not.

No, Fy'yr, my world is as real as the next. I am paid my wage (which, mind you, is lower than it should be...because I'm family, and I, unlike our other employees, run the risk of being paid late or not at all, if we're going to be short on payroll some period, because no settlements had come in), I pay my bills, I pay my taxes, I pay my portion of the company health insurance.

No, how about you get into the real world and stop living in your dream world where all evils are caused by greedy attorneys and people are never sued for cause.

We've had this argument before. All I see it doing is inflating my insurance rates and increasing the cost of services. A "lawyer tax", sucked right out of our GDP. The funny thing is, advanced countries that <i>don't</i> have the "lawyer tax" seem to have products, services, and facilities that are just as safe, proving the tax isn't necessary.

They are also socialist nations where the government plays a direct role in the regulation of industries or a direct role in the industry itself, such as health care. They also provide pensions for those hurt and unable to work and provide for their health care.

We have none of those things and those who hate attorneys also tend to be those who hate the taxes necessary to provide those things. If you want a free market economy, there must also be the protection of torts against the abuses of negligence.

He could be sent to prison, which would deter him from doing so. Either way, I'd still be sterile, so I fail to see how the "lawyer tax" protects me.

Prison doesn't seem to deter as much as the fear of losing money...and you can't send the hospital to prison. And should you not be compensated for your involuntary sterility? It is not cheap to obtain a sperm doner and go through artificial insemination. It is even less cheap to have a stem cell cultivated to turn into sperm for implantation. Further, I rather suspect the mental and emotional trauma from realizing that you cannot father children would be fairly intense. Should you not be compensated for that?

It protects others, though, because after the hospital was sued because Fy'yr did that, it would probably implement a more stringent background check for its nurses...one which hopefully would pick up if the person has been rather vocal about his desire to sterlize people who don't meet his standards for reproduction.

Prison doesn't seem to deter as much as the fear of losing money

That statement cannot be justified. Loss of liberty is the greater sanction, even used in that role when a fine or debt is not paid.

In my mind, the role of insurance to offset civil fines and penalties undermines the impact of those penalties. It allso causes supplementary problems. The lawyers blame the insurers for profiteering and escalating premiums but do nothing about it as the insurers fund the gravy train. The insurers blame the lawyers for the massive costs but do nothing about it as the lawyers generate the gravy train. The complex system they have jointly created is serving the lawyers, serving the insurers, and serving individual plaintiffs, but it is not meeting the needs of the wider society.

That statement cannot be justified. Loss of liberty is the greater sanction, even used in that role when a fine or debt is not paid.

Again, you cannot put IBM in prison. Further, the notion of imprisoning people who caused damage out of negiligence rather than with criminal intent, is antithetical to our justice system.

In my mind, the role of insurance to offset civil fines and penalties undermines the impact of those penalties. It allso causes supplementary problems. The lawyers blame the insurers for profiteering and escalating premiums but do nothing about it as the insurers fund the gravy train.

The insurance lobby in the United States dwarfs the various attorney lobbies with the sheer amount of funding that can be brought. Attorneys can't do anything about it. With the possible exception of Big Oil, there is not a more powerful industry in our country.

The insurers blame the lawyers for the massive costs but do nothing about it as the lawyers generate the gravy train. The complex system they have jointly created is serving the lawyers, serving the insurers, and serving individual plaintiffs, but it is not meeting the needs of the wider society.

Actually, Insurance companies are constantly attempting to limit liability and damages. They are the primary source of the attempts at tort reform in the US. They would love to have laws limit the amount of money they have to pay out on any given case. To be sure, though, they do not and will not impart a commensurate reduction in insurance premiums. This (http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_CapsDontWork.htm) is an excellent site which delineates the systematic failure of tort reform laws implemented in various states to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance in those states, along with some statements from insurers explicitly stating that tort reform had little effect on premiums. Regulation of the insurance industry is the answer, as shown by the example in Illinois and California.

Some people, however, seem to want to believe its all about the attorneys suing. In fact, though, tort costs generally account for roughly 1% of an Insurers losses. Its greed and the extreme suseptibility of the industry to the fickle stock market which keep increasing malpractice premiums.

It protects others, though, because after the hospital was sued because Fy'yr did that, it would probably implement a more stringent background check for its nurses.The problem with that theory is that you're performing brain surgery with a hacksaw. Sure, the hospital <i>might</i> do that, or they just might store even <i>more</i> paper to defend themselves in litigation. Or they might decide the risk of being Fyyrless isn't worth the cost. Or they might get paranoid and change a dozen different policies which have little to do with giving patients better care.

This is why every household product comes with 200 idiotic little warnings like "do not eat this toaster" and "this oven gets hot". This is why a hospital consent form reads like an encyclopedia which few patients could understand, instead of a simple document outlining the real risks and benefits.

So I don't buy that theory. If you feel nurses need to be more strictly regulated, then it's the government's job to do so. Directly.They are also socialist nations where the government plays a direct role in the regulation of industries or a direct role in the industry itself, such as health care. They also provide pensions for those hurt and unable to work and provide for their health care.

We have none of those thingsYes we do. The government regulates the medical industry. If you're hurt and are uninsured, and it didn't happen at your job, you can still get medical care at the taxpayers' expense.and those who hate attorneys also tend to be those who hate the taxes necessary to provide those thingsThe taxes necessary to provide those things (where they are absent) would likely be far lower than the lawyer tax necessary to indirectly persuade those things to happen.

Some people, however, seem to want to believe its all about the attorneys suing.

Whilst you think it all about the insurance companies. I put a very even handed post up and you put back a very one sided defence, as usual. Whilst people play the blame game there is never going to be any meaningful reform.

Insurance companies would not be a highly powerful lobby in the US if there wasn't a need for everyone to have such high levels of insurance. Most of those insurance costs are driven by ....

The problem with that theory is that you're performing brain surgery with a hacksaw. Sure, the hospital <i>might</i> do that, or they just might store even <i>more</i> paper to defend themselves in litigation. Or they might decide the risk of being Fyyrless isn't worth the cost. Or they might get paranoid and change a dozen different policies which have little to do with giving patients better care.

This is why every household product comes with 200 idiotic little warnings like "do not eat this toaster" and "this oven gets hot". This is why a hospital consent form reads like an encyclopedia which few patients could understand, instead of a simple document outlining the real risks and benefits.

So I don't buy that theory. If you feel nurses need to be more strictly regulated, then it's the government's job to do so. Directly.Yes we do. The government regulates the medical industry. If you're hurt and are uninsured, and it didn't happen at your job, you can still get medical care at the taxpayers' expense.The taxes necessary to provide those things (where they are absent) would likely be far lower than the lawyer tax necessary to indirectly persuade those things to happen.

Tuda, go read the link in my last post.

You're the one following faulty logic here. And remember 1% loss, versus premium increases in the 100% range.

But yeah, attorneys are the leeches /eyeroll

Whilst you think it all about the insurance companies. I put a very even handed post up and you put back a very one sided defence, as usual. Whilst people play the blame game there is never going to be any meaningful reform.

Insurance companies would not be a highly powerful lobby in the US if there wasn't a need for everyone to have such high levels of insurance. Most of those insurance costs are driven by ....

You didn't read the link, did you, you assgoblin?

Shut your figurative yap and go read.

ost of those insurance costs are driven by market performance.

Tort litigation costs the insurance industry about 1% of their annual loss...

Read.