View Full Forums : Parents you just want to strange...


Panamah
12-26-2003, 01:18 PM
STAMFORD, Connecticut (AP) -- A 2-year-old model and actor who cut his head at a playground is seeking unspecified lost wages and other compensation from the city.

Konrad Mader of Greenwich was running toward a treehouse at a playground November 4 when he crashed into a railing, according to a claim filed last week by his mother and reported Friday by The Advocate of Stamford. The blond toddler received several stitches.

Deena Mader, the boy's mother, did not specify how much she is seeking on behalf of her son.

In a letter to officials, she demanded compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering and a "lost wage amount due to his inability to audition or take modeling or commercial jobs while his head heals."

Mader blamed the boy's injury on a green railing, which she said blends in with the landscaping. Mader said the railing should be painted a brighter color.

"This accident was preventable had the railings and safety measures been correct at this park, " Mader wrote in her claim.

Tom Cassone, the city's director of legal affairs, said his office is investigating the claim.

Joe Falzone, a facilities manager in charge of maintaining city parks, said he is not aware of defects in the playground and there are no plans to make changes.

Araxx Darkroot
12-26-2003, 01:28 PM
I would not have lost 2 minutes of my life if that woman had not had a child (this is the censored version of what I am thinking).

I do not believe human stupidity and greed. That woman should be whipped for not looking after her child. It is her responsibility.

/incredulous

alyn cross
12-26-2003, 01:33 PM
yah, that's pretty bad. hell, i hit a brick wall when i was a kid. what's the statuate of limitations on a lawsuit vs. a mason?

/cackle

Panamah
12-26-2003, 01:48 PM
Sounds like we need a bit of chlorine in the gene pool!

BTW: Title should've said, "strangle" not "strange". /sigh I must say, my only complaint with vBulletin is that you can't change your posting title, so whatever you fat-fingered is stuck forever.

Grenoble
12-26-2003, 02:25 PM
You need a license to drive, a license to fish, a license to hunt, a license to get married.

Yet any fool can breed.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
12-26-2003, 02:40 PM
I could sue!

Never thought of that.

Cloudien
12-26-2003, 03:12 PM
It's because of people like that, that packets of peanuts need to have "Warning: contains nuts" and McDonalds tea "Warning: Hot" written on them. Absolutely ridiculous, and a sign of not just extreme greed but a daft litigation system.

MeridianAscendant
12-26-2003, 03:51 PM
Would like to see the city turn around and sue the mother for stupidity.

Cloudien
12-26-2003, 04:26 PM
On this side of the pond, she could probably be done for "neglect" and the child taken into care - the opposite extreme, but more long term damage to both the mother and child... wouldn't wish that on anyone :/

Tenidina
12-26-2003, 08:10 PM
Stupid people should not reproduce.

Araxx Darkroot
12-27-2003, 08:50 AM
Stupid people don't know how not to do so, that is why there are so many of them. :p

Wildaiena
12-27-2003, 10:03 AM
Maybe she should put it on a leash.

Koldriana
12-29-2003, 02:14 AM
Its kinda funny...

We want parents to take responsibility for thier children, yet we will not allow them to 'responsibly' discipline them when their actions need correction...but yet as soon as the child does something dumb,people will blame the parents. I'm not saying that this is the case here..just saying :p

Araxx Darkroot
12-29-2003, 05:40 AM
Its a weird world.
I'm not against a smack or two when a child misbehaves.
I'm not against a child getting told off and learning from experience like this kid did.
I am against people (parents) who do not take responsibility for their actions (or lack thereof) and blame others for not doing things when it is already too late, like in the story above.

Too many randomizers to make a clear definition, but you know what I mean... I hope :p

Panamah
12-29-2003, 10:53 AM
You can discipline kids without hitting them.

Araxx Darkroot
12-29-2003, 11:27 AM
Hitting and smacking are two very different things.
It was ok to be smacked over the knuckles with a ruler in school, whacked over the head again with this ruler, or be given the "slipper" by the headmaster, all in the name of education (I suffered an English education until I was 12), but a smack or two at home is child beating? Puh-lease.
Getting a couple well timed smacks as a kid and then just the idea of another was enough to keep a misbehaved child in line.
I was too good to be true as a child. I never got told off (well, maybe once when I "borrowed" a friend's bike I had just learnt to ride at age 6 and hid it in my batcave) and never got into trouble at school, but I knew that if I ever did think of getting out of line I wouldn't like it, so I stayed on the good side. My brother, on the other hand, never did learn the lesson. Oh well.
Nowadays kids are too clever. They know you can't do anything to them if they do something bad, not even the law can touch them unless they commit murder, and even then it is iffy.

Panamah
12-29-2003, 11:52 AM
The part about hitting/smacking/whatever kids that is troublesome isn't necessarily the physical damage to the kids, it's the tendency for them to do the same and so on down the line.

Now if you whack your kids out of anger, what are they going to do when they get angry? They're going to want to hit too because that's how you deal with anger.... or at least, that's what was shown to them as the way to deal with anger.

There's lots of ways of disciplining kids. Sending them to their room, taking away fun activities and privileges and other stuff. I'm not a child psychologist, but I have heard enough about how violence is passed along as a learned behavior to believe that it isn't a good way to correct bad behavior.

I don't think it's the violence of the punishment that keeps kids in line, I think its the consistency of the punishment. How often do you hear parents threatening their kids with some dire consequence and they never follow through with it? I knew as a kid that if I got caught doing something bad, I was going to get punished. Parents are too lazy or too busy these days to take care of their kids and that means checking up on them to make sure they're keeping out of trouble and effectively punishing them when they do get in trouble. Either that or they want to be their kids "friend" and not their parent so they don't want to do anything that will make their kids unhappy with them.

I think the same thing is true with pets. I don't ever hit my animals but a good squirt with a water bottle does wonders. Why would I treat a human, especially a little one with the capacity for reasoning (at least eventually) with less consideration?

I know everyone has their own opinion and some even get religious about it, "spare the rod, etc", and I don't want to devolve into an argument about it. But that's my take on the subject.

Now, how did this thread evolve from a kid bumping his noggin on a railing and his mother suing over it into punishing children? Surely no one is suggesting the kid should be punished for being a klutz?

BTW: This guy sums up the spanking debate fairly well, IMHO. https://mailman.rice.edu/pipermail/psych101/2003-October/000041.html

Aidon
12-29-2003, 11:59 AM
Hmmm, well given the very limited information that little tidbit of news gives us, I still have to think its viable cause of action.

I have to say, though, I'm amazed at the response from people on here. I mean you know nothing, really, about the incident from reading that news article. How can you suggest her actions are ridiculous? You don't know where the bar was, what it looked liked, if the city had received complaints about it before, or what her and her childs loss may or may not have been.

Panamah
12-29-2003, 12:19 PM
First off, when you're 2 years old you don't have a lot of motor skills, you're going to fall and run into things, even if they're painted bright orange and have warning signs, "don't bump your head".

The other thing that strikes me as ludicrous is that a two year old having a loss of income. Yes, I realize some 2 year olds have incomes.

You put those two things together: normal toddler klutziness and an income and it is... just... ludicrous that someone would sue over a playground accident.

It's this sort of thing that is going to keep playgrounds from being built because cities won't be able to afford the insurance of all the rapacious parents, and their lawyers, eager to win a jackpot because their little precious was being a normal klutzy kid and bumped his head.

All the law suits in the world aren't going to prevent kids from having playground accidents. You just need to accept at least a little bit of risk if you go outdoors and experience life. Sure, you need to take reasonable measures to make sure that playgrounds aren't deadly, but from the info presented here, it looked like the parent was being a griefer.

And why not blame the parent? Clearly that child should have been wearing a helmet!

Aidon
12-29-2003, 12:25 PM
Again, you are making judgements without truly knowing anything about the incident.

How do you know the kid isn't bringing in 10k a job as a very cute toddler for advertisements?

How do you know the bar wasn't painted a dark green half hidden by bushes?

You don't, not from the article you posted.

If the parents and child have a legitimate loss because of this incident, and the city was negligent, are you suggesting that in order to keep playgrounds around, the parents shouldn't be recompensed for their loss?

For all I know, the case is bogus and ridiculous. But there is an equal chance of it being very legitimate.

Panamah
12-29-2003, 01:46 PM
I make lots of judgements without knowing all the facts.

But my point is, I don't care if the kid was earning 10k and the bar was painted dark green. Playground accidents are going to happen and they aren't always due to negligance of the playground provider and they don't need to always result in law suits, settlements and blame being assigned.

Of course I don't know ALL the facts. I don't know that there are nooses hanging off the bars for the kids to hang themselves with and razor blades embedded in the slides but I rather doubt it. I suspect there are lots of parents though, and this may very well be one, looking to use their child as a free meal ticket.

Anyway, I'm armchair quarterbacking. It'd be interesting to see all the "facts" that get presented in court and make a decision, but in lieu of that, I say "GUILTY!" hang 'em high!