Lawsuit waiting to happen-Endzone hill

LakeHighlandsPony · Post by **LakeHighlandsPony** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:25 pm

I took my daughters over to see Miss Maddy's purty Mustangs and sat on the hill in the endzone. Kids were running full speed down the hill and sure enough one of them smacked his noggin into the retaining wall. His idiot dad was not watching his kid at all. Seriously, somebody is really going to get hurt over there.

SMU_Alumni11 · Post by **SMU_Alumni11** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:26 pm

LakeHighlandsPony wrote:I took my daughters over to see Miss Maddy's purty Mustangs and sat on the hill in the endzone. Kids were running full speed down the hill and sure enough one of them smacked his noggin into the retaining wall. His idiot dad was not watching his kid at all. Seriously, somebody is really going to get hurt over there.

Not sure if they could win, since the university probably posted a disclosure saying all people are at risk when on the Endzone hill... it also pays to have a law school ready to get some business and practice.

LakeHighlandsPony · Post by **LakeHighlandsPony** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:32 pm

I did not see any such signs. Stallion, what say you?

SMU_Alumni11 · Post by **SMU_Alumni11** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:34 pm

LakeHighlandsPony wrote:I did not see any such signs. Stallion, what say you?

I never been out there, so Im not guaranteeing it but Im just guessing that they put it somewhere. Otherwise they must not be legally liable for people being stupid.

smustatesmen · Post by **smustatesmen** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:36 pm

[quote="SMU_Alumni11"][quote="LakeHighlandsPony"]I took my daughters over to see Miss Maddy's purty Mustangs and sat on the hill in the endzone. Kids were running full speed down the hill and sure enough one of them smacked his noggin into the retaining wall. His idiot dad was not watching his kid at all. Seriously, somebody is really going to get hurt over there.[/quote

Sounds like a future applicant to either UH or TCU. Tell G.P. we're returning his help.

Junior · Post by **Junior** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:37 pm

i've been saying that for years. I saw some kid smack the wall last year as well.

I get that it's at your own risk, but why can't they just put some padding there? Seems like common sense.

"We're sorry your kid has a severe scalp laceration, but we had a sign up there".

Seems like a weak excuse, regardless of the actual legal liability.

SMU_Alumni11 · Post by **SMU_Alumni11** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:43 pm

Junior wrote:i've been saying that for years. I saw some kid smack the wall last year as well.

I get that it's at your own risk, but why can't they just put some padding there? Seems like common sense.

"We're sorry your kid has a severe scalp laceration, but we had a sign up there".

Seems like a weak excuse, regardless of the actual legal liability.

Right but its not fair to a company, institution, or private individual, to make sure every possiblity of someone being hurt is covered. Its an unnecessary expense and burden on the host. It should be common sense for guests or individuals to know the boundaries and risks of the host's location. Signs are suppose to be indicators that there can be impeding danger or risk. Therefore it should be up to the guest to decided should I be down there making sure my kid doesnt get hurt, or if I cant watch him then I should take my child(ren) to a safer more appropriate place. I mean Im fine for patting, and if the school wants to, it can decide on its own to put it there or ask for donations to put it up. It should never be mandated, otherwise you could continuously go about saying each and everything that needs to be fixed to make it impossible to get hurt. I mean it could be obvious to build a bridge over roads so people wont get hit by cars, but its easier to put a crosswalk with a light indicating your risk to cross the street.

smustatesmen · Post by **smustatesmen** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:46 pm

One can not sign away their liability. Meaning putting up a sign does not necessarily relieve one of one's exposure to owing for damages.

Pony64 · Post by **Pony64** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:50 pm

Junior wrote:i've been saying that for years. I saw some kid smack the wall last year as well.

I get that it's at your own risk, but why can't they just put some padding there? Seems like common sense.

"We're sorry your kid has a severe scalp laceration, but we had a sign up there".

Seems like a weak excuse, regardless of the actual legal liability.

Good idea. I will make a call on that. They need to do something.

They also should add an additional Bounce House .

couch 'em · Post by **couch 'em** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:52 pm

If only we could level all hills across the nation.......for the children

SMU_Alumni11 · Post by **SMU_Alumni11** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:56 pm

couch 'em wrote:If only we could level all hills across the nation.......for the children

Junior · Post by **Junior** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:00 pm

SMU_Alumni11 wrote:
Junior wrote:i've been saying that for years. I saw some kid smack the wall last year as well.

I get that it's at your own risk, but why can't they just put some padding there? Seems like common sense.

"We're sorry your kid has a severe scalp laceration, but we had a sign up there".

Seems like a weak excuse, regardless of the actual legal liability.

Right but its not fair to a company, institution, or private individual, to make sure every possiblity of someone being hurt is covered. Its an unnecessary expense and burden on the host. It should be common sense for guests or individuals to know the boundaries and risks of the host's location. Signs are suppose to be indicators that there can be impeding danger or risk. Therefore it should be up to the guest to decided should I be down there making sure my kid doesnt get hurt, or if I cant watch him then I should take my child(ren) to a safer more appropriate place. I mean Im fine for patting, and if the school wants to, it can decide on its own to put it there or ask for donations to put it up. It should never be mandated, otherwise you could continuously go about saying each and everything that needs to be fixed to make it impossible to get hurt. I mean it could be obvious to build a bridge over roads so people wont get hit by cars, but its easier to put a crosswalk with a light indicating your risk to cross the street.

generally, i agree with you. take responsibility for your own actions, etc.

but in this case, we're dealing primarily with a bunch of young children at the base of a hill. you can't put that sort of responsibility squarely on their shoulders and think you've met your social responsibility.

i think the school would want to look beyond the bare minimum in this case.

as we've seen a lot lately, meeting your bare minimum legal responsibility can still get you skewered by the public.

SMU2007 · Post by **SMU2007** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:04 pm

smustatesmen wrote:One can not sign away their liability. Meaning putting up a sign does not necessarily relieve one of one's exposure to owing for damages.

i believe this is true.

Junior · Post by **Junior** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:06 pm

SMU2007 wrote:
smustatesmen wrote:One can not sign away their liability. Meaning putting up a sign does not necessarily relieve one of one's exposure to owing for damages.

i believe this is true.

will you sign something to that effect?

mrydel · Post by **mrydel** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:07 pm

Didn't the school get sued (and I assume had to settle up) when the kid got hurt climbing on the goal post a few years ago? We had to install the collapsing posts after that. You would think if that was a problem, concrete at the bottom of a steep hill where you let kids roll is definitely a problem. I would recommend some kind of barrier, padding, or keep kids off of it if unwilling to do that. Tuition already goes up too fast.