5 ms·

> What could the owner have done to ensure that this did not happen? Remove the swing? If you have the foresight to say that the swing is so dangerous, then wh

• jacquesm 11y ago
  I don't think anybody involved had the foresight to say that that particular swing was dangerous if they had they no doubt would have taken it down. But swings are dangerous, and users of swings should be aware of that. The very same thing could have happened to the owner of the house.
  • DanBC 11y ago
    There are swings at my local park. They were designed by competent engineers. They were installed by competent builders. They're regularly maintained. The council (who own and operate the park) have insurance. I am aware that there's some risk involved in swings - don't walk in front of one when it's being used, don't use it when I'm drunk, don't do handstands on it, but I also know that using it normally is pretty safe.
    • jacquesm 11y ago
      The swings in that park are indeed probably normally safe. Swings installed by homeowners are usually held to a different standard and tree swings should be considered dangerous until personally inspected before use.
      • gozo 11y ago
        How are the tenants supposed to know that?
        • jacquesm 11y ago
          Common sense?
          • mikeash 11y ago
            Common sense tells me that people should take some extra care with their homemade constructions before turning it into part of a business venture. Maybe common sense isn't such a good guide, though.
            • jacquesm 11y ago
              People renting out their homes on AirBNB do not normally see it as a business venture. They usually do not register as a business and they usually do not follow the regulations set for the hospitality business (in fact, they try what they can to avoid those regulations, associated costs and taxes).
              • mikeash 11y ago
                It's common sense that if you're providing a service for money, that's a business. Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong about what people usually think. It's just an argument that people are not being sensible about it.
              • TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
                Which is the point: the "sharing economy" encourages service provision by amateurs without regulation, oversight, formal accountability, or adequate backup. It looks like a win because it's cheaper, but that's only true until something goes badly wrong. Oversight and regulation aren't always a bad thing. Sometimes they prevent avoidable accidents.
                • jacquesm 11y ago
                  > Which is the point: the "sharing economy" encourages service provision by amateurs without regulation, oversight, formal accountability, or adequate backup. Yes. > It looks like a win because it's cheaper, but that's only true until something goes badly wrong. It isn't a win in my opinion, for many reasons. It violates all kinds of social contracts. > Oversight and regulation aren't always a bad thing. Agreed. > Sometimes they prevent avoidable accidents. That's a tricky one. I suspect this particular tree-swing would have killed someone, it's a coincidence that it had to be an AirBNB guest so even if this particular person may not have died the accident itself would have probably happened anyway sooner or later. Which is sort of the root of my whole argument about this being a tragedy rather than an issue of liability.
      • joosters 11y ago
        There's a huge difference between me building a swing for my own use, and me building a swing that paying guests could use. They are held to vastly different levels of accountability, despite both of them being built by a homeowner.
        • jacquesm 11y ago
          This is exactly the point. People on AirBNB rent out their houses that they built and maintain for their own use to you the guest. That means that you get the level of construction and associated accountabilty related to private individuals, not to professional operators. It is also one of the reasons you are probably better of in a hotel if safety is a prime consideration when you're traveling. The upsides of AirBNB stays are related to interaction, living like the locals do and a less thirteen-in-a-dozen experience, the upside is definitely not that the place you will be staying in is safer or better grade when it comes to reliability than your average old home, especially not when it is a quaint old cottage in some backwater.
          • Klinky 11y ago
            Then there needs to be a huge disclaimer about safety liability and people need to be given a checklist of safety items to inspect upon their arrival. There should also be a guarantee of a full refund and/or alternative accommodations if the host fails the checklist. If you really want to blame the customer and put the burden on them for their own safety, make them aware of it. The problem is that informing the consumer of all the risks is going to be less profitable because people may second guess if it's right for them, and the checklist makes AirBnB look like a lot more work. Either the homeowner needs to see a huge disclaimer and accept liability when they place a property, or the consumer needs to see a huge disclaimer and accept liability when they rent a place, or AirBnB needs to assume responsibility and liability for both. You can't just leave it a grey area where it automatically defaults to the consumer being liable for everything, so that the homeowner and AirBnB can maximize profit while assuming zero risk.
            • jacquesm 11y ago
      • DannyBee 11y ago
        "Swings installed by homeowners are usually held to a different standard and tree swings should be considered dangerous until personally inspected before use." Held to a different standard by whom? Definitely not by courts.
        • jacquesm 11y ago
          By prospective users of those swings because it is their lives and health on the line.
  • DannyBee 11y ago
    "But swings are dangerous, and users of swings should be aware of that." Sorry, but in the US, the law and most cases say the opposite. Generally, the onus is on the person whose swing it is, not users of swings.
    • URSpider94 11y ago
      I don't think the parent is arguing that the family in the story didn't deserve a settlement for his death (at least under settled US law). His point is that the man who used the swing is dead. If your ultimate goal is to stay alive, then the burden of care is on YOU. If your goal is to garner a sweet multi-million payday for your family, then swing on!!
      • DannyBee 11y ago
        "If your ultimate goal is to stay alive, then the burden of care is on YOU." This is theoretically true in all of life, so it's kind of a vacuous and IMHO not very useful point. IE if someone doesn't stop when you have the right of way, it doesn't make you any less dead when they run you over. Realize the reason the law exists is precisely to force the burden back onto homeowners, and that is in fact, the likely outcome.