4 ms·

Of course it is colourful, but the reporter was a parent too and neighbours wondered why they let their children play unsupervised outside. In Germany a court

by tehabe 8y ago

Of course it is colourful, but the reporter was a parent too and neighbours wondered why they let their children play unsupervised outside. In Germany a court just ruled that a three year old can go alone to the bath room and their parents don't have to check on them. The child set the bath room under water and someone wanted the parents to be liable. Also some years ago, I saw a video from a school parking lot, where the hundreds of pupils where dropped off by their parents. So instead of building several schools close to the pupils, they build one big school, to which almost no pupil come alone.

bunderbunder 8y ago
With how US geography is, it would be impossible in most communities to build schools such that kids can easily go there by themselves. Even in cities of >250,000 people, it's common for there to be no sidewalks, and possibly not even any proper crosswalks, such that it's very difficult to get around without driving a car. In denser cities, though, you do tend to see neighborhood schools instead of larger, more centralized schools.
- ginko 8y ago
  > Even in cities of >250,000 people, it's common for there to be no sidewalks, and possibly not even any proper crosswalks This seems like a failure at city planning. Anyways shouldn't there be a school bus?
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    I grew up outside one of these towns. There was a school bus. As a consequence of the communities being so spread out, the route was very long. As I recall, I would have to catch the bus nearly an hour before school started. Other kids got dropped off and picked up by one of their parents, and, in retrospect, I imagine it was a convenience decision for everyone involved. For one, it probably meant everyone got to sleep half an hour or so later. This has probably only become worse since then, since the trend seems to be toward people wanting ever larger houses with ever larger yards, thereby making everything even more spread out. Come to think of it, it's no wonder kids have apparently started opting for staying at home and playing games online with their friends rather than getting together in meatspace. It's probably getting to be just too inconvenient to get together in meatspace.
Steltek 8y ago
> In Germany a court just ruled that a three year old can go alone to the bath room and their parents don't have to check on them. The child set the bath room under water and someone wanted the parents to be liable. Seems like the alternative is to declare the 3yo liable for the damage, which is absurd. Water like that can cause a lot of damage; it's not like they tipped over a glass on the table.
- tehabe 8y ago
  They wanted the parents to be liable for the damage, claiming they have breached their obligatory supervision to the child. The judge said that the parents are not obligated to surveillance their child 24/7 in the flat as it would hinder the development of the child.
  - nybble41 8y ago
    I would argue that parents (or legal guardians) should be held liable for damage caused by their minor children, period, without claiming that parents have an obligation to monitor their children 24/7. The degree of surveillance is up to the parents, and I agree that continuous monitoring would tend to stifle development, but that does not remove the parents' liability. Someone has to pay for the damages, and it would not be sensible or just for that someone to be the owner of the damaged property. The alternative to parental responsibility is that property owners simply ban unsupervised minors from the premises. They represent too great a risk to be tolerated in the absence of legal recourse for whatever damage they might cause.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > I would argue that parents (or legal guardians) should be held liable for damage caused by their minor children, period, without claiming that parents have an obligation to monitor their children 24/7. The idea that having children should be treated as a strict liability tort is...unusual. Without that treatment, the damages would need to stem from some other tort by the parent (such as negligence by failure to reasonably supervise), or a tort by the child with a rule that parents are liable for the children's torts. > Someone has to pay for the damages, and it would not be sensible or just for that someone to be the owner of the damaged property. That's who usually pays for damages not resulting from some failure of a legal duty, so I do think see why a child being involved would change that. > The alternative to parental responsibility is that property owners simply ban unsupervised minors from the premises. Well, that's an alternative, and a fairly common one where it's not fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the property.

by tehabe 8y ago

bunderbunder 8y ago

With how US geography is, it would be impossible in most communities to build schools such that kids can easily go there by themselves. Even in cities of >250,000 people, it's common for there to be no sidewalks, and possibly not even any proper crosswalks, such that it's very difficult to get around without driving a car. In denser cities, though, you do tend to see neighborhood schools instead of larger, more centralized schools.

ginko 8y ago
> Even in cities of >250,000 people, it's common for there to be no sidewalks, and possibly not even any proper crosswalks This seems like a failure at city planning. Anyways shouldn't there be a school bus?
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  I grew up outside one of these towns. There was a school bus. As a consequence of the communities being so spread out, the route was very long. As I recall, I would have to catch the bus nearly an hour before school started. Other kids got dropped off and picked up by one of their parents, and, in retrospect, I imagine it was a convenience decision for everyone involved. For one, it probably meant everyone got to sleep half an hour or so later. This has probably only become worse since then, since the trend seems to be toward people wanting ever larger houses with ever larger yards, thereby making everything even more spread out. Come to think of it, it's no wonder kids have apparently started opting for staying at home and playing games online with their friends rather than getting together in meatspace. It's probably getting to be just too inconvenient to get together in meatspace.

Steltek 8y ago

> In Germany a court just ruled that a three year old can go alone to the bath room and their parents don't have to check on them. The child set the bath room under water and someone wanted the parents to be liable. Seems like the alternative is to declare the 3yo liable for the damage, which is absurd. Water like that can cause a lot of damage; it's not like they tipped over a glass on the table.

tehabe 8y ago
They wanted the parents to be liable for the damage, claiming they have breached their obligatory supervision to the child. The judge said that the parents are not obligated to surveillance their child 24/7 in the flat as it would hinder the development of the child.
- nybble41 8y ago
  I would argue that parents (or legal guardians) should be held liable for damage caused by their minor children, period, without claiming that parents have an obligation to monitor their children 24/7. The degree of surveillance is up to the parents, and I agree that continuous monitoring would tend to stifle development, but that does not remove the parents' liability. Someone has to pay for the damages, and it would not be sensible or just for that someone to be the owner of the damaged property. The alternative to parental responsibility is that property owners simply ban unsupervised minors from the premises. They represent too great a risk to be tolerated in the absence of legal recourse for whatever damage they might cause.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I would argue that parents (or legal guardians) should be held liable for damage caused by their minor children, period, without claiming that parents have an obligation to monitor their children 24/7. The idea that having children should be treated as a strict liability tort is...unusual. Without that treatment, the damages would need to stem from some other tort by the parent (such as negligence by failure to reasonably supervise), or a tort by the child with a rule that parents are liable for the children's torts. > Someone has to pay for the damages, and it would not be sensible or just for that someone to be the owner of the damaged property. That's who usually pays for damages not resulting from some failure of a legal duty, so I do think see why a child being involved would change that. > The alternative to parental responsibility is that property owners simply ban unsupervised minors from the premises. Well, that's an alternative, and a fairly common one where it's not fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the property.