> Why would it be the company's duty of care and not the parent It is the company's duty of care for the same reason that - it is the city's duty of care if t

> Why would it be the company's duty of care and not the parent It is the company's duty of care for the same reason that - it is the city's duty of care if the child goes outside and falls down an unmaintained manhole - it is the school's duty of care if a fire extinguisher malfunctions and kills the child - it is the driver's duty of care if the child crosses the road and gets struck on a green crossing In all these cases, the entities assume a certain privilege to operate due to the trust placed in them that enables the freedom for the child to go outside whatsoever. If that duty does not exist, then there is no trust the child can safely leave home unattended. In effect what you're arguing for is total control from the parent -- a much worse outcome for a child than self-moderation on behalf of the trusted entities they would otherwise have had the freedom to interact with.