Toddler drowns in pond and neighbour is charged - too harsh?

[diggler649]

So most of you are probably familiar with the story of a toddler that wandered off into his neighbour's yard and drowned in a man-made pond. The neighbour was subsequently charged with criminal negligence causing death - which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. The neighbour was seen as negligent as he had removed the gate to his yard as he was undergoing some kind of renovation.

Although this is tragic for the toddler to die, I also think there is a tragedy in the neighbour being charged with such a serious crime. He did not intend for this to happen. And I understand the charge can stick even if there was no intent. But what about the grandmother or family that was supposed to be watching the kid? Shouldn't they take some responsibility as well?

What do you folks think? And I apologize profusely if this topic has already been discussed.

Discuss.

[manmanny]

I think its too harsh.
But the way that was maintained it was disaster. But I don't understand why not charge grandmother for negligence?
It was her mistake the toddler wondered around. She is the experienced one how toddlers behave and move fast.

[spintheblackcircle]

I believe the accused had already been warned by the city regarding the pond and the lack of fencing. While I'm not saying that plays a direct role in the charges, it certainly doesn't help his defence.

And yes, I agree that whoever was "watching" the toddler should have some accountability. Especially knowing the potential danger of the poorly secured pond...

[Simaahoy]

Toronto Police have charged a Scarborough homeowner with criminal negligence after a neighbour’s two-year-old boy drowned in a backyard pond Tuesday morning.

Toronto Police responded to an emergency call at 23 Carrying Place, near Markham Road and Finch Avenue.

“A two-year-old boy had been located in the backyard of 21 Carrying Place face down in a pond,” according to a police news release.

The child was taken to Scarborough Centenary Hospital via emergency run with serious injuries. He was later transferred to the Hospital for Sick Children where he died.

Subsequent investigation by the police resulted in a charge of criminal negligence causing death being laid against Sriranganathan Ampalam of 21 Carrying Place.

Media images of the yard suggest there was no fence surrounding the pond, though it is unclear if that is why charges were laid.

Akhtar Zaidi, who lives several doors down, saw a woman being led out of the house in handcuffs, but reports say she was released after the confusion died down.

Mr. Zaidi, who described the child as “a cute kid,” said his wife Parveen had acted as a babysitter for the child when he was younger. In 2011, when the Zaidis had a fire at their house, the boy’s family was the first to come to their aid.

There was difficulty with the initial emergency call, said Const. Victor Kwong, media relations officer for the Toronto Police. The call was cut off before the operator could get all the details and there were further complications because the call was made using a VoIP phone. Calls made through Internet phone companies, or Voice over Internet Protocols, are routed to the city where the person’s Internet provider is based. If this differs from the place of the emergency, valuable time could be lost. That forced police to “take extra steps to track [the 911 call],” said Const. Kwong.

Nevertheless, he said emergency responders were on the scene quickly. The initial emergency call came through at 10:21 a.m. “Officers were on the scene by 10:31 a.m.,” said Const. Kwong.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/19/neighbour-charged-with-negligence-after-toddler-drowns-in-backyard-pond/

Very sad story:( With the information that is out there, I think the neighbor shouldn't be charged.

[Superboot]

The charge aganist the neighbour is ridiculous, hopefully he gets cleared in court.

[chickenbones]

Well imagine this. Toronto Hydro is working on a high voltage power line. They didn't cut the power, didn't put any warning around the live wire, the wire was left dangling in a offsite area near a park. Some kid playing with his family ran off too far and got too close to the wire. He got electrocuted and was killed.

Should Toronto Hydro be responsible for his death? If yes then shouldn't this homeowner be responsible? The pond is a hazard and the rules clearly state that you must have fencing around ponds and pools to prevent exactly this type of tragedy.

Sure parents and guardians should watch their kids, but that doesn't mean you can have live hazards.

Another example, some punk is driving 120km/h in a 40km/h residential zone. Some kid is playing on the street and is killed. Would it be too harsh to charge the driver then?

The question is, should parents have a reasonable expectation that their kids will drown / be electrocuted if they run around parks / homes? Clearly not. If the kid drowned in a lake then it would totally be the parents' fault.

[althetrainer]

I can't help but shaking my head. If some stupid teenagers came to my property without permission and hurt themselves while playing on my trampoline I became responsible to their injuries. If a guy tried to force into my house by kicking the door down and got shot I would be the one who got charged for assault. If someone tried to steal my stuff and I held the person until the police arrived I would be charged illegal confinement. When a psychotic guy refused to take his medications and ended up killing someone, he couldn't be responsible for his actions and that he should be given the right to walk the street with the rest of us. Seriously, what's wrong with our systems?

[Supercooled]

He isnt faultless having been warned by police of the hazards of an exposed pond.

[stuntman]

We don't know the back story. For all we know the pond owner told the inspectors to kiss off because he was going to do what he liked.

A non-fenced off pool is a danger and he was warned. The danger is particularly leaned towards then number of young children that have drowned in unfenced pools.

I am not going to question the charge. The guy may as well have been leaving a loaded gun on his deck and it would have been just as dangerous to the toddler.

[canguy9999]

Well imagine this. Toronto Hydro is working on a high voltage power line. They didn't cut the power, didn't put any warning around the live wire, the wire was left dangling in a offsite area near a park. Some kid playing with his family ran off too far and got too close to the wire. He got electrocuted and was killed.

Should Toronto Hydro be responsible for his death? If yes then shouldn't this homeowner be responsible? The pond is a hazard and the rules clearly state that you must have fencing around ponds and pools to prevent exactly this type of tragedy.

Sure parents and guardians should watch their kids, but that doesn't mean you can have live hazards.

Another example, some punk is driving 120km/h in a 40km/h residential zone. Some kid is playing on the street and is killed. Would it be too harsh to charge the driver then?

The question is, should parents have a reasonable expectation that their kids will drown / be electrocuted if they run around parks / homes? Clearly not. If the kid drowned in a lake then it would totally be the parents' fault.

Your examples aren't all the same. They are all very different.

Live dangling lines, obviously more dangerous than a pool.

Second example, guy was speeding that fast through a residential zone, again much more dangerous.

Also if it was just a matter of the kid getting ahead of the parents in the pool situation a parent could have saved the kid; in these two examples most likely they couldn't save the kid.

[Manatus]

Well imagine this. Toronto Hydro is working on a high voltage power line. They didn't cut the power, didn't put any warning around the live wire, the wire was left dangling in a offsite area near a park. Some kid playing with his family ran off too far and got too close to the wire. He got electrocuted and was killed.

Should Toronto Hydro be responsible for his death? If yes then shouldn't this homeowner be responsible? The pond is a hazard and the rules clearly state that you must have fencing around ponds and pools to prevent exactly this type of tragedy.

Sure parents and guardians should watch their kids, but that doesn't mean you can have live hazards.

Another example, some punk is driving 120km/h in a 40km/h residential zone. Some kid is playing on the street and is killed. Would it be too harsh to charge the driver then?

The question is, should parents have a reasonable expectation that their kids will drown / be electrocuted if they run around parks / homes? Clearly not. If the kid drowned in a lake then it would totally be the parents' fault.

The difference to me (of course the law thinks otherwise, which is fine) is that this was something an individual did on their own property and with their own money. Personally I think if you come onto my property without my permission, it should be 100% at your own risk, and whether I have beartraps scattered all over my lawn is irrelevant. Yes, I believe that parents should have a reasonable expectation that if they let their kids trespass on someone else's property, bad things may happen because in my opinion a person shouldn't have to babyproof their property for someone else's kids. Of course in a court of law the rules are different, and that's fine, but from a personal standpoint they should leave the homeowner alone.

[CSK'sMom]

Absolutely not too harsh. Ponds are no different than swimming pools and are treated as such with bylaws, etc. It was downright idiotic of the homeowner to not have secured his yard IMO as an avid ponder and pool owner. The first thing one learns when owning one or the other is that you are 100% liable if something happens, even if the person is trespassing. When one has kids in the neighborhood, even more so IMO.

Frankly there are several cases of this every year across this country and it's about time charges are laid. If you can afford to build the pond than you can afford to properly secure your yard, plain and simple. And if you can't afford to secure your yard, then you full in the pond or remove the pool. Simple really...

[sandikosh]

The parent should be charged for neglecting the child.
The city should be charged for not enforcing the bylaws.
The neighbor should be charged for making the backyard unsafe to others.

[EmperorOfCanada]

Absolutely not too harsh. Ponds are no different than swimming pools and are treated as such with bylaws, etc. It was downright idiotic of the homeowner to not have secured his yard IMO as an avid ponder and pool owner. The first thing one learns when owning one or the other is that you are 100% liable if something happens, even if the person is trespassing. When one has kids in the neighborhood, even more so IMO.

Frankly there are several cases of this every year across this country and it's about time charges are laid. If you can afford to build the pond than you can afford to properly secure your yard, plain and simple. And if you can't afford to secure your yard, then you full in the pond or remove the pool. Simple really...

I'm not sure I agree. Some murderers seem to get off easier than this. So do some drunk drivers. There may be some negligence here but not as bad as some crimes punished much less severely.

[pupazzo]

The pond owner should be charged for murder. My cumpare has a real pond but it's impossible for a kid to fall in because he has some common sense.

[manmanny]

The parent should be charged for neglecting the child.
The city should be charged for not enforcing the bylaws.
The neighbor should be charged for making the backyard unsafe to others.

Like that.

[sherman51]

I still remember taking a law course and learning that if i dig a big hole in my fenced in yard and some idiot kid hops my fence and gets injured I can be charged because I may not have taken enough precautions. The pond was in his back yard, this is a sad accident but there should never be a case that the owner like this is charged since the yard is not supposed to accessible to anyone but his own family. His grandmother and mother (who was apparently home at the time) should feel shame for not watching out for the child.
I have a cottage on a lake and a 5 year old, you better believe that I knew how close he was to the water at all times but if he was to drown, do I get to sue the municipality because I probably, like others on my lake don't actually own the shoreline? Should municipalities have barriers around all owned bodies of water?
Eventually these laws have to be examined and not go out of their way to protect the stupid of society.

[yao416]

I blamed the parents, Shouldve put your kids on leash

[al3x89]

100% the parents fault.

[cheapgeek]

1. Blame Parents
2. City
3. guy with pond

[hugh_da_man]

I'm ok with it if the person watching the kid is also charged with criminal negligence resulting in death. If not then why is the pond owner the only one who has responsibility?

[CSK'sMom]

I'm not sure I agree. Some murderers seem to get off easier than this. So do some drunk drivers. There may be some negligence here but not as bad as some crimes punished much less severely.

Do I think he will get the max sentence if convicted... nope. Doesn't mean he's not criminally responsible (and civilly too) for not securing his yard when he had a known hazard. Heck even insurance companies make it really clear one needs far more liability insurance when they have a pond or pool just because of stuff like this...

BTW, remember I know better than most just how unjust sentences can be. I am coming up on two years till parole being a possibility. ;)

[deltone]

I blame the person who was supposed to be looking after the poor little kid. I live on a lake and we have 265 feet of shoreline. My grandchildren come here and they are under STRICT orders to never ever leave my house withouth an adult. If the lake doesn't have to be closed in by a fence, then why should the pond be that much different? We can't protect everyone from every thing in this world and so as a caregiver, we MUST take extra percautions when watching small children. Whether I live on a lake or not, I would not be allowing my little 3 year old granddaughter to wander around outside without supervision. It's very sad this poor little boy died like this but I put the blame on the caregiver.

[BornRuff]

So most of you are probably familiar with the story of a toddler that wandered off into his neighbour's yard and drowned in a man-made pond. The neighbour was subsequently charged with criminal negligence causing death - which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. The neighbour was seen as negligent as he had removed the gate to his yard as he was undergoing some kind of renovation.

Although this is tragic for the toddler to die, I also think there is a tragedy in the neighbour being charged with such a serious crime. He did not intend for this to happen. And I understand the charge can stick even if there was no intent. But what about the grandmother or family that was supposed to be watching the kid? Shouldn't they take some responsibility as well?

What do you folks think? And I apologize profusely if this topic has already been discussed.

Discuss.

It is negligence, so it explicitly does not involve intent. Him claiming that he didn't mean to do it has no impact on this. It is all about if he exercised the care that the law has established that a reasonable person should be expected to exercise.

Keeping backyard pools fenced off is pretty much considered common sense in Canada, so I don't know if he has much chance of getting off. He is not going to jail for life though. From what I have read, the longest jail sentence for criminal negligence causing death in Canada was 7 years, and that was for a drunk driving case, which is significantly less sympathetic.

He likely wont get much jail time, if any. Probably will end up with a deal to plead guilty to a lesser charge and do community service or something like that.

[kingofwale]

my question is.

where were the parents when the kid was in someone ELSE's yard drowning??

Where was the fencing on the side of parents of the kids to provent the kid from going off to someone else's place?



Frankly, you are sooner charge the toddler for transpassing than to charge the neighbour for the pool.

or at least, charge the parents for the same.

[Tijuana]

At what age do we put the responsibility on the victim? 18? What if a bunch of high schools kids go swimming in a random's pool? 1 kid drowns and now the homeowner is completely liable? it should be "baby" proof at the very least since small children don't really know what's going on.. but an 8 year old should know what water is and what can happen if you go near it.

[Hugh Jass]

How the hell can you let a toddler out of your site for more than 2 secs is beyond me. Whoever was looking after her is the one that's responsible the most here, then the pondowner to a lesser degree.

I hate when there arent fences between neighbours. When we moved here, one side wasn't fenced and it felt weird. All sorted now.

[vero95]

shouldn't we have a fence along lake ontario?
if someone drowns in lake ontario, should the government be charged?

[BongoBong]

Well imagine this. Toronto Hydro is working on a high voltage power line. They didn't cut the power, didn't put any warning around the live wire, the wire was left dangling in a offsite area near a park. Some kid playing with his family ran off too far and got too close to the wire. He got electrocuted and was killed.

Should Toronto Hydro be responsible for his death? If yes then shouldn't this homeowner be responsible? The pond is a hazard and the rules clearly state that you must have fencing around ponds and pools to prevent exactly this type of tragedy.

Sure parents and guardians should watch their kids, but that doesn't mean you can have live hazards.

Another example, some punk is driving 120km/h in a 40km/h residential zone. Some kid is playing on the street and is killed. Would it be too harsh to charge the driver then?

The question is, should parents have a reasonable expectation that their kids will drown / be electrocuted if they run around parks / homes? Clearly not. If the kid drowned in a lake then it would totally be the parents' fault.

Really don't think those are very analogous examples. For one thing they are way more dangerous. And also they are both on public property.

Do you think the city/government should be held criminally responsible for any toddler (or anybody) wandering off and drowning in a public pond/lake/river? Should all publicly accessible body of water be fenced and gated so no toddler can wander away from their guardian and drown?

[BornRuff]

shouldn't we have a fence along lake ontario?
if someone drowns in lake ontario, should the government be charged?

You missed the part of the negligence law where they use the word "reasonable".

[BornRuff]

At what age do we put the responsibility on the victim? 18? What if a bunch of high schools kids go swimming in a random's pool? 1 kid drowns and now the homeowner is completely liable? it should be "baby" proof at the very least since small children don't really know what's going on.. but an 8 year old should know what water is and what can happen if you go near it.

Your liability would depend on the level of precaution that you took. If someone has to hop a fence or jimmy a lock to get access to the pool, then obviously it would be a very different situation.

[vero95]

You missed the part of the negligence law where they use the word "reasonable".

have you seen fences around "reasonable" size ponds on public properties?

[CSK'sMom]

have you seen fences around "reasonable" size ponds on public properties?

Yep, all the retention ponds in the new subdivisions are fenced here.

[CSK'sMom]

Your liability would depend on the level of precaution that you took. If someone has to hop a fence or jimmy a lock to get access to the pool, then obviously it would be a very different situation.

Actually even in these circumstances the homeowner is liable. They may not face criminal charges (if the fences and latch were up to code) but they would still be liable civilly...

[Tijuana]

Actually even in these circumstances the homeowner is liable. They may not face criminal charges (if the fences and latch were up to code) but they would still be liable civilly...

Which is ignorant. It is protecting the stupid.

[vero95]

Yep, all the retention ponds in the new subdivisions are fenced here.

I have a retention pond in my subdivision but it's not fenced
not all ponds are fenced. I guess not to many people sue the government but it does not mean double standards do exist

[jaysfan4life]

If the neighbour had a closed gate that baby would have gotten runover by a car. It's all his fault. It's the law. I work for a utility company and field complaints from people with pools in their yards our techs go in their yard and leave the gate open. If you have a pool or a pond in your yard you need a locked gate it's the law for a reason.

[peanutz]

There is an instance I read about... a burglar was stealing from a house and accidentally fell into their pool, drowned and died. His family sued the homeowner and won.

I think the homeowner does have some liability when it comes to innocent victims - animals, toddlers, etc. wandering off. Need to reasonably close off access to the pool.

I don't think families of people breaking the law e.g. trespassing should be able to sue, but apparently they can.

[wilsonlam97]

I live near to where this incident occurred and all I can do is wish for the best for the families affected.

[peano]

The adult watching the child should be charged.

[spike1128]

Absolutely not too harsh. Ponds are no different than swimming pools and are treated as such with bylaws, etc. It was downright idiotic of the homeowner to not have secured his yard IMO as an avid ponder and pool owner. The first thing one learns when owning one or the other is that you are 100% liable if something happens, even if the person is trespassing. When one has kids in the neighborhood, even more so IMO.

Frankly there are several cases of this every year across this country and it's about time charges are laid. If you can afford to build the pond than you can afford to properly secure your yard, plain and simple. And if you can't afford to secure your yard, then you full in the pond or remove the pool. Simple really...

I completely agree with you. If a robber come into your house to rob you, falls down the stairs breaking his back, the homeowner is still responsible for his injuries. It's been tried in court, and the robber/home invader won the case. Whether or not the toddler invaded the backyard of the neighbour does not matters, cause toddler are not children/adult. They don't know any better.

The homeowner have to show due diligence in order for him to get off on this case. Not having fences and something to cover the pool it's already negligent. I don't think the homeowner has a case to fight the court, he is finished.

[Buggy166]

by law the child was trespassing and di not have a right to be there. also by law, this guy was not his guardian and not responsible for his well being.

counter argument

by law the city already (supposedly) gave warning notice to the man to take care of the hazard prior to this happening (the harshness of this penalty will depend on length of time since notice given), it will also be argued that since it was his property and his responsibility to make it safe (think of shovelling snow and taking care of ice situations) that he is at least half responsible for what has occurred.

My guess is he wont be found guilty for the harshest degree but they will nail him for something at the very least. If he gets a great lawyer, he wont get anything, also depends on how he carves his public image.

[Lauzy]

Criminal negligence is either an act or omission that "shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons". So in this case, the failure of the homeowner to fence in the pond as required by the bylaw would serve as the omission since he had a legal duty to ensure that the pond was fenced in. Also, the lack of fencing significantly contributed to the child's death. So the Crown probably won't have a problem establishing the act requirement of criminal negligence.

However, it might be hard to find the required fault on the part of the homeowner. This I think depends on the facts which we don't know at the moment. As some posters pointed out earlier, intent does not matter. The Crown just needs to prove that there was a "marked and substantial departure" from the conduct of the monolithic 'reasonable' person. In other words it is a high level of gross negligence. If indeed he was warned of the dangers of not having it fenced in by the city but took no action and that a reasonable person would have foreseen that a child in the neighborhood could have drowned in it, then a judge or jury may see this as being grossly negligent on his part.

Regardless, sad situation for all those involved..

[chickenbones]

Really don't think those are very analogous examples. For one thing they are way more dangerous. And also they are both on public property.

Do you think the city/government should be held criminally responsible for any toddler (or anybody) wandering off and drowning in a public pond/lake/river? Should all publicly accessible body of water be fenced and gated so no toddler can wander away from their guardian and drown?


No, like I said, if parents take their kids to a public area with lakes / river / ponds around they have the responsibility of watching their kids because they knowingly took them there and they should have a reasonable expectation that if their kids wonder around they could drown!

I haven't been around any man made city ponds, but regardless the rules for pools and ponds which are MAN MADE are CLEAR. You need proper fencing to prevent access or you would be liable if people get hurt. This is because you are creating a hazard by digging that pond! If you do not have the proper PERMIT for the pond then if someone gets hurt then its YOUR FAULT.

It's simple, this guy had an illegal pond with no permit which resulted in an UNSAFE environment which he created.

Imagine if an owner built an extension to his house without permit and not up to code. Then one day the whole structure which is illegal and unsafe collapsed on some door to door sales man. Should the owner be responsible?

[BornRuff]

have you seen fences around "reasonable" size ponds on public properties?

That is not the way that reasonable is used in the law. It is about taking reasonable precautions.

[BornRuff]

Actually even in these circumstances the homeowner is liable. They may not face criminal charges (if the fences and latch were up to code) but they would still be liable civilly...

I don't know if that is necessarily true. I know that in general, the burden of proof is a bit looser in civil cases than criminal cases, but I believe that the outcome would still be very different if you had taken all reasonable precautions compared to a case like this.

[BongoBong]

No, like I said, if parents take their kids to a public area with lakes / river / ponds around they have the responsibility of watching their kids because they knowingly took them there and they should have a reasonable expectation that if their kids wonder around they could drown!

I haven't been around any man made city ponds, but regardless the rules for pools and ponds which are MAN MADE are CLEAR. You need proper fencing to prevent access or you would be liable if people get hurt. This is because you are creating a hazard by digging that pond! If you do not have the proper PERMIT for the pond then if someone gets hurt then its YOUR FAULT.

It's simple, this guy had an illegal pond with no permit which resulted in an UNSAFE environment which he created.

Sure, as the law stands we know they are at fault (assuming all facts are known). I don't contend that they are not at fault because they didn't break a law, but the discussion is whether we think its right that the law is set up this way.



Imagine if an owner built an extension to his house without permit and not up to code. Then one day the whole structure which is illegal and unsafe collapsed on some door to door sales man. Should the owner be responsible?

Yes, but I don't think it is a similar situation. For one, this is an expectation that is held by everyone, including all public spaces, unlike the water situation. This is something that is considerably more dangerous. Someone coming to your door is an allowed use of your private property, someone uninvited running into your backyard is not.

I don't think that a private home owner should have a higher expectation of safety then a public space for someone trespassing on their property. I have no problem for safety expectations for when people are on their property legally (like a friend visiting, or in your example going to the front door), but the fence and gate does nothing to protect those people, its only there to protect someone who shouldn't even be there in the first place.

If something is dangerous for the people legally on the property, then yes it should be illegal or preventative measures should be enforced. Having a pool is not considered dangerous enough for the people legally on the property to have access to it fenced off and gated, why should it be dangerous enough to force you to prevent people not allowed to be there into it?

[vero95]

That is not the way that reasonable is used in the law. It is about taking reasonable precautions.

two deaths in scarborough bluffs in one year. I guess the city still thinks they took a "reasonable" precaution


He had been sitting at a campfire, drinking with three friends. Police say he stumbled backwards, fell over the edge and plunged to his death.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/05/14/toronto-bluffs-accident.html


Police have determined that the fall was accidental and are pronouncing the incident a “death by misadventure.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1018075--teen-dies-in-plunge-from-scarborough-bluffs

[BornRuff]

two deaths in scarborough bluffs in one year. I guess the city still thinks they took a "reasonable" precaution


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/05/14/toronto-bluffs-accident.html


http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1018075--teen-dies-in-plunge-from-scarborough-bluffs

There are fences along many parts of the Bluffs. In that second story, they clearly say that the kid had to hop a fence to get to where he eventually fell.

Fact is though, that fencing off every natural body of water or cliff in the world isn't reasonable. If you create a body of water or big pit though, it does seem to be considered reasonable that you fence it off.

[vero95]

There are fences along many parts of the Bluffs. In that second story, they clearly say that the kid had to hop a fence to get to where he eventually fell.

Fact is though, that fencing off every natural body of water or cliff in the world isn't reasonable. If you create a body of water or big pit though, it does seem to be considered reasonable that you fence it off.

LOL have you seen those fences? it's just a rope at the hight of 1m. do you think a toddler can't get under it and run to his/her death?
the city councillor does not like to change the fence because it would obstruct the view and would not stop people from going over it to the edge of the cliff. as much as I agree that you can't stop stupid from doing stupid things it does not mean you should not protect kids.
http://www.torontoobserver.ca/2012/01/29/on-the-fence-a-larger-guardrail-might-not-be-necessary-to-protect-bluffs-visitors/
just like in this case where the pond created a hazard just for kids. no adult would drown in this pond
if the city creates a park, it should take care people do not die there ;)

[NG]

The parent should be charged for neglecting the child.
The city should be charged for not enforcing the bylaws.
The neighbor should be charged for making the backyard unsafe to others.


1. Blame Parents
2. City
3. guy with pond

In all fairness the city may have been trying to be nice and not being brutal in enforcing the letter of the bylaw in the harshest way possible.

Do we really want governments who lord over private citizens in the strictest way possible?

If so I imagine Canada would be like Singapore where even the most minor offense is met with caning or whatever.


The adult watching the child should be charged.

This. It seems like parents get away with murder while everyone else in society is expected to roll out the red carpet for them.

[BornRuff]

LOL have you seen those fences? it's just a rope at the hight of 1m. do you think a toddler can't get under it and run to his/her death?
the city councillor does not like to change the fence because it would obstruct the view and would not stop people from going over it to the edge of the cliff. as much as I agree that you can't stop stupid from doing stupid things it does not mean you should not protect kids.
http://www.torontoobserver.ca/2012/01/29/on-the-fence-a-larger-guardrail-might-not-be-necessary-to-protect-bluffs-visitors/
just like in this case where the pond created a hazard just for kids. no adult would drown in this pond
if the city creates a park, it should take care people do not die there ;)

It is a steel wire fence where the teenager fell.

[Jasonn12]

Thought it was a joke when I first heard about it. What kind of person leaves a 2 year old wandering outside alone long enough for them to drown in the neighbours backyard pond? There is no way that any family with a young child wouldn't be aware of a possible safety hazard like that. Sure the neighbour should be somewhat liable but lets be serious its definitely the fault of whoever was taking care of the child.

[vero95]

It is a steel wire fence where the teenager fell.

have you watched the video?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/05/14/toronto-bluffs-accident.html
it's a steel rope as I said
do you think the city would be charged with criminal negligence if a toddler fell from the cliff? or the parents would be charged?

[BornRuff]

have you watched the video?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/05/14/toronto-bluffs-accident.html
it's a steel rope as I said
do you think the city would be charged with criminal negligence if a toddler fell from the cliff? or the parents would be charged?

It is two ropes. There was that one section where the fence was broken a bit, seemingly intentionally by the people who wanted to drink there, but for the most part, a toddler couldn't just walk under the fence.

Fences around pools are also not impenetrable. 17 year olds and 24 year olds can easily get over them, as in the only examples you provided at the Bluffs. It is just about taking a reasonable level of precaution.

Nobody thinks that having an impenetrable barrier around every natural hazard in the world is reasonable, but having good security fences around man made hazards has become common practice.

[junot111]

I believe the accused had already been warned by the city regarding the pond and the lack of fencing. While I'm not saying that plays a direct role in the charges, it certainly doesn't help his defence.

And yes, I agree that whoever was "watching" the toddler should have some accountability. Especially knowing the potential danger of the poorly secured pond...

They should have ALL the accountability!

[vero95]

It is two ropes. There was that one section where the fence was broken a bit, seemingly intentionally by the people who wanted to drink there, but for the most part, a toddler couldn't just walk under the fence.
Fences around pools are also not impenetrable. 17 year olds and 24 year olds can easily get over them, as in the only examples you provided at the Bluffs. It is just about taking a reasonable level of precaution.

Nobody thinks that having an impenetrable barrier around every natural hazard in the world is reasonable, but having good security fences around man made hazards has become common practice.

could you explain why do you think a toddler could not get under this fence?
the purpose of most fences is to prevent at least small kids from entering the danger area. the "fence" at scarborough bluffs is more a decoration than anything else
why are you so stubborn?

[BornRuff]

could you explain why do you think a toddler could not get under this fence?
the purpose of most fences is to prevent at least small kids from entering the danger area. the "fence" at scarborough bluffs is more a decoration than anything else
why are you so stubborn?

You claimed "it's just a rope at the hight of 1m".

The video clearly shows that the fences have at least 2 wires connecting the poles. It is not like a toddler could just walk under it. It would have to climb through the fence.

The fences are there so that people know where it is safe and unsafe to be. Save for prison fencing with barbed wire and guards patrolling, no fence is going to make it all that hard for people to get over there if they want to. Having the fences ensures that people can't wind up in an unsafe area without knowingly crossing the safety barrier.

[vero95]

You claimed "it's just a rope at the hight of 1m".

The video clearly shows that the fences have at least 2 wires connecting the poles. It is not like a toddler could just walk under it. It would have to climb through the fence.

The fences are there so that people know where it is safe and unsafe to be. Save for prison fencing with barbed wire and guards patrolling, no fence is going to make it all that hard for people to get over there if they want to. Having the fences ensures that people can't wind up in an unsafe area without knowingly crossing the safety barrier.

of course a kid could go between the top and bottom line. you are talking out of your a** now
this fence would provide no safety barrier if it were installed around the pond where the kid drowned

[BornRuff]

of course a kid could go between the top and bottom line. you are talking out of your a** now
this fence would provide no safety barrier if it were installed around the pond where the kid drowned

What part of this post disagrees with what I said?

[vero95]

What part of this post disagrees with what I said?

if you agree this fence is no safety barrier why have you kept arguing as if it was? :facepalm:

[LionHunter]

The mother was negligent

[BornRuff]

if you agree this fence is no safety barrier why have you kept arguing as if it was? :facepalm:

When was this discussion about if that steel wire fence was appropriate for installing around a pool?

Natural hazards are fundamentally different than artificial ones that people create in residential areas.

[akira1971]

I'm willing to bet that the majority of posters who believe the mother/grandmother were CRIMINALLY negligent (ie. "conduct showed a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person") aren't parents in the real world outside of RFD.

Otherwise, please tell us how you managed to carefully watch your 2-yr-old child's every waking moment of his life while also cooking his breakfast/lunch/dinner, doing laundry, taking a shower, etc. I've only got two kids, but I can remember dozens of times where I've lost track of them at home for just a few moments, which is more than enough time for any active 2yr old to get out and sneak into an ungated neighbour's yard.

[stuntman]

When was this discussion about if that steel wire fence was appropriate for installing around a pool?

Natural hazards are fundamentally different than artificial ones that people create in residential areas.

+1
There is a considerable difference between many man made water bodies and natural ones. I am will to be that this one was a straight drop off and not easy to get out of.


I'm willing to bet that the majority of posters who believe the mother/grandmother were CRIMINALLY negligent (ie. "conduct showed a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person") aren't parents in the real world outside of RFD.

Otherwise, please tell us how you managed to carefully watch your 2-yr-old child's every waking moment of his life while also cooking his breakfast/lunch/dinner, doing laundry, taking a shower, etc. I've only got two kids, but I can remember dozens of times where I've lost track of them at home for just a few moments, which is more than enough time for any active 2yr old to get out and sneak into an ungated neighbour's yard.

+1 keeping an eye on kid 24/7 is tough.

With the pool though I would have been up the neighbors butt to get it fenced in.
We had someone looking after our kid that did not fence in their pool. They said doors to the back yard were secure and they never played out there (effectively the backyard enclosure was a fence). When I found out that they did go out there I never let that person take care of my kid again.

Kids love water. It is like a fly to a spider web.

[althetrainer]

I'm willing to bet that the majority of posters who believe the mother/grandmother were CRIMINALLY negligent (ie. "conduct showed a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person") aren't parents in the real world outside of RFD.

Otherwise, please tell us how you managed to carefully watch your 2-yr-old child's every waking moment of his life while also cooking his breakfast/lunch/dinner, doing laundry, taking a shower, etc. I've only got two kids, but I can remember dozens of times where I've lost track of them at home for just a few moments, which is more than enough time for any active 2yr old to get out and sneak into an ungated neighbour's yard.

I am a real parent and I agree that whoever supposed to look after the kid should be held responsible. When our son was at that age I never let him out of my sight. I don't know if this is possible for people who have more than one kid but to me I would do anything to keep our son out of harm's way. I put him in his highchair and let him play with his favorite toys when I cooked. When I had to do laundry and other chores I carried him in a sling. I wouldn't take a shower until my husband was home to look after our little guy. Call me a paranoid mother but to me, a couple of seconds could be too long. Kids this young completely depend on us to protect them. So yeah, if we didn't do what we supposed to do, the adult SHOULD BE held responsible. JMHO

[vero95]

When was this discussion about if that steel wire fence was appropriate for installing around a pool?

Natural hazards are fundamentally different than artificial ones that people create in residential areas.

generally yes, however, if you make a hazardous location an attraction that draws people to the location by for example creating a park, it's the same situation
using your argument there does not have to be any barrier at niagara falls

[BornRuff]

generally yes, however, if you make a hazardous location an attraction that draws people to the location by for example creating a park, it's the same situation
using your argument there does not have to be any barrier at niagara falls

Why do I argue that? I said it was different, not that you do not need any safety barriers at all.

The government will install barriers in busier areas, such as the bluff and Niagara Falls. People still fall at Niagara Falls too though.

[vero95]

Why do I argue that? I said it was different, not that you do not need any safety barriers at all.

The government will install barriers in busier areas, such as the bluff and Niagara Falls. People still fall at Niagara Falls too though.

that's not an argument that people still fall at niagara falls. what are you trying to say? that no barrier is necessary? if you have nothing to say, stop arguing
if you agree that the rope at scarborough bluffs is not a "reasoble" precaution, what point are you trying to make?
what's so different between natural hazard and the artificial one created be people. if a city creates a park where there is a natural pond, why is that different if a man creates similar size pond on his private propoerty? theoretically, the pond on public property is more hazardous because there is a public access to it and you should not access the private property

[Vizla78]

In Port Colborne a young man climbed a rusty old flagpole on a old pier to jump in the water, but he lost balance and fell off and hit the cement instead and he died. should not the keepers of that pier or flagpole then also face the same charges? there were no charges laid AFAIK. but the flagpole has been quietly and anonomously removed since. So, yes, I think the charges should be withdrawn. the babysitter should have been watching the children at all times.

[Ottomaddox]

I'm willing to bet that the majority of posters who believe the mother/grandmother were CRIMINALLY negligent (ie. "conduct showed a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person") aren't parents in the real world outside of RFD.

Otherwise, please tell us how you managed to carefully watch your 2-yr-old child's every waking moment of his life while also cooking his breakfast/lunch/dinner, doing laundry, taking a shower, etc. I've only got two kids, but I can remember dozens of times where I've lost track of them at home for just a few moments, which is more than enough time for any active 2yr old to get out and sneak into an ungated neighbour's yard.

You don't have to be watching the kid to have control over the situation. If the doors are kidproof, the only dangers you need to worry about are within your home. If a kid manages to leave your property without your knowledge, you've made a substantial and catastrophic error in your role as the supervisory guardian.

[aTriangle]

I'm willing to bet that the majority of posters who believe the mother/grandmother were CRIMINALLY negligent (ie. "conduct showed a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person") aren't parents in the real world outside of RFD.

Otherwise, please tell us how you managed to carefully watch your 2-yr-old child's every waking moment of his life while also cooking his breakfast/lunch/dinner, doing laundry, taking a shower, etc. I've only got two kids, but I can remember dozens of times where I've lost track of them at home for just a few moments, which is more than enough time for any active 2yr old to get out and sneak into an ungated neighbour's yard.

I don't think any 2 year old can evade the attention of a caregiver for long enough to figure out how to unlock a door, open the door, and go outside unless if the caregiver was negligent.

[dre145]

why arnt the parents charged for not child proofing their home and fencing in their backyard so their child did not run off to other properties or run into the street and get run over by a car

[FrogPrince]

The parents should be charged for the toddler's death AND for ruining the neighbor's pond. I doubt he'll be able to enjoy the pond now knowing that someone drowned in it.

[vero95]

The parents should be charged for the toddler's death AND for ruining the neighbor's pond. I doubt he'll be able to enjoy the pond now knowing that someone drowned in it.

I totaly agreee with you
the laws that releasy the parents from any resonsibility are plain stupid

[stuntman]

The parents should be charged......for ruining the neighbor's pond. I doubt he'll be able to enjoy the pond now knowing that someone drowned in it.


I totaly agreee with you

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
I vote these for worst troll attempts this year.

[vero95]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
I vote these for worst troll attempts this year.

what's wrong with the statement that the parents whould be charged? :facepalm:
please explain
or you meant your post as the worst troll attempt of the year. then I agree

[dcorban]

I'm willing to bet that the majority of posters who believe the mother/grandmother were CRIMINALLY negligent (ie. "conduct showed a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person") aren't parents in the real world outside of RFD.

Otherwise, please tell us how you managed to carefully watch your 2-yr-old child's every waking moment of his life while also cooking his breakfast/lunch/dinner, doing laundry, taking a shower, etc. I've only got two kids, but I can remember dozens of times where I've lost track of them at home for just a few moments, which is more than enough time for any active 2yr old to get out and sneak into an ungated neighbour's yard.

When my daughter was two, there is absolutely no way I would have allowed her to roam anywhere outside of my fenced yard unsupervised. Even when she was outside alone, I could see her through several windows anytime I wished.

Did you seriously allow your child to wander the neighbourhood while doing laundry or taking a shower? Seriously?

[stuntman]

what's wrong with the statement that the parents whould be charged? :facepalm:
please explain
or you meant your post as the worst troll attempt of the year. then I agree

The quote I put in my should be enough to explain it. If you are unable to understand the point then from past experience and observation I know further attempts to help you understand are futile.

You are beyond reasoning with. You are unreasonable.

[time space]

what's wrong with the statement that the parents whould be charged? :facepalm:
please explain
or you meant your post as the worst troll attempt of the year. then I agree

I need to bookmark this post for any time I foolishly think vero95 is making a legitimate argument.

[stuntman]

When my daughter was two, there is absolutely no way I would have allowed her to roam anywhere outside of my fenced yard unsupervised. Even when she was outside alone, I could see her through several windows anytime I wished.

Did you seriously allow your child to wander the neighbourhood while doing laundry or taking a shower? Seriously?

I was agreeing with akira1971 before but that was a mistake. The kid finding their way into an adjacent backyard or onto a back patio is one thing but out of a gate into the neighborhood is another. When I did stuff like take a shower or cook I locked the place down to prevent wandering off or end up hurt. Mistakes can happen though and not everyone lives in the same type of environment.

It is hard to keep an eye on a 2 year old 24/7 though. I don't know what happened in this situation with the pond.

[LostInTruth]

I can't help but shaking my head. If some stupid teenagers came to my property without permission and hurt themselves while playing on my trampoline I became responsible to their injuries. If a guy tried to force into my house by kicking the door down and got shot I would be the one who got charged for assault. If someone tried to steal my stuff and I held the person until the police arrived I would be charged illegal confinement. When a psychotic guy refused to take his medications and ended up killing someone, he couldn't be responsible for his actions and that he should be given the right to walk the street with the rest of us. Seriously, what's wrong with our systems?

You know the above is not fully true and an extreme circumstance?

RIP to the little boy. To be quite honest, there are a lot of boneheaded neighbours out there who only care about themselves, so maybe it is time to get tougher to give a nice wake up call!

[vero95]

I need to bookmark this post for any time I foolishly think vero95 is making a legitimate argument.

feel free to bookmark it id you think your posts do not look idiotic enough :facepalm:

[vero95]

The quote I put in my should be enough to explain it. If you are unable to understand the point then from past experience and observation I know further attempts to help you understand are futile.

You are beyond reasoning with. You are unreasonable.

sorry buddy but you look like an idiot now. you posted part of my statement and are not smart enough to expalain what you meant

[Tijuana]

Hazards should be protected to the extent that whoever comes into contact with said hazard understands that it is a hazard. A 2 year old probably doesn't know a pool is dangerous... An 8 year old most likely does. So as long as the 2 year old cannot gain access, that is all that should be legally required. An 8 year old can probably climb a 10 ft fence... If the 8 year old does drown, there should absolutely be no liability on the home-owner whatsoever.

I don't understand the simple concept of.. don't go onto someone else's property without permission.. Why are we protecting the ignorant soo much?

[BornRuff]

that's not an argument that people still fall at niagara falls. what are you trying to say? that no barrier is necessary? if you have nothing to say, stop arguing
if you agree that the rope at scarborough bluffs is not a "reasoble" precaution, what point are you trying to make?
what's so different between natural hazard and the artificial one created be people. if a city creates a park where there is a natural pond, why is that different if a man creates similar size pond on his private propoerty? theoretically, the pond on public property is more hazardous because there is a public access to it and you should not access the private property

Can you show me where I ever said that?

Do you really not understand that declaring something a park and building a pool are different things?

[vero95]

Can you show me where I ever said that?

Do you really not understand that declaring something a park and building a pool are different things?

dude, you've been posting for two days now and said you were not saying anything different
are you saying now that the rope at scarborough bluffs is a "reasonable" precaution? you confuse me

[ever1221]

I love how no one mentioned charging the parents on this...seriously why is this world so messed up now a days?

[BornRuff]

dude, you've been posting for two days now and said you were not saying anything different
are you saying now that the rope at scarborough bluffs is a "reasonable" precaution? you confuse me

I don't understand the first sentence. What are you trying to say?

I do believe that the fence at the Bluffs is reasonable. The incidents you brought up were tragic, but I don't think that a different fence would have changed anything.

[stuntman]

I love how no one mentioned charging the parents on this...seriously why is this world so messed up now a days?

I think they have.

But no details have been released so there is not reasonable way to come to a conclusion here on this.

[vero95]

I don't understand the first sentence. What are you trying to say?

I do believe that the fence at the Bluffs is reasonable. The incidents you brought up were tragic, but I don't think that a different fence would have changed anything.

if you believe so, do you think the same fence would protect the toddler form drowning in this pond? probably not so what you believe is wrong
you are known to be out of touch anbd lacking common sense

[stuntman]

I don't understand the first sentence. What are you trying to say?

I do believe that the fence at the Bluffs is reasonable. The incidents you brought up were tragic, but I don't think that a different fence would have changed anything.

Fencing in the beauty of nature is expensive and takes away from the view. Very expensive and wrecks nature.
People are warned and know that going beyond the barrier is dangerous but still things will happen.

Not that Vero is able to appreciate the difference between a man made or personal property item and a natural public area. Most can though.

[stuntman]

if you believe so, do you think the same fence would protect the toddler form drowning in this pond? probably not so what you believe is wrong
you are known to be out of touch anbd lacking common sense

The fence required by the bylaw would have prevented the toddler from drowning.

Bluffs does not equal private pond. Comparing the two as if they are the same is idiotic.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/20/scarborough-man-charged-in-toddlers-drowning-death-released-on-15k-bail/
“The purpose of the fence, of course, is to prevent tragedies like this, to keep the area safe by preventing folks from getting in because it has a lock or a latch on it and it’s designed so you can’t climb over from the outside,” said Mr. Cumberbatch.

[BornRuff]

if you believe so, do you think the same fence would protect the toddler form drowning in this pond? probably not so what you believe is wrong
you are known to be out of touch anbd lacking common sense

Who knows? The kid might not have gone to the water if he had to climb through a fence to get there. We don't really know what his intentions were.

You still don't seem to appreciate different situations. What is appropriate for a backyard pool is not necessarily the same as what is appropriate for a public park.

The level of parental supervision required is generally expected to be larger when you have kids out in public places. There are many dangers out in the world, from cars to people to hazards like the bluffs, so little kids like this don't get very far from their caregivers sight. At home kids get a bit more freedom.

The neighbor created this hazard, and then removed the barrier between the hazard and people who might be hurt by it.

[BornRuff]

The fence required by the bylaw would have prevented the toddler from drowning.

Bluffs does not equal private pond. Comparing the two as if they are the same is idiotic.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/20/scarborough-man-charged-in-toddlers-drowning-death-released-on-15k-bail/
“The purpose of the fence, of course, is to prevent tragedies like this, to keep the area safe by preventing folks from getting in because it has a lock or a latch on it and it’s designed so you can’t climb over from the outside,” said Mr. Cumberbatch.

You could probably think of it as simple personal responsibility for the hazards you create. If you create something hazardous, you need to take reasonable steps to limit the risks to others.

Mother nature has created a ton of dangerous things in this world, but we have no way of forcing her to build safety measures around every single one of them. We can easily get people to take responsibility for the ones they create though.

The government and private individuals create safety barriers around all sorts of natural hazards, but is is obviously unreasonable to expect every single natural hazard in the world to be fenced off.

[vero95]

Who knows? The kid might not have gone to the water if he had to climb through a fence to get there. We don't really know what his intentions were.

You still don't seem to appreciate different situations. What is appropriate for a backyard pool is not necessarily the same as what is appropriate for a public park.

The level of parental supervision required is generally expected to be larger when you have kids out in public places. There are many dangers out in the world, from cars to people to hazards like the bluffs, so little kids like this don't get very far from their caregivers sight. At home kids get a bit more freedom.

The neighbor created this hazard, and then removed the barrier between the hazard and people who might be hurt by it.

a toddler does not have to climb the fence at scarborough bluffs. how can you climb a rope?
I never said that no barrier around the pond was OK. what I said is that there is a double standard if the smae pond were in a public place. kids are given a lot of freedom at the park when parents are enjoying bbq. yet no one would charge the city with anything

[vero95]

Fencing in the beauty of nature is expensive and takes away from the view. Very expensive and wrecks nature.
People are warned and know that going beyond the barrier is dangerous but still things will happen.

Not that Vero is able to appreciate the difference between a man made or personal property item and a natural public area. Most can though.

I doubt the toddler would be able to understadn the warning :facepalm:

[stuntman]

sorry buddy but you look like an idiot now. you posted part of my statement and are not smart enough to expalain what you meant
Well people that fall in the range of somewhat smart to very smart can figure it out. I guessed that you don't fall into that range. Either that or trolling. Has to be trolling.

I am not about to write paragraphs to try to get you to own up to trolling or a mistake you made because you are an unreasonable person.

[stuntman]

I doubt the toddler would be able to understadn the warning :facepalm:

As BornRuff and I said man can't fence in mother nature (well you could but would go broke doing so and screw up the beauty). Trying to compare the two things and calling them equal here is idiotic. Not that you would understand or acknowledge the dumb comparison.

[vero95]

As BornRuff and I said man can't fence in mother nature (well you could but would go broke doing so and screw up the beauty). Trying to compare the two things and calling them equal here is idiotic. Not that you would understand or acknowledge the dumb comparison.

who would be charged if the pond were in the same spot but on the public property, ie the house backed on the park, smarta**?

[vero95]

Well people that fall in the range of somewhat smart to very smart can figure it out. I guessed that you don't fall into that range. Either that or trolling. Has to be trolling.

I am not about to write paragraphs to try to get you to own up to trolling or a mistake you made because you are an unreasonable person.

again, accusations but no arguments :facepalm:

[stuntman]

a toddler does not have to climb the fence at scarborough bluffs. how can you climb a rope?
I never said that no barrier around the pond was OK. what I said is that there is a double standard if the smae pond were in a public place. kids are given a lot of freedom at the park when parents are enjoying bbq. yet no one would charge the city with anything

How do you know? I think that if a city administrator ordered the takedown of a barrier against advice and contrary to a bylaw that they might be charged.

Did this situation occur or are you just making up some unprovable and scenario to support a bogus argument?

[stuntman]

again, accusations but no arguments :facepalm:

^^^I am a charitable person but my charity this month has been put into the people that are blind due to blindness. No time for those that are blind for other reasons like willful blindness. Good luck to you though.

[vero95]

How do you know? I think that if a city administrator ordered the takedown of a barrier against advice and contrary to a bylaw that they might be charged.

Did this situation occur or are you just making up some unprovable and scenario to support a bogus argument?

do you know of another toddler drowned in this pond? you do not build fences only after soemeone dies there

[stuntman]

Huh? What are you talking about?

Where do you expect a fence to be built? Around mother nature?
Tell me Vero where do you want a fence built?

[vero95]

^^^I am a charitable person but my charity this month has been put into the people that are blind due to blindness. No time for those that are blind for other reasons like willful blindness. Good luck to you though.

pathetic
answer my question

who would be charged if the pond were in the same spot but on the public property, ie the house backed on the park, smarta**?

[stuntman]

^^^I think that question was already answered. See below:


How do you know? I think that if a city administrator ordered the takedown of a barrier against advice and contrary to a bylaw that they might be charged.

Did this situation occur or are you just making up some unprovable and scenario to support a bogus argument?

In life a person can be nice and dumb OR mean and very smart BUT they can't be both and expect to do well.

[BornRuff]

a toddler does not have to climb the fence at scarborough bluffs. how can you climb a rope?
I never said that no barrier around the pond was OK. what I said is that there is a double standard if the smae pond were in a public place. kids are given a lot of freedom at the park when parents are enjoying bbq. yet no one would charge the city with anything

Watch the video you provided. The fences are not a single "rope" but multiple steel wires. You have to climb through or over the fence to pass.

You don't think parents act differently when they have their kids in public, even if they are bbqing stuff?

[stuntman]

Watch the video you provided. The fences are not a single "rope" but multiple steel wires. You have to climb through or over the fence to pass.

There are certainly areas where they are single wire. At least that is how I remember it. I have sat on the edge of those bluffs many times.

I don't understand why you would continue Vero's argument. Didn't we already conclude that mother nature and man made private areas cannot be compared? OR are you just pointing out that it was poor bit of evidence provided?

[BornRuff]

There are certainly areas where they are single wire. At least that is how I remember it. I have sat on the edge of those bluffs many times.

I don't understand why you would continue Vero's argument. Didn't we already conclude that mother nature and man made private areas cannot be compared? OR are you just pointing out that it was poor bit of evidence provided?

Lol, why does anyone continue conversations on RFD?

The video he posted clearly showed fences made of at least two levels of steel ropes, which was taken in the area we were talking about.

[vero95]

Watch the video you provided. The fences are not a single "rope" but multiple steel wires. You have to climb through or over the fence to pass.

You don't think parents act differently when they have their kids in public, even if they are bbqing stuff?

I do not. if the pond were on public property and the house backed onto it, why do you think the parents would act differently?

[vero95]

^^^I think that question was already answered. See below:



In life a person can be nice and dumb OR mean and very smart BUT they can't be both and expect to do well.

are you sure? you are neither nice nor smart
google "city charged with criminal negligence" and let me know all the cases of such charges

[vero95]

When my daughter was two, there is absolutely no way I would have allowed her to roam anywhere outside of my fenced yard unsupervised. Even when she was outside alone, I could see her through several windows anytime I wished.

Did you seriously allow your child to wander the neighbourhood while doing laundry or taking a shower? Seriously?

and that's exactly what you would expect from a parent. you may be less cautious if your kid is in your backyard but once you are outside it's your responsibility to watch the kid. in that case, they were in the street and the kid was left unattended
lots of kids drown in pools. therefore there is a bylaw to have fences around them. if a kid is trespassing though, charging the owner and not parents is too harsh imo. what if I used the pool, went inside a house for a moment and left the gate open?

[stuntman]

are you sure? you are neither nice nor smart
google "city charged with criminal negligence" and let me know all the cases of such charges

again with that Troll style Vero? I should prove something on a hypothetical? I already gave you an appropriate answer. It just wasn't one that proved your point so you are unhappy.

Why don't you go and post a very similar/the same situation in which the city was not held liable or not charged??? I know, you can't because you made it up. But somehow you expect me to dig something up that for some imaginary situation you made up.




That avatar of yours. Are you trying to emulate that guy? He was a laughing stock last year. People were not laughing with him so much as laughing at him.

So please put up or shut up Vero. Bring that case to the thread.

[Vizla78]

what's wrong with the statement that the parents whould be charged? :facepalm:
please explain
or you meant your post as the worst troll attempt of the year. then I agree

the parents already paid a mighty big price with the loss of life of their child. I think charging them in this instance would be a little like beating a dead horse.

[vero95]

the parents already paid a mighty big price with the loss of life of their child. I think charging them in this instance would be a little like beating a dead horse.

it does not work this way. if you leave a kid in a car and the kid dies from heat and exhaustion, you are charged even though you already paid big price

[vero95]

again with that Troll style Vero? I should prove something on a hypothetical? I already gave you an appropriate answer. It just wasn't one that proved your point so you are unhappy.

Why don't you go and post a very similar/the same situation in which the city was not held liable or not charged??? I know, you can't because you made it up. But somehow you expect me to dig something up that for some imaginary situation you made up.




That avatar of yours. Are you trying to emulate that guy? He was a laughing stock last year. People were not laughing with him so much as laughing at him.

So please put up or shut up Vero. Bring that case to the thread.

you made a statement and want other people to find proof for that statement for you :facepalm:
you started attacking me by quoting some other poster and then posted half of my reply which changed the meaning of my post and keep trolling in the same style :lol:

[BornRuff]

it does not work this way. if you leave a kid in a car and the kid dies from heat and exhaustion, you are charged even though you already paid big price

And that is a different situation.

[BornRuff]

I do not. if the pond were on public property and the house backed onto it, why do you think the parents would act differently?

Well, I think everyone who has ever cared for kids knows you are incorrect on that one. You do act differently when the kids are at home or are in public.

[coolspot]

Both the parents and the neighbour should be charged. Both share responsibility.



the parents already paid a mighty big price with the loss of life of their child. I think charging them in this instance would be a little like beating a dead horse.

It's called accountability - the parents need to be charged too.

[vero95]

Well, I think everyone who has ever cared for kids knows you are incorrect on that one. You do act differently when the kids are at home or are in public.

here is what I said few posts before

you may be less cautious if your kid is in your backyard but once you are outside it's your responsibility to watch the kid. in that case, they were in the street and the kid was left unattended


they were in public place (street)

[ji2o0k]

The neighbor has to face this tragedy for every day of the rest of his life...it is pretty haunting if you ask me...

[stuntman]

you made a statement and want other people to find proof for that statement for you :facepalm:
you started attacking me by quoting some other poster and then posted half of my reply which changed the meaning of my post and keep trolling in the same style :lol:

WRONG: It was your make believe scenario, not mine. Your proof to find. Why do you lie so much?

You agreed with that guys post. Are you now changing your stance?

You have a serious problem. What you think you type and read is not what is written. Either that or you are a total troll.

[stuntman]

The neighbor has to face this tragedy for every day of the rest of his life...it is pretty haunting if you ask me...

yep. unfortunately there are dimwitted people in the world that cant make the same deduction you did.

[stuntman]

you made a statement and want other people to find proof for that statement for you :facepalm:
you started attacking me by quoting some other poster and then posted half of my reply which changed the meaning of my post and keep trolling in the same style :lol:




The parents should be charged for the toddler's death AND for ruining the neighbor's pond. I doubt he'll be able to enjoy the pond now knowing that someone drowned in it.

I totaly agreee with you
the laws that releasy the parents from any resonsibility are plain stupid


See Vero, the whole quote (I bolded a part) you TOTALLY agreed with FrogPrince.
Among whatever else he said YOU agree that the parents should also be charged for ruining the neighbor's pond.

Are you going to continue to deny that low life statement was made by you? Come on Vero. Lie again! No one will believe you :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

So which are you acting as this time around Vero? Lowlife, unintelligent or a troll?

[vero95]

See Vero, the whole quote (I bolded a part) you TOTALLY agreed with FrogPrince.
Among whatever else he said YOU agree that the parents should also be charged for ruining the neighbor's pond.

Are you going to continue to deny that low life statement was made by you? Come on Vero. Lie again! No one will believe you :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

So which are you acting as this time around Vero? Lowlife, unintelligent or a troll?

I do not care what you think. I made a statement (below) that you cut in half and so changed it's meaning

I totaly agreee with you
the laws that releasy the parents from any resonsibility are plain stupid
:facepalm:
now keep trolling

[vero95]

WRONG: It was your make believe scenario, not mine. Your proof to find. Why do you lie so much?

You agreed with that guys post. Are you now changing your stance?

You have a serious problem. What you think you type and read is not what is written. Either that or you are a total troll.

your level of trolling is tiring. if you make a statement that the city would be charged with criminal negligence, you need to back it with facts
the facts, dude, is that the city has less liability and the laws are not the same for public and private properties. in addition to that, the city has lots of good lawyers

[uber_shnitz]

I'd say both the parents and the guy have a certain liability.

Even though it's your territory, you should secure your own territory if you don't want to assume the consequences of people going into it and the guy was told by the city a few times that he should secure his pond (my understanding is that his backyard isn't fenced either?). That's why the city will try (keyword is "try") and secure anything with immediate risk to citizens with fences and signs.

The parents or grandparent or whoever the guardian was is liable for not keeping an eye on the child. Not sure if that falls under criminal negligence on their part but I'd say they share some of the blame.

[ji2o0k]

the neighbor is probably drowning in sorrow and awash with grief....

Never good for people to be face-down, knee deep in tragedy...

Charging him with negliglence is understandable...but it is reasonable to expect that he didn't want to have the toddler drown...

[vero95]

the neighbor is probably drowning in sorrow and awash with grief....

Never good for people to be face-down, knee deep in tragedy...

Charging him with negliglence is understandable...but it is reasonable to expect that he didn't want to have the toddler drown...

I agree. convicting him will not do us any good. in the past, it would have been just a tragic accident. now, that we have laws to protect kids from danger by forcing fences around pools and ponds I think the law still failed here. instead of being proactive the government prefers to be a punisher. this kid did not have to die. how difficult it is to charge people with heavy penalties before the tragedy happens?

[thelefteyeguy]

I agree. convicting him will not do us any good. in the past, it would have been just a tragic accident. now, that we have laws to protect kids from danger by forcing fences around pools and ponds I think the law still failed here. instead of being proactive the government prefers to be a punisher. this kid did not have to die. how difficult it is to charge people with heavy penalties before the tragedy happens?

more meaningless laws without bite...many would disagree with you. Cops are just doing their jobs....what will likely happen is the judge will dismiss the case....just like how it is generally done in Canada. Ironically he might get house arrest...and then he can enjoy his f'ing pond all day and night.

[vero95]

more meaningless laws without bite...many would disagree with you. Cops are just doing their jobs....what will likely happen is the judge will dismiss the case....just like how it is generally done in Canada. Ironically he might get house arrest...and then he can enjoy his f'ing pond all day and night.

if this law would be meaningless, so should be forcing the fence :-0
cops do not hand out traffic tickets after accidents. why is that?

[ADRiiAN`]

I think it's an absolute crock of s**t that the supervisor of the child is not being charged whatsoever. THEY let the child wander off. Unfortunately, there was a pond nearby, big enough to drown a toddler.

I don't agree with the pond homeowner being charged for the lack of sense of his neighbours.

[stuntman]

LOL you keep telling yourself you didn't say you TOTALLY agreed with Frog prince and did not make a post mistake....



if this law would be meaningless, so should be forcing the fence :-0
cops do not hand out traffic tickets after accidents. why is that?


Wrong again Vero. Cops DO hand out traffic tickets after accidents.

Why are you wrong so often? It is like you live under a rock. Maybe your hands are over your face most of the time?

[stuntman]

your level of trolling is tiring. if you make a statement that the city would be charged with criminal negligence, you need to back it with facts
the facts, dude, is that the city has less liability and the laws are not the same for public and private properties. in addition to that, the city has lots of good lawyers

Your hypothetical not mine....this is pathetic. I am debating with a person that is so lacking in principals that they continue to deny their very own posts even happened. No use debating with such a low life stance.

[vero95]

LOL you keep telling yourself you didn't say you TOTALLY agreed with Frog prince and did not make a post mistake....

I totally agreed that the parents should be charged. that's what I wrote. can't you read? :facepalm:
needless to say you look like a fool by bringing that up again :D




Wrong again Vero. Cops DO hand out traffic tickets after accidents.

Why are you wrong so often? It is like you live under a rock. Maybe your hands are over your face most of the time?
everyone knows that cops issue tickets after an accident in addition to preventive tickets. to bad you could not comprehend the discussion was about the preventive type :facepalm:
but thanks for pointing that out captain obvious :D

http://www.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/captain-obvious-5-nobrain1.jpg

[Ziggy007]

So most of you are probably familiar with the story of a toddler that wandered off into his neighbour's yard and drowned in a man-made pond. The neighbour was subsequently charged with criminal negligence causing death - which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. The neighbour was seen as negligent as he had removed the gate to his yard as he was undergoing some kind of renovation.

Although this is tragic for the toddler to die, I also think there is a tragedy in the neighbour being charged with such a serious crime. He did not intend for this to happen. And I understand the charge can stick even if there was no intent. But what about the grandmother or family that was supposed to be watching the kid? Shouldn't they take some responsibility as well?

What do you folks think? And I apologize profusely if this topic has already been discussed.

Discuss.

Typical BS.

Blame other people when the parents or caretakers weren't supervising children. Watch your kids and bad things won't happen to them, is this that hard to understand?

[uber_shnitz]

I think both the guardian of the child and the pond owner should be charged, not only the pond owner. As someone stated previously, the city told the pond owner more than once to secure his pond and he didn't so he should be at fault for that.

For people saying he shouldn't, why not? If nobody is responsible for your safety aside from yourself (and your guardian if you're a child), why does the city take measures to seal off dangerous areas? Should it be the government's responsibility for your safety if it's not the citizen's for each other?

[Hitman21]

Parents are responsible for their own children. I dont believe the pond owner should face charges. Kids do stupid things and they will run away, its the job of the parents to keep a close eye on them. It is 100% fault of the parents/guardian.

[Kohanz]

I agree that the pond owner shouldn't face such harsh consequences (e.g. criminal charges).

However, why is everyone always in a mad rush to dole out blame in these situations? Yes, it is the parent's responsibility to look after their kids, but hey, sometimes sh*t happens. Sometimes kids do dumb things. If you were to believe some posters here, you'd think that every *accident* that happens is the clear fault of one or more parties of people. In other words, there are no accidents. Oh to be so perfect as the people professing that point of view...

[vero95]

I agree that the pond owner shouldn't face such harsh consequences (e.g. criminal charges).

However, why is everyone always in a mad rush to dole out blame in these situations? Yes, it is the parent's responsibility to look after their kids, but hey, sometimes sh*t happens. Sometimes kids do dumb things. If you were to believe some posters here, you'd think that every *accident* that happens is the clear fault of one or more parties of people. In other words, there are no accidents. Oh to be so perfect as the people professing that point of view...

that depends. if parents totally neglected a child, I do not see why they should not be charged. you do not charge parents for every accident