“Tunneling boy’s mother sues utility”

by Walter Olson on October 23, 2008

“A Canadian woman whose 9-year-old son tunneled [under a fence] into an electric sub-station and was badly burned is suing a Manitoba power utility for negligence.” (UPI, Oct. 22).

{ 7 comments }

1 E-Bell 10.23.08 at 10:51 am

Well, clearly, the utility should have built the substation on a foundation of granite and not mere dirt. I mean, that’s only reasonable, right?

2 tcaptain 10.23.08 at 11:06 am

Dear god and I thought Canada was largely untouched by the litigious ridiculousness of the U.S.

The suit contends the boy was left with severe scarring and mental impairment.

I would postulate that the mental impairment was a pre-existing genetic condition, and not subject to consideration for damages.

3 Todd Rogers 10.23.08 at 2:21 pm

The unidentified boy was one of four children who couldn’t get through a locked gate or over a high fence surrounding the transformer As a lad, I was guilty of all kinds of mischief, much of which was probably very dangerous. However, by nine years old, I was pretty sure that a power transformer surrounded by a fence was not to be messed with. But apparently the mom (and possibly dad) in this story wasn’t all that good at teaching right from wrong and smart from not smart. But, I suppose a few mill will make things ok. With tunneling in or around a box of volts being within the realm of acceptable behavior, it’s only logical to me that this family’s jackpot celebration will be short lived. I do, however, hope that this young man is given the benefit of proper medical treatment before the well runs dry.

4 arby 10.23.08 at 3:06 pm

It was all a simple misunderstanding. The boy was only doing what the sign said http://lh4.ggpht.com/abramsv/SQAlGR8S6tI/AAAAAAAAiKs/HIbwcMlRdL4/s1600-h/DareYa1.jpg

5 Peter 10.23.08 at 5:09 pm

Ohm my God, watt a sad story! I’m shocked something like this could happen. The current fence standards should be transformed.

6 Bumper 10.23.08 at 5:35 pm

What I don’t understand is why the parents weren’t charged with child endangerment.

7 John Burgess 10.23.08 at 10:50 pm

Either the facility or the kid should be encased in a three-foot lead barrier. It’d be to the utility’s cost benefit to wall up the kid. Even if the case included room for the parents, it’d be cheaper.

But if kids start using blow torches to get through the insufficient lead barriers, then I’m going postal.

Comments on this entry are closed.