Well, the theory i suspect was that she was not good enough in watching the kids to prevent the fire in the first place.
But gee, assumption of risk seems like the parry to that. Unless she lied to them about her qualifications they should have known just how bad she might have been.
And, btw, how is it that those kids had access to a lighter? how come the parents aren’t responsible for that?
I also wondered how the kids had access to the lighter. I would think the parents had much greater culpability in leaving the lighter around than the babysitter would have.
On a tangent, you’ll love the number of people in the Free Range Kids comment thread who are saying that we don’t live in a litigious society because the McDonalds coffee lawsuit was TOTALLY LEGIT.
7 Comments
According to this article, the suit against the babysitter was dropped:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=3002962
Ah, well, that makes eveyrthing hunky-dory.
Bob
Sounds like a subrogation suit initiated by the insurance company.
Well, the theory i suspect was that she was not good enough in watching the kids to prevent the fire in the first place.
But gee, assumption of risk seems like the parry to that. Unless she lied to them about her qualifications they should have known just how bad she might have been.
And, btw, how is it that those kids had access to a lighter? how come the parents aren’t responsible for that?
I also wondered how the kids had access to the lighter. I would think the parents had much greater culpability in leaving the lighter around than the babysitter would have.
Well, it was clearly the plan to sue the kid and then make up what she couldn’t cough up from the parents.
Bob
On a tangent, you’ll love the number of people in the Free Range Kids comment thread who are saying that we don’t live in a litigious society because the McDonalds coffee lawsuit was TOTALLY LEGIT.