- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 'Prayer Baby' drowns in church's baptism tank
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:44 pm to Tornado Alley
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:44 pm to Tornado Alley
quote:
The attractive nuisance doctrine first needs an object likely to attract children and then a hazardous condition posed by that object, IIRC from torts I. If the baptismal was kept filled, or partially-filled, and no baptism services were planned or conducted, or if the door to the baptismal was non-existent or open, those could potentially be circumstances that could shift the case in favor of the child's estate.
Agree 100%. But he was trying to claim that just the existence of a baptismal in and of itself was grounds for the attractive nuisance doctrine to be applied here.
2
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:47 pm to Darth_Vader
You're full of fricking shite, Darth. I never once said such.
Kids get loose, land owners should expect that; especially when kids are constantly welcomed on said land.
It's seemingly obvious that the church did not have the tank secured and safe, considering a small child entered it, which is negligence defined.
Kids get loose, land owners should expect that; especially when kids are constantly welcomed on said land.
It's seemingly obvious that the church did not have the tank secured and safe, considering a small child entered it, which is negligence defined.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:47 pm to Darth_Vader
A baptismal is an attractive nuisance, make no mistake. Whether a judge sees it that way is another story. It would be a pretty aggressive policy decision for an appellate judge to declare all baptismals in a district "attractive nuisances."
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News