Non-existant Parenting

[Merriweather]

Ok, in my book, non-parenting your kids in stores makes you an SC, cause anyone who annoys the crap out of all those around them (or allows their kids to) is an SC.

DH and I stopped at the supermarket for a few things this afternoon. Typical Sunday, lots of kids around, and I've no problem with a bit of noise, a bit of running about, etc. Kids will be kids.

However, seeing a four year old or so standing in the dairy case?? Climbing up the second shelf?? With two or three siblings standing about watching?

Looked around and finally saw the mother coming up, yep, cell phone glued to her ear. Not only does she not stop for a breath in her conversation to address the child, she attempts to proceed to extricate the girl from the case by pulling and lifting her by one arm, resulting in shreeks from the child as her arm is practically pulled from it's socket as mom continues to try to get her out using only one hand, as her other STILL has her phone glued to her ear as she continues her conversation

Five minutes later, I see same kids climbing all over the freezers, no parent in sight.

And you know, if one of those kids were to fall and get hurt, that mother would be screaming lawsuits because the store let her angels get hurt!

[bainsidhe]

Good grief. Last night I saw a little girl of about 2-1/2 years playing in the apparel department. I glanced around, trying to determine if any nearby customers claimed her, but no one paid attention. After about a 2 minutes, a woman finally caught my eye and nodded that yes, this little girl belonged to her. This woman had been wandering the clothing department some thirty feet away, never once looking in the direction of the little girl. Grrr.

[Nohbody]

Ok, in my book, non-parenting your kids in stores makes you an SC, cause anyone who annoys the crap out of all those around them (or allows their kids to) is an SC.

Dollars to donuts she'll demonstrate other SC traits when she gets up to the register. Much to the chagrin of the poor schmuck that has to ring her up.

[customersruinmylife]

Did anyone hear the tragic story about what happened in a UK supermarket a few weeks ago? A little kid was swinging on some railings while his mother shopped "only yards away". The little kid fell, hit his head and died from his injuries.

Now the parents are planning to sue the store for negligence.

It is an absolutely tragic story, because a little boy has died and someone has lost their child, but I can't help but get that feeling that his mother was not unlike the one in this story. I guess I have been working with the public too long. I now expect the worst in people.

I can't find a link for it at the minute.

[chainedbarista]

i also expect the worst from people as well; after years of seeing what they do/don't do, not just with regards to non parenting, but other things, i'm thoroughly jaded.

i hope that lawsuit is thrown out; idiot woman doesn't deserve compensation because she can't bother to watch her own child. (i do feel bad about the kid's death, though )

we need to pass a law that protects stores from this kind of crap; people who don't want to parent shouldn't be rewarded when their offspring are injured due to THEIR negligence.

[thegiraffe]

Those are the times that you hope security cameras are recording at least the parent or child. At least there won't be any supervision questions then...

[DeltaSierra]

Did anyone hear the tragic story about what happened in a UK supermarket a few weeks ago? A little kid was swinging on some railings while his mother shopped "only yards away". The little kid fell, hit his head and died from his injuries.

Now the parents are planning to sue the store for negligence.

It is an absolutely tragic story, because a little boy has died and someone has lost their child, but I can't help but get that feeling that his mother was not unlike the one in this story. I guess I have been working with the public too long. I now expect the worst in people.

I can't find a link for it at the minute.

I heard about this too and found a link:

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/boy_...ld_supermarket

So tragic that the child pays the ultimate price for the parent's stupidity. I can't believe they are suing the supermarket.

[Zellie Crescent]

we need to pass a law that protects stores from this kind of crap; people who don't want to parent shouldn't be rewarded when their offspring are injured due to THEIR negligence.

I couldn't agree more, how many more kids have to be hurt before anything logical is done about these situations? I don't have any kids yet, but when I do I won't let them out of my sight for a second.

[Victoria J]

I can't work out if the photo with the story is of the railings. If it is that would mean they were in the store and he was outside - which certainly suggests a failure to supervise. Unless he fell because the railings were actually broken in some way I wouldn't have thought it was the supermarketsn fault.

However even if they succeed in having the supermarket held responsible it's not going to get them a lot of money. Compensation for death is mainly based on loss of earnings - so dependants losing a wage earner get money, parents or others who lose dependants get very small amounts.

In the UK there just aren't the big awards there are in the USA. There's no punitive damages in these cases, and no juries for civil trials. In the USA it's the punitive damages that make up the largest part of the insanely large awards as the juries try to hurt the big companies concerned (with some reason - the cases where the companies are aware that people can be hurt but decide that's it's more economical to pay the resulting compensation to a relatively small number than make a product or service safe for all).

See for example this story - parents sued over the death of child that had drowned at a holiday camp while briefly out of their sight. Originally awarded £25000 this was then overturned as it was decided the company wasn't at fault and couldn't have actually done anything to make it 100% safe for a small child.

Victoria J

[crazylegs]

The young boy was "just yards away", so that gives a distance of 3-30 feet (1-10 yards), or in metric 0.91-9.144m, quite a considerable range really. Here's hoping the CCTV will be nice and clear.

[fireheart]

I heard about this too and found a link:

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/boy_...ld_supermarket

So tragic that the child pays the ultimate price for the parent's stupidity. I can't believe they are suing the supermarket.

I went and checked the link out. It's one that allows comments.

Most of the comments are similar to here, although one idiot seems to think that a supermarket should be designed with kids in mind.

As for the OP, the only real major incident I've seen of non-parenting has been where the kids are climbing all over my register. I don't allow it for JUST this reason.

[Victoria J]

The young boy was "just yards away", so that gives a distance of 3-30 feet (1-10 yards), or in metric 0.91-9.144m, quite a considerable range really. Here's hoping the CCTV will be nice and clear.

I still want to know if the rails were the ones outside.

I'd be less worried about distance than indoor/outdoor. I can imagine letting a child wander a bit inside a store (depending on lines of sight, how crowded the store was, how well behaved the child was, etc.). I cannot see being inside a store while your child was outdoors.

Plus if it was the ones outside then they are directly next to the car park - which is a serious obvious risk (while falling from a railing may not be so obviously predictable).

Personally I'd think the parents were at fault if the child was out of sight or too far away to be controlled by them, was outside the store, or was being observed by the parents to do something dangerous or likely to be disruptive while they took no action.

I'd think the store was at fault if the fall was caused by railings that were broken or faulty in some way. This is not mutually exclusive with the parents being at fault.

If the parents were close, watching him, and taking steps to prevent him from climbing on the railings then it's nobodys fault and accidents still happen.

(I think it's something people have real trouble with these days - that something can happen and no one may be responsible or at fault. Some people try and blame other's for their mistakes but the majority of people seem to try and find someone to blame for random occurences).

Victoria J

[Andara Bledin]

In the UK there just aren't the big awards there are in the USA. There's no punitive damages in these cases, and no juries for civil trials. In the USA it's the punitive damages that make up the largest part of the insanely large awards as the juries try to hurt the big companies concerned (with some reason - the cases where the companies are aware that people can be hurt but decide that's it's more economical to pay the resulting compensation to a relatively small number than make a product or service safe for all).

Actually, there aren't really many huge cases in the US, either. There are huge judgments, but those almost never actually get paid for a variety of reasons. Take the McDonald's coffee lady; she was awarded a massive settlement, but when it went to appeals, she ended up settling out of court for an undisclosed amount. Considering she only ever wanted her hospital bills covered, that's not surprising.

^-.-^

[Victoria J]

Actually, there aren't really many huge cases in the US, either.

I know the extreme awards (such as the Stella/McDonald case which always gets rather unfairly cited) are unusual. They often are cases where the juries do have good reason to wish touse the punitive damages - companies that have repeatedly failed to act to ensure safety because it's cheaper etc.

However many awards look pretty huge from over here - there really is a big difference in compensation awards between the UK and USA.

Victoria J