• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC Sues Family Of Girl Burned On Playground Mat

So what idiot of a parent would let their child take off their shoes at a rubber park on a hot ass day and assume that she wont get burned. What ever happened to common sense in this country?

You would have a point if they were getting onto a hot frying pan and not a playground surface.
 
If they wanted to protect other children, they should have sued the city to REMOVE all the mats. Thus, it would cost the city money, the children would be protected, the city would have nothing to counter sue with,and the parent's motives wouldn't have been in question.
 
So what idiot of a parent would let their child take off their shoes at a rubber park on a hot ass day and assume that she wont get burned. What ever happened to common sense in this country?

Common sense is that small children should be able to run around barefoot in the park.

That's what every parent knows.
 
If they wanted to protect other children, they should have sued the city to REMOVE all the mats. Thus, it would cost the city money, the children would be protected, the city would have nothing to counter sue with,and the parent's motives wouldn't have been in question.

Parent's motives aren't relevant.
 
If they wanted to protect other children, they should have sued the city to REMOVE all the mats. Thus, it would cost the city money, the children would be protected, the city would have nothing to counter sue with, and the parent's motives wouldn't have been in question.

But then, how would they get the funds they spent on medical bills (I assume they paid them) refunded? Without the presence of the mats, the medical bills would not have been needed.

It sounds like the mats were unreasonably warm. I have touched tires left out in the sun which were hot enough to be felt, and cause discomfort, but not burn.
I think there must have been a mistake made in the design or construction of the playground setup, as no reasonable person involved would intentionally include such a potential problem into their setup.
 
That's something we'll never know unless there's a trial, which is a pretty good reason to have one.

Why spend all that time and money trying to figure out something that we purdy much already know?
 
Why spend all that time and money trying to figure out something that we purdy much already know?

Because without a legal trial, nothing is actually decided legally... And thus nothing would be legally required of NYC or the family in question. :doh
Either could claim whatever they wished (of course they still could after a trial), and continue as they wished. A trial provides the opportunity for a thorough examination of the evidence, and fines/requirements can be made against those who are determined to be at fault (if anyone). Sure, I suppose NYC could sign a out of court agreement to the effect that "we will remove the mats and replace them with safe ones, and here is money for your expenses". But that would still be a legal proceeding.

Just saying "well, we purdy much know what happened, so...(I have no idea what you thought would result from that line of thinking)" is far too vague and unrestricting to be acceptable for most.
 
The article doesn't explain the situation, but what I'm assuming is happening is that the city is impleading the grandmother on the grounds that she is in part or whole responsible for the damages that the parents are seeking.

It's a totally reasonable response if they have a reason to believe that the grandmother is at least partially responsible. Not a "bully tactic" at all.
 
The article doesn't explain the situation, but what I'm assuming is happening is that the city is impleading the grandmother on the grounds that she is in part or whole responsible for the damages that the parents are seeking.

It's a totally reasonable response if they have a reason to believe that the grandmother is at least partially responsible. Not a "bully tactic" at all.

Well, I can see the sense of that.

Maybe the grandmother put the mat on a handy barbeque grill and laid it back down on the ground, and didn't realize her granddaughter was going to run on it.

Maybe the grandmother had a really huge magnifying glass and her eyesight was so bad she didn't realize that the giant ant she was toasting was actually a rubber mat, and then the kid ran over it.

Maybe it wasn't really a city-provided rubber mat, but a tread from a tire that was peeled off when granny tore out leading the cops on a high speed chase to avoid a drug bust, and her whole story about watching the kid was a flat lie.

Yes, the city can argue all sorts of things.

But if they're not denying that the city put the mats down in the park to protect the children, then granny wouldn't seem to be at fault for anything.
 
Last edited:
Well, I can see the sense of that.

Maybe the grandmother put the mat on a handy barbeque grill and laid it back down on the ground, and didn't realize her granddaughter was going to run on it.

Maybe the grandmother had a really huge magnifying glass and her eyesight was so bad she realize that the giant ant she was toasting was actually a rubber mat, and then the kid ran over it.

Maybe it wasn't really a city-provided rubber mat, but a tread from a tire that was peeled off when granny tore out leading the cops on a high speed chase to avoid a drug bust, and her whole story about watching the kid was a flat lie.

Yes, the city can argue all sorts of things.

But if they're not denying that the city put the mats down in the park to protect the children, then granny wouldn't seem to be at fault for anything.

Unless you fault the granny for recklessly assuming that a city park would have play equipment that was safe for bare feet to be in contact with…
 
Unless you fault the granny for recklessly assuming that a city park would have play equipment that was safe for bare feet to be in contact with…

I don't think it's anymore maw-maw's fault than it is the city's fault. You'll never make me believe that a city worker said, "Let's put this out there so some little kid'll burn her feet on it".
 
The article doesn't explain the situation, but what I'm assuming is happening is that the city is impleading the grandmother on the grounds that she is in part or whole responsible for the damages that the parents are seeking.

It's a totally reasonable response if they have a reason to believe that the grandmother is at least partially responsible. Not a "bully tactic" at all.

It does have that 'kicking a dead' horse feeling. I mean, if you have kids, you can imagine how a family, a grandmother, feels when a child screams out in pain having her feet severely burnt. Then going to the hospital, etc.

Maybe we don't have all the info (grandma was drinking, or the girl was not really burned as bad as it says) but on the surface--if the facts in the story hold up, that is, then the counter-suit by the city feels harsh.

Kids on a playground will take off running. You keep them in eyesight at all times, don't let them wonder off. Even if grandma was on her cell, it's still feels like a bully tactic.
 
I don't think it's anymore maw-maw's fault than it is the city's fault. You'll never make me believe that a city worker said, "Let's put this out there so some little kid'll burn her feet on it".

It is the city's fault.

They provided a playing surface in a child's environment that had an equilibrium temperature of 160F in direct sunlight.

When I was a kid we used to walk barefoot on tarred roads in the summer time that were hot, but I've never ran across one that was actually scalding.

Tar.

You know, dead black and nearly maximally absorbtive. And Syracuse is only a couple of degrees of latitude further north than New York, so insolation conditions are almost the identical.

So what are the thermal properties of that material the kid toasted her little tootsies on, hmmmmm? At a guess I'd say the stuff was a fair thermal insulator and wasn't carrying the insolation to the ground fast enough.

Or...the mats were on an insulating material...which would have the same effect.

But I'm only an engineer, so what would I know?
 
Last edited:
It does have that 'kicking a dead' horse feeling. I mean, if you have kids, you can imagine how a family, a grandmother, feels when a child screams out in pain having her feet severely burnt. Then going to the hospital, etc.

Maybe we don't have all the info (grandma was drinking, or the girl was not really burned as bad as it says) but on the surface--if the facts in the story hold up, that is, then the counter-suit by the city feels harsh.

Kids on a playground will take off running. You keep them in eyesight at all times, don't let them wonder off. Even if grandma was on her cell, it's still feels like a bully tactic.

More importantly, why would anyone expect granny to have calibrated infrared eyesight that could see how hot the surface was? No one I know has those.

Now, ever since I stepped on that honey bee when I was ten I've not been a fan of going barefoot, but as a father I know the practical impossibility of keeping shoes on a kid at the park. I tell them to watch for bees and glass and figure the chances of harm aren't that great.

I fail to see any fault accruing to the old lady.
 
Well, I can see the sense of that.

Maybe the grandmother put the mat on a handy barbeque grill and laid it back down on the ground, and didn't realize her granddaughter was going to run on it.

Maybe the grandmother had a really huge magnifying glass and her eyesight was so bad she didn't realize that the giant ant she was toasting was actually a rubber mat, and then the kid ran over it.

Maybe it wasn't really a city-provided rubber mat, but a tread from a tire that was peeled off when granny tore out leading the cops on a high speed chase to avoid a drug bust, and her whole story about watching the kid was a flat lie.

Yes, the city can argue all sorts of things.

But if they're not denying that the city put the mats down in the park to protect the children, then granny wouldn't seem to be at fault for anything.

Right, I forgot that you're privy to all the facts of the situation, whereas the rest of us are just fools in the wind.

It does have that 'kicking a dead' horse feeling. I mean, if you have kids, you can imagine how a family, a grandmother, feels when a child screams out in pain having her feet severely burnt. Then going to the hospital, etc.

Maybe we don't have all the info (grandma was drinking, or the girl was not really burned as bad as it says) but on the surface--if the facts in the story hold up, that is, then the counter-suit by the city feels harsh.

Kids on a playground will take off running. You keep them in eyesight at all times, don't let them wonder off. Even if grandma was on her cell, it's still feels like a bully tactic.

The fact that the city impleaded the grandmother is a fairly strong indication that there's more to the situation than has come out so far. The Law Department is not populated by morons.
 
The fact that the city impleaded the grandmother is a fairly strong indication that there's more to the situation than has come out so far. The Law Department is not populated by morons.

Exactly my point -- IMO it reads like the city is posturing, using the ADA to scare the family into a quick and fiscally pleasing settlement.

I think the family needs a lawyer with a good press agent. Get the kid on the major NYC networks, let grandma describe the screaming and running to grab the baby off the scalding play area, and then the city will STFU and pay.

--0r maybe grams was calling her bookie and should be charged-- story doesn't say.
 
I have seen such mats and can verify that they can get hot enough to actually burn you in certain weather. I have also seen metal slides burn childrens legs who wear shorts.

Regardless of the barefoot issue these mats should not be used in outdoor settings. Even if a child were shoed we all know how reckless and clumsy childrens play is. Simply falling to their hands and knees can get them burned.
 
Exactly my point -- IMO it reads like the city is posturing, using the ADA to scare the family into a quick and fiscally pleasing settlement.

I think the family needs a lawyer with a good press agent. Get the kid on the major NYC networks, let grandma describe the screaming and running to grab the baby off the scalding play area, and then the city will STFU and pay.

--0r maybe grams was calling her bookie and should be charged-- story doesn't say.

So rather than have the facts come out in court and see a fair and just resolution, you'd rather just have the government shamed into paying out by a sleazy PR agent?
 
You would have a point if they were getting onto a hot frying pan and not a playground surface.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out rubber gets extremely hot especially in direct sunlight.

Common sense is that small children should be able to run around barefoot in the park.

That's what every parent knows.

No, i would never allow my children to run through any public place without shoes on, there are just to many things that could happen. Burned, cut, stabbed, gouged etc. I stand by the point of negligence not the cities fault in the least bit.
 
No, i would never allow my children to run through any public place without shoes on, there are just to many things that could happen. Burned, cut, stabbed, gouged etc.

Exactly right. No place is "safe". Shoes are a must at all times when outdoors. Back when my son was a toddler, I took him to the neighborhood park. The swings there are in a type of sandbox set up. You would think this would be pretty safe, but I decided to check out under the swings to be sure. Imagine my shock when I uncovered large shards of broken beer bottles. You can't take anything for granted when it comes to your kid's safety. :shock:
 
Exactly right. No place is "safe". Shoes are a must at all times when outdoors. Back when my son was a toddler, I took him to the neighborhood park. The swings there are in a type of sandbox set up. You would think this would be pretty safe, but I decided to check out under the swings to be sure. Imagine my shock when I uncovered large shards of broken beer bottles. You can't take anything for granted when it comes to your kid's safety. :shock:

Exactly, call me protective but i just dont trust it. You would be surprised at some of the things you find at parks if you just poke around. Warning it may disgust you :rofl
 
Why spend all that time and money trying to figure out something that we purdy much already know?
How do you come to the conclusion that we pretty much know already what happened?
 
In order for the city to be held liable it must be demonstrated through an objective standard that a reasonable person should have forseen such a possibility. That doesn't seem very likely.

That won't be hard. A BLACK mat in the SUMMER? Even an idiot can foresee such a possibility.
 
Back
Top Bottom