Small Illinois Town Closes Sled Hill Due to Liability Risk

February 22, 2013

  • February 22, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    dw says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 25
    Thumb down 0

    Anyone else find this very sad. Our litigious world continues to degrade our youth. If you can’t have fun, what’s the point?

  • February 22, 2013 at 1:48 pm
    jw says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 20
    Thumb down 0

    It is very sad. My first thought was, if people would just get over themselves and accept an accident is an accident, we’d have more places to have fun.

    • February 25, 2013 at 11:57 am
      matt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 2

      JW, the real question is why. Why won’t people accept that an accident is an accident? I suspect a lot of the time it’s because the people don’t have any money to pay for the results of the accident. Young little Johnny that breaks his arm while sledding will need a trip to the hospital to get xrays and the bone set.

      I can’t help but wonder, what would the legal landscape look like if little Johnny’s parents didn’t have to worry about a $20,000 hospital bill? In 2012 we spent something like $12 billion on the Afghani military– not on the war effort, not on our troops, but $12 billion just for the Afghani military. Couldn’t we use that money to make sure people have some basic health care? Maybe then people wouldn’t have to sue over accidents?

  • February 22, 2013 at 2:20 pm
    DCL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 0

    “Workers have already started removing trees from the hill.” Risk of liability due to kids climbing them? Better also drain the swimming hole (drowning hazard), get those bases off of the baseball diamond (tripping hazard), put rubber mats over the sidewalks (skinned knee hazard) ……shall we go on?

  • February 22, 2013 at 2:46 pm
    Chad Balaamaba says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 4

    kids should be home playing games on smartphone, xbox, etc anyway.

  • February 22, 2013 at 2:53 pm
    InsGrunt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 2

    For those of you who do business in IL–no recreational liability immunity/statute or tort liability caps in that state? Also, very bush league of carrier to threaten higher premium if there’s a loss. Either the exposure exists or it doesn’t, and it should be priced or excluded accordingly, not AFTER a loss.

  • February 22, 2013 at 5:09 pm
    It's not a liability risk says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    It’s a lawyer risk.

  • February 25, 2013 at 10:32 am
    T Dubya B says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    I wish we could count on the judiciary to throw out those claims against third persons that arise out of someone’s own voluntary act of sliding down a naturally occuring hill covered with naturally occuring snowfall. And, if you think kids won’t still find a way to enjoy a snow day, you are just wrong.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features