# Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors



## LHunter82FXRS (Oct 20, 2008)

*Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

(Did a search, and didn't find this discussed anywhere else, but if it is sorry and close this one)
I saw this on the news last night, and thought that the parents were just filing another frivolous lawsuit. Of course it is sad that they lost their young son, but how is is the dog doors fault?

http://www.news8.net/news/stories/0509/621987.html


----------



## Winkin (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: LHunter82FXRSOf course it is sad that they lost their young son, but how is is the dog doors fault?


It isn't. This would be like blaming a window company for your baby falling out of a window that you left open.

If I had a toddler, I would never use a dog door (I don't use one anyway and never will). You have to always think about the "worst case scenarios."


----------



## Zisso (Mar 20, 2009)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

While it is so very sad that a child life was lost, I personally cannot imagine leaving a child unattended long enough for them to slip out the (doggie)door-granted it only takes a few seconds/minutes-also it makes me wonder how it is that the pool was not child proof.


----------



## HeidiW (Apr 9, 2009)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

It is good to make people aware of it and the company should have this as danger warning on their package but to sue them for her not watching your child is not right. Very very sad.


----------



## Pedders (Mar 22, 2005)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

We watched this on Good Morning America a couple of days ago and thought the same thing; how is it the fault of the dog door? How could a parent not realise that a door is a door is a door, whether it be a human size door or a doggie sized door and that it is the parents responsibility to watch their child.

Obviously one feels terribly for the parents for their loss but this seems to be another case of someone needing to blame someone of something else for their misery.


----------



## sgtmom52 (Aug 30, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: PeddersObviously one feels terribly for the parents for their loss but this seems to be another case of someone needing to blame someone of something else for their misery.


I agree ~ this is also along the line of putting hot coffee in your lap while driving or using a hair dryer while in the shower. There are just some things that are common sense and you should not blame the manufacturer or seller.


----------



## Sashmom (Jun 5, 2002)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

yes, she will be asked in court, where were YOU when your 2 yr old slipped thru the doggie door? Its a sad thing but it is up to the parent to watch 2 yr olds when you know you have a pool and I think anyone would know a 2 yr old could and would climb thru a doggie door, 2 yr olds arent very big. 
I know I was very paranoid when my son was 2. I wouldve been REALLY paranoid if I had a pool. I guess they didnt have a fence around the pool?


----------



## vomonyxhaus (Feb 15, 2009)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: sgtmom52
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: PeddersObviously one feels terribly for the parents for their loss but this seems to be another case of someone needing to blame someone of something else for their misery.
> ...


I feel bad for the parent losing their child but......after all it is an opening for the pet to get out and when you are small you copy what others(even the dogs) do sometimes.....
I remember quite vividly when "I" did something stupid... I was about 3yrs old belted (long before child safty seats) in the back seat of the Cadillac and I pushed the lighter in , it popped out and I stuck it on the end of my finger.....Yeah...IT HURT BAD..... but I had seen my dad push that lighter in who knows how many times and then stick it to the end of his ciggarette..well I didn't have a ciggy so I stuck it on the end of my finger......lesson learned real quick...
Was it Cadillacs fault though????? NO.... I guess I started showing my blonde real early!!!!!!
All I was doing was trying to copy what I saw my Dad do but I don't believe there is a warning on ciggarettte lighters in cars pertaining to children sticking their finger in the end of the lighter....


----------



## scannergirl (Feb 17, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: Winkin
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: LHunter82FXRSOf course it is sad that they lost their young son, but how is is the dog doors fault?
> ...


Nice analogy.
There are some situations that you cannot anticipate, like this one
freak accident-lucky child 
and there is no way that this mom could have been expected to prevent this (although I'm sure some will blame her anyway)

If you have an opening to the outside it's a whole different story- but I'm sorry it happened. We've all taken a few moments to go to the bathroom, answer the phone, etc. when we probably shouldn't have. Not wanting to bash this lady who has suffered an unimaginable loss, but it wasn't the door's fault.


----------



## scannergirl (Feb 17, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: vomonyxhaus
> I remember quite vividly when "I" did something stupid... I was about 3yrs old belted (long before child safty seats) in the back seat of the Cadillac and I pushed the lighter in , it popped out and I stuck it on the end of my finger.....Yeah...IT HURT BAD..... but I had seen my dad push that lighter in who knows how many times and then stick it to the end of his ciggarette..well I didn't have a ciggy so I stuck it on the end of my finger......lesson learned real quick...
> Was it Cadillacs fault though????? NO.... I guess I started showing my blonde real early!!!!!!


You know, it might not be too late to sue- oh yeah, GM's bankrupt- guess you missed your chance


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: Winkin...
> This would be like blaming a window company for your baby falling out of a window that you left open.
> ...


 Excellent analogy. My heart goes out to the parents for the loss of their child. But like others have said, a toddler needs to be watched constantly. It's like people can no longer accept responsibility for their mistakes, blame always has to be pushed off on someone else.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

They might as well blame the makers or installers of the pool, since that was what actually caused the child's death.


----------



## bergwanderkennels (Mar 26, 2009)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Quote:More than 750,000 pet doors are sold every year in this country, but until now, no one outside the industry had put together all the deaths connected to them.


AH DUH because when it happened to other people they probably figured they the parents would get into trouble for not watching their kids like a hawk.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: ChicagocanineThey might as well blame the makers or installers of the pool, since that was what actually caused the child's death.


I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did also sue the pools manufacturer and the installers. I feel sorry for their loss, but this is past the point of ridiculus.


----------



## GSDtravels (Dec 26, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

Didn't any of you know it's the government's responsibilty to protect our kids? Parents don't have to watch them, the world is supposed to be perfectly safe. If it isn't, let's file a lawsuit and have the government enact more, stricter laws on the sale of anything that could harm your child when you're busy. Then the insurance industry can get richer too! Have you people seen a modern playground lately?? The swings have rubber covers on the chains so nobody can pinch a finger. The slides are all made of plastic so nobody has to learn that when the sun in shining on metal, it's hot! Even the ground is rubber so if you fall, you bounce! The lessons we are now teaching children is that the world is insulated so you can't get hurt. And if you do, it's somebody else's fault!

About five years ago, I saw another such incident where a parent left a child in a RUNNING car. When she came back her child had stuck his head out the window and pushed the button. You guessed it, sad that her child was dead but she sued the automaker. Now, ALL car windows have to have a safety feature that won't allow the window to strangle a child. Add that to the fact that all children must be restrained??? So, if they're restrained, how in the heck do they stick their head out the window and push the button at the same time? DUH, UNATTENDED children get into all kinds of things. Can't possibly be the parents' fault, let's sue somebody else.

I actually saw a news report about a school in Arizona where there is a NO TOUCHING policy. No physical contact WHATSOEVER!! The children do "air" high fives. I can't believe people still think we live in the United States of America. The only rights we have now is the right to sue somebody if we get hurt. Other than that, liberty has been flushed down the toilet. Think about what lessons our children are being taught by the "insulated world"!

I saw this story on the news the other morning. When the manufacturer stated there is a safer door if you have small children (the one with the radio collar that unlocks the door), they made it seem like the manufacturer was just trying to push a more expensive product!! Well, another DUH, it costs more to make!!!

Sorry about my rant, this is a touchy subject for me. Parents aren't parents anymore, they have handed all responsibilty to the government.


----------



## LHunter82FXRS (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: GSDtravels......
> Sorry about my rant, this is a touchy subject for me. Parents aren't parents anymore, they have handed all responsibilty to the government.


No need to apologize for your rant, it all makes perfect sense to me. This is exactly how I feel about parents today, it is like they don't want to be responsible for their actions. (_I think I'll sue McDonalds for making my daughter overweight, those happy meals so appealing to kids she couldn't resist. Of course, I have to drive her there, and pay for them, but it is still their fault!_ )


----------



## vomonyxhaus (Feb 15, 2009)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: LHunter82FXRS. (_I think I'll sue McDonalds for making my daughter overweight, those happy meals so appealing to kids she couldn't resist. Of course, I have to drive her there, and pay for them, but it is still their fault!_ )



Good One!!!!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

It's been done.

Children have been known to drown in buckets of water. Buckets now have warning labels on them. 

All the plastic bags that things are packaged in have THIS IS NOT A TOY plastered on them. Ya know, I always thought that was pretty silly. That is until my niece shoved the bag over her head. Then I realized that even very intelligent little kids can do some really stupid things. That is why I was there supervising while my sister worked. Being right there on the spot meant the kid did not suffer brain damage or death. 

People really, really have to watch two year olds. At the same time, people have to sleep too. Most of us do not hire a night time nanny for the nighttime wanderer. If you tie them into their beds you WILL be investigated for something. And you really cannot use a crate either. 

My little sister was just starting to walk -- well under two, when she woke up one saturday morning and made herself a bowl of cereal then went out the front door and walked down the street with the bowl of cereal. Our freinds lived two doors down, and the cheif of police lived in the next house just across the street. 

He was looking out the window and saw the baby just deciding whether or not to cross the street. Incidently, he DID have a pool at his house. The street we lived on was a highway and the main street in town. This was VERY dangerous. He rushed out and collected her, took her to our friends house to inquire whose baby she was and then deposited her back home. This was 30 years ago, I shudder to think what would happen today. 

My brother's kid at age two loved to take himself outside in the morning before his parents got up. So they put a hook and eye in at the top of the screen door as far up as you could go. The little bugger, got a broom and disconnected it with the broom handle, to free his little butt. 

Sometimes despite all of our efforts, our children survive. This lady's kid did not. It is enough to put you over the deep end. I find it tragic. I think that we should cut her some slack. By focussing on everyone else she is trying to cover the pain of having let her baby get out and get killed. How incredibly sad. If you all rack your minds, maybe you too can find some close call that happened with your own family or your own kid. No you did not sue anyone, but maybe your kid is alive, maybe because you were right there watching, and maybe because you were just a little bit lucky too.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: selzer...
> Sometimes despite all of our efforts, our children survive. This lady's kid did not. It is enough to put you over the deep end. I find it tragic. I think that we should cut her some slack. By focussing on everyone else she is trying to cover the pain of having let her baby get out and get killed. How incredibly sad. If you all rack your minds, maybe you too can find some close call that happened with your own family or your own kid. No you did not sue anyone, but maybe your kid is alive, maybe because you were right there watching, and maybe because you were just a little bit lucky too.


While I agree it's extremely sad, I don't see why sueing a company or individual should be an acceptable form of mental health therapy. There are professionals, support groups, etc. to help people deal with the grief of losing a child or loved one. We shouldn't expect, or accept, our court systems becoming sarrogates for the healing process people go thru when a child dies.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: ArycrestWhile I agree it's extremely sad, I don't see why sueing a company or individual should be an acceptable form of mental health therapy. There are professionals, support groups, etc. to help people deal with the grief of losing a child or loved one. We shouldn't expect, or accept, our court systems becoming sarrogates for the healing process people go thru when a child dies.


Well said.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

Whatever. 

What mentally distraught person really thinks they are acting irrationally?

Who is talking about right or wrong? 

I am saying lets not crucify someone for doing something that lots of people do ALL THE TIME and about everything. 

People are ALWAYS looking for ANYONE to blame when bad things happen. If there isn't ANY other human or corporation, then God works well as a scapegoat too. Anybody just so I do not have to admit that I caused my child or my dog to be dead or seriously injured. 

If prisoners can weigh down the court system because they are not allowed to wear women's undies, I think that a poor wretch can waste her money attacking the makers of doggy doors, buckets, plastic wrap, guns, bullets, four wheelers, and swimming pools.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: selzer...
> If prisoners can weigh down the court system because they are not allowed to wear women's undies, I think that a poor wretch can waste her money attacking the makers of doggy doors, buckets, plastic wrap, guns, bullets, four wheelers, and swimming pools.


I know that anyone in the United States can sue anyone for just about any reason, but what's that old adage, two wrongs don't make a right. Courts should not be expected to become members of the American Psychological Association just because there are frivelous law suits brought by others. It's not a court's function to use its valuable time and resources to hear a case just because a grieving mother is unable to cope with the guilt brought on by the death of her child.


----------



## middleofnowhere (Dec 20, 2000)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

I think that as likely a candidate for the law suit would be the pool maker or the municipality that provided the water for the pool.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

How about the inspector who approved it without a fence system around it?

I do not THINK this is a good reason for a lawsuit. But I understand and make allowances for someone's grief. Believe it or not, the court system is specifically there to deal with people's grief. Sometimes it IS up to a court to decide whether there was negligence in any case. I cannot imagine what in this case might be added to give credence to this. It will probably be thrown out. 

It is certainly not the most rediculous reason that anyone has sued before.


----------



## GSDtravels (Dec 26, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't have sympathy for the parents, it's got to be...well, I can't even begin to imagine. BUT, you CAN'T hold everybody in the world responsible because ACCIDENTS DO HAPPEN, it's not that it's anyone's fault. Some children die, I'm probably more than lucky that I got mine to adulthood. I'm a nervous Grammy and much more overprotective with them that I was with my own. If that had been me, I would have wallowed in guilt until MY dying day, not blame someone else for my inattention.

I think Arycrest and I are on the same page on this one. Very well said, I agree whole-heartedly.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

If the property is fenced in, there doesn't need to be an additional fence around the pool for it to pass inspection.

What is so wrong with this, is that lawsuits such as these ulimately add to the cost of an item. The company spends x amount of dollars to defend themselves from someone who needs someone to blame OTHER THAN THEMSELVES. Lawsuits like this waste valuable time and money that could be better spent. Even if the case is thrown out the company has still spent money to retain their lawyer and their assistants to build their defense. This cost ultimately gets passed onto the consumer.

Just because this isn't the most ridiculous reason that someone has sued, doesn't make it right. Just because they are grieving doesn't make it right or give them any more leeway to abuse the judicial system.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

Again who is talking right or wrong?

I am not condoning it. I am understanding it. 

Until you are faced with that hideous situation, we really do not know how we will act. We only know how we would hope we act or hope we would not act. 

I would give anything to NEVER know for sure.


----------



## GSDtravels (Dec 26, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

Their lack of supervision is something they will have to learn to live with, sad as that may sound. They either CHOSE to purchase the home with a pool, or CHOSE to have the pool installed. They also CHOSE to have the dog door installed and most likely passed on the model with the additional safey feature because they are much more expensive. They also CHOSE to become complacent about the proper supervision of the child knowing full well that he was small enough to fit through the dog door and the pool was accessible from the yard with no added safety gate (which are also available for an added cost). While I do SYMPATHIZE with them for the pain they must be experiencing, it is still not anyone else's responsibility for the "accident". That is the whole point here, nobody thinks accidents happen anymore, they need to point a finger. It's time to say STOP, ENOUGH! They will have to live with that loss until they die themselves and that's a hard pill to swallow, yes. I'm very sympathetic to the situation but still feel they are pointing fingers in the wrong direction. The manufacturer already makes the safer model, but offers this one for people who CHOOSE it. It was their CHOICE when they bought the door and installed the pool and both choices should have made them MORE vigilant about supervision of their child. If you are complacent about the supervision of the child it should be YOUR responsibility to make sure all safety measures are in place.

Not meaning this to be funny in the least but, they evidently made the wrong choice in breed also. Had that door been installed for a GSD, and extra set of eyes would have been watching that child!


----------



## Crabtree (Jan 6, 2006)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: GSDtravelsTheir lack of supervision is something they will have to learn to live with, sad as that may sound. They either CHOSE to purchase the home with a pool, or CHOSE to have the pool installed. They also CHOSE to have the dog door installed and most likely passed on the model with the additional safey feature because they are much more expensive. They also CHOSE to become complacent about the proper supervision of the child knowing full well that he was small enough to fit through the dog door and the pool was accessible from the yard with no added safety gate (which are also available for an added cost). While I do SYMPATHIZE with them for the pain they must be experiencing, it is still not anyone else's responsibility for the "accident". That is the whole point here, nobody thinks accidents happen anymore, they need to point a finger. It's time to say STOP, ENOUGH! They will have to live with that loss until they die themselves and that's a hard pill to swallow, yes. I'm very sympathetic to the situation but still feel they are pointing fingers in the wrong direction. The manufacturer already makes the safer model, but offers this one for people who CHOOSE it. It was their CHOICE when they bought the door and installed the pool and both choices should have made them MORE vigilant about supervision of their child. If you are complacent about the supervision of the child it should be YOUR responsibility to make sure all safety measures are in place.
> 
> Not meaning this to be funny in the least but, they evidently made the wrong choice in breed also. Had that door been installed for a GSD, and extra set of eyes would have been watching that child!


Very well said. It used to be said, for every action there is a reaction.
Now for every action there is a lawsuit pending.


----------



## Ilovealldogs (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

It is the parents' fault- period. Why would they have a child unsupervised that close to a pool? Apparently there is no fence or similar material around the pool and one can gain immediate access from the home. Who is to say that the child couldn't have at some point in time opened a door to go out and fall into the pool? It surely is not the fault of the dog door. It's like when children were being strangled in mini blinds. I can see it is worthy of mentioning in hopes of preventing another child's death, but you can't fault always fault the equipment. (Yes, there are definitely times when you can, but not in these circumstances.)


----------



## JerzeyGSD (Jun 26, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: Heidi WIt is good to make people aware of it and the company should have this as danger warning on their package but to sue them for her not watching your child is not right. Very very sad.


I totally agree. It's heartbreaking, of course. Any loss like this would be but ultimately the parents are responsible for their children and should not leave such young children alone long enough to climb out the pet door, get to the pool, and fall in.


----------



## scannergirl (Feb 17, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: selzerAgain who is talking right or wrong?
> 
> I am not condoning it. I am understanding it.
> 
> ...


What she said.
I think, from my perspective as never having to bury a child, that saying the door manufacturer is at fault is wrong. I think the legal system will probably confirm that. But I will NOT call her stupid, or silly, or irresponsible. As I posted before, we all have done things as parents we probably shouldn't have. The fact we got away with them is no reason for us to judge others.
I will thank God that I do not know what I'd do in that situation, and I forgive her seeming lack of sense in the face of such an unimaginable loss that I cannot begin to comprehend it (again, thank GOD!).


----------



## GSDtravels (Dec 26, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

I don't disagree with a thing you said and I never called her stupid. Yes, we parents who have not experienced the death of a child may consider ourselves lucky. I don't want to ever know that pain, but children do die every day and I guess you could say it's the luck of the draw, for lack of a better term. I lost three children during pregnancy and know how that felt, can't imagine losing a 2 or 3 year old. 
I can understand that she is in pain but blaming it on the door manufacturer and going on national television to make it an issue will not bring her child back. It will make the manufacturer have to defend a product that had nothing to do with the lack of supervision of her child. I can't even imagine, and never want to know the pain she must be feeling, but how do you point a finger at somebody else?? Doesn't make any sense to me. 
Don't be so sure it will be thrown out of court, let's watch it unfold first. That's the whole point here, assuming that common sense will win out, think again! It wouldn't surprise me one bit if she gets some sort of compensation and/or the door manufacturer will have to change their product. That's exactly what I meant with all of the safety features on playgrounds, car windows and the list goes on. And that all drives up the cost of those products and we all end up paying in the end. So although I agree that she is in pain and wants to blame somebody else, the whole point is, with common sense out the window and the government directing every breath we take, it is still just plain WRONG.


----------



## Riley's Mom (Jun 7, 2007)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

Oh good grief. I'm so sorry the little guy lost his life, but a pet door is nothing more than a window or a door. A concientous mother would realize that. It's called a pet DOOR, how much more obvious does it have to be? I'm sorry, I just don't have much sympathy for a Mother who tries to blame her own stupidity leading up to the loss of her child on others.

I don't have one and never have, so I'm not hands-on familiar with them, if they can use some safety features I wouldn't know, but that's still no reason for a Mother to blame the death or injury of her child on a mechanism that should be her responsibility to keep the child safe from in the first place.

Another derogitory check mark for the sue-happy society we live in and one reason why we all pay higher prices.







I doubt people growing up and taking responsibility for their own action or non-action isnt' going to change in my lifetime.


----------



## Riley's Mom (Jun 7, 2007)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Quote: ... While I agree it's extremely sad, I don't see why sueing a company or individual should be an acceptable form of mental health therapy. There are professionals, support groups, etc. to help people deal with the grief of losing a child or loved one. We shouldn't expect, or accept, our court systems becoming sarrogates for the healing process people go thru when a child dies.


Well said and to add, when we do allow this kind of crap in our court systems ... we wind up paying the higher prices and all that goes with whatever changes. I would not wish losing a child on anyone, and I fully realize that people do weird things in their grief but this kind of thing needs to stop. I'm wondering where the rest of her family is in all of this and why they are not talking some common sense into her?


----------



## Brightelf (Sep 5, 2001)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

Hoping and praying that this bereaved Mom gets support, loving care, even counseling if she needs that. The loss of a child is beyond horrific for anyone to go through.

I hope that even if she does go after the pet door company, that she still works (gently) through her own grieving-guilt by faciing it-- in small doses so she can manage the horrible intensity. May she not push her guilt feelings away, but address them, work through them, and one day come through the other side with an understanding that we are all only human, and do the very best that we can. 

Regardless, this poor woman has a long road to walk now with grief. May she have all the kindness and support that she needs.

I also do not think the pet door company should be blamed/sued.


----------



## SouthernThistle (Nov 16, 2005)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

My question (as probably has already been answered here)

Where was the mother that the child crawled out of the room, out the door, and in the pool?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

I broke my arm and hit my head falling off a swing onto asphalt when I was a kid at a playground. My sister broke an arm and messed up her saliva gland on a jungle gym. 

Our parents did not sue. 

I look at the stuff at playgrounds now adays and it is all on beds of wood chips. 

I wonder if someone sueing made a difference and if kids are injured less frequently now. 

I agree that there is nothing the pet door manufacturer can do to prevent such a thing from happening, and it is simply tragic. Frankly, I do not care where the mother was. Maybe she went to the bathroom. Maybe she fell asleep. Maybe she thought the child was sleeping it its bed. 

A couple of years ago a single mother of two toddlers in the neighborhood fell asleep and her children wandered out onto the train tracks -- two of them, and got killed. The prosecuter wanted to prosecute. The thing is that it is impossible for an individual to stay awake 24/7, sometimes people fall or feint or have a seizure and pass out. Sometimes children wake before their parents do and climb out of bed. They do not have to be drunk for this to happen. When the child figures out a way to get killed too it is simply devastating. 

A friend of mine had a two year old cousin. The baby was playing with a balloon. She fell on the balloon with an open mouth. It popped. A peice of plastic went down her throat. There was an EMT right next door and rushed over. It was no use. They could not get the balloon out, and they could not get the air in. The happy, healthy toddler was dead. If they would have sued would balloons have stopped being manufactured? I think they felt that it was simply a freak accident. There was not the terrible guilt that this woman is feeling though.


----------



## DorianGrayFFM (Apr 24, 2009)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Door*



> Originally Posted By: selzerHow about the inspector who approved it without a fence system around it?
> 
> I do not THINK this is a good reason for a lawsuit. But I understand and make allowances for someone's grief. Believe it or not, the court system is specifically there to deal with people's grief. Sometimes it IS up to a court to decide whether there was negligence in any case. I cannot imagine what in this case might be added to give credence to this. It will probably be thrown out.
> 
> It is certainly not the most rediculous reason that anyone has sued before.


The problem is that our court-system is already weighed down with enough frivolous lawsuits. Your tax dollars are paying for a lot of that crap. 

So yes, I have a problem with it. Why? Because it is a completely irrational decision to sue a door maker over the drowning death of your child. No amount of money is going to prevent the death of your kid, nor will wasting thousand of dollars in taxpayer money bring your child back.

The underlying problem in our country is that people do not accept PERSONAL responsibility when they screw up. It's always someone else's fault. As a parent it is your SOLE responsibility to provide your child with a safe environment to grow up in and to teach them what to do and what to never do. If you cannot watch your kids, you should not have kids. It is harsh to say that, but it is the truth and I am FED UP with people wanting to label everything under the sun.

Let's put mandatory stickers on steering wheels that say "Operating this vehicle may endanger your life, the life of your passenger(s) and other pedestrians, motorist and wildlife. Using this vehicle while intoxicated may lead to your and anyone else's death. Please always pay attention to your vehicles condition, the road, the traffic signs and do not use the accompanying stereo system, your phone or have conversations with your passengers as this will statistically increase your chance of becoming involved in a potentially fatal accident."

Personal responsibility would prevent a lot of life altering problems people encounter on a daily basis. Pay your credit card on time? Guess you won't have any late charges or collections! Pay your mortgage on time? Guess you won't have a foreclosure? Train your dog? Guess you will be able to mitigate unwanted behavior. 

The list is long and always comes down to the same thing.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 15, 2009)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Door*



> Originally Posted By: DorianGrayFFM
> 
> 
> selzer said:
> ...


----------



## The Stig (Oct 11, 2007)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Door*



> Originally Posted By: Winkin
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: LHunter82FXRSOf course it is sad that they lost their young son, but how is is the dog doors fault?
> ...


Very nicely said, Winkin.

Whatever happened to people taking accountability anymore?

Certainly it is a tragic accident, but the mother is by no means blameless. 

And I just cannot understand why people would file suit if the consequence is the result of the individual's own actions. The judges should just throw them out. It gives irresponsible idiots the power to shift the blame. 

This is based on a general observation.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Door*

that quote wasn't mine.


----------



## scannergirl (Feb 17, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Door*

This is another example of how some people think about stuff like this.
This was a terrible tragedy, and I feel for this man and his child that will never know her mother, but how can you assign blame?
Who's to blame?


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Door*



> Originally Posted By: selzer
> But I understand and make allowances for someone's grief. Believe it or not, the court system is specifically there to deal with people's grief.
> ...
> I cannot imagine what in this case might be added to give credence to this. It will probably be thrown out.


I've handled a lot of these sorts of litigated cases. They don't bring "healing." In fact, they just delay healing. 

Do you think that the manufacturers' attorneys will be gentle during depositions? They will try to be kind, but they will ask all of the harsh questions that have been raised here. They HAVE to (anything else would violate their duty to their clients and would be malpractice). The questions will be asked several times, in several different ways in excruciating detail. 

Then, if it goes to trial, the parents will have to answer the same questions again, in front of a judge, jury, and most likely, a lot of press who will be scrutinizing every tear they shed and every action the parents took, not just that day, but during much of the child's life. Their fitness as parents will be called into question.

For effect, there will be giant enlarged photos of every part of this tragedy for everyone in the courtroom to witness. 


Litigation is NOT about healing. It's an ugly grueling process. Sometimes, people want to go through the process so that "what happened to my child never happens again." Sometimes, they do it for justice (or even revenge.) Sometimes, they do it for cash. All of these are legitimate reasons to pursue litigation, by the way. 

Sometimes, they get exploited by an attorney who's taking advantage of their grief and he fills them with reasons like "never again" that they never would have thought of (or would not have been a priority to them) on their own. 

Often, they do it because they're lost and they need something to fill up the emotional space that their loved one had occupied. It delays closure. As long as they have the lawsuit, they don't have to face what actually happened. I know that may not make sense, but litigation is a HUGE distraction in people's lives. It gives them something to do (meetings, gathering papers, preparing for depositions). It gives them something to talk about with their friends. It gives them things to schedule and look forward to. 

But when the lawsuit is over, regardless of outcome, the vast gaping hole in their hearts and in their lives is still there. And if the jury decided that the manufacturers were not negligent, then what does that mean? That they WERE a bad parents? 

Let's never confuse the process. America's judicial system is a wondrous thing. Courts are there to bring JUSTICE, not to help with grief. But it can't do what you're suggesting. I hope to heck that the mother isn't hoping that it will. 

BTW, a judge won't necessarily deny these folks their day in court. All they have to do is show reasonable grounds for their action. No warnings on the dog doors and/or packaging? That might be it, if they get the right judge on the right day. 

What happened to this family is terrible. It doesn't say how long ago they installed the dog door -- was it before they had even had a child? If so, would a warning on the packaging have even registered with them? (Probably not.) Maybe a warning isn't such a bad idea; people don't always think, after all.

I do know that no building/attractive nuisance code in the US requires a fence between the house and the pool. The fence is to protect the public from YOUR pool. 

What a tragedy.







I hope this family finds the peace and healing it needs because if it's going through litigation, it's going to need a lot of it.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Door*

I KNOW litigation is NOT about healing. 

But just about every court case is about grief. 

Think about it. 
Murder -- grief of the victim's family.
Small claims/landlord not paid -- hardship for the landlord -- grief
Criminal and civil cases are all about someone getting hurt, injured, killed, emotionally battered by someone or something and the court system is set up to punish wrong doers, set blame, determine negligence, determine awards and compensation. 

No, litigation is not easy. But when the wound is deep enough, people will go through that to ensure that the person or company takes their claim of abuse seriously and makes changes so others will not be hurt as well. 

When Rite Aid was a couple of digits off on the filling of a prescription, my BIL became weaker and weaker. When the problem was discovered, my BIL was too far gone and he died. His family chose not to sue Rite Aid. That was their choice. Most likely because it would not bring their son back, and partly because it would be grusome -- even when things are pretty much cut and dried. 

But I cannot think of a single court case that is not about somebody's grief. 

And I did not say I agree with their decision to sue, just that I understand that they are grieving and give allowances for that. I would imagine that long before it gets to trial, the family will drop it.


----------



## Mandalay (Apr 21, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

There are all sorts of things this lady could have done to safeguard her kid.

The lady has a dog door AND a child...the dog door should have been the kind that locks and does not unlock unless the dog (who is wearing a special collar) approaches it. What if an outside animal had gotten IN through the dog door? Who would she blame then - Animal Control or Fish and Wildlife?

Perhaps she could have just gotten up, walked to the door, and opened it when the dog wanted to go out...Now there's a thought! I'm not saying that people should not have dog doors, but I think that people, especially people with children, need to have forethought. I do not enter a situation with my children where I dont consider what can happen and take steps to prevent or minimize hazards. If I had a pool in my backyard, I would make darn sure that my children could not get out to that pool, or I would take it out. 

Since the kid got to the pool, she most likely did not have a fence or other barrier around it. Shouldn't she have had one to safeguard her kids?

They also make things that make a sound when the water line is broken. She'd have heard an audible alarm if she had one of those.

There is so many things SHE could have done, AS THE CHILDS PARENT to make sure he was safe. Like watching him! Keeping even half an eye on him. It had to have taken at least 30 seconds for him to have gotten out of her sight, through the dog door, out to the pool and then into the pool...where was she and what was she doing that was so important at this time that she was not watching her child? I have an 11 month old who I dont lose sight of for more than 5 seconds. If that.

Parents need to start taking more responsibility for caring for and watching their children. If he was that quick, that he got away from her, out the dog door, and into the pool before she knew - then perhaps she should have bought one of those kid leashes and tethered him to her hip. She should have done something...anything...to keep track of that child.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

So you NEVER sleep. Not for five seconds. Wow! That is like awesome. Do you take special drugs for that or what.

I sure as **** hope that you never have a siezure or something and lose sight of your kid for the 30 seconds or so that he could use to get into trouble. 

I've been babysitting my sister's two year olds, and I must admit, when I am wiping the one's bottom, the other is not ALWAYS in sight.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Quote: They also make things that make a sound when the water line is broken. She'd have heard an audible alarm if she had one of those.


Exactly. When you are a parent to a small child you make sure that your house is child proofed. That is one of the responsibilities that comes with the job. You make sure that your cabinets are fitted with those little plastic locks, you make sure that cleaning products are put on a high shelf, you make sure that outlets are covered so small children cannot put something into them and get electrocuted. You make sure entryways are secure and if you have a pool you make sure that it has an alarm in the event that your child or someone else's child falls in. 

Child proofing a house is not that much different than puppy proofing a house. You check all the cracks and crevices to make sure you are providing a secure environment. It is impossible to watch everything that is going on 24/7. Thats why you make sure your home is as safe as possible. 

If your puppy chewed a wire and got electrocuted would you sue the lamp manufacturer? Doing so would be as wrong as this suit is.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: ninhar When you are a parent to a small child you make sure that your house is child proofed. That is one of the responsibilities that comes with the job. You make sure that your cabinets are fitted with those little plastic locks, you make sure that cleaning products are put on a high shelf, you make sure that outlets are covered so small children cannot put something into them and get electrocuted.


Yep. Heck, we had to do all of this just for our kitten! He knew how to get in all the cabinets and eat the food, chew on cleaning supplies, pull the trash can over, push out the windows and doors...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

You all are suggesting that it takes brains and foresight to make babies. 

People sue all the time for things that no one could believe they would win. A house is under construction. The owner of the property is sued by a theif in there stealing tools at night because the owner did not block a hole into the basement yet. The criminal won the lawsuit!

I would think if I was trespassing, and I cut myself or broke my leg, I would be on my own. The guy did not deliberately set up a trip wire or a booby trap. 

People sometime miss things when they are babyproofing their homes. They simply do not think of some things. I think it has something to do with people not being perfect. My mom had her first kid at 19, had four kids age five and under, and had six all together. I think that with the lack of car seats -- mom sat on a kitchen chair in dads truck and we fought over the wheel wells, and there not being any such thing as outlet covers. My mom had a play pen and a crib, but never employed a baby gate. It is amazing we all made it to adulthood, each bearing ten fingers and ten toes. My mother was an intelligent woman, but she was also very fortunate. 

My point is you do not have to agree with what this woman is doing, but you cannot deny her the right to do it. She may not win, she may come away worse off than when she started. The doggy door manufacturer may take a serious hit, even if he wins. 

Litigation happens when two parties disagree on whether or not one harmed the other or was negligent. This woman believes that the dog door manufacturer produced an unsafe product. Perhaps she DID buy the type of doggy door that only opens when the collar thingy is present, but the dog at some point was able to turn the Always Locked switch to Always Open -- who knows? Maybe the instructions were flawed and it was installed incorrectly. 

The manufacturer believes he covered all the bases on his product and is not liable for any damages. 

A judge or a jury must determine the outcome.


----------



## Mandalay (Apr 21, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: selzerSo you NEVER sleep. Not for five seconds. Wow! That is like awesome. Do you take special drugs for that or what.



sarcasm aside, of course I sleep. In the hallway there is a device that sounds a tone if someone walks by it...it is turned on in the middle of the night. This would alert me to an intruder (pre-Mandalay) or to one of my children leaving down the hallway. Mandalay has been taught not to go down the hallway at night unless she needs to go out and then she wakes us first. 

As I stated, this child needed more than a few seconds to get TO the dog door, THROUGH the dog door, TO the pool, INTO the pool and then to actually drown. It definitely would have taken him some time to get all of those things accomplished. More time than he should have been left alone for at 18 months. 

When people do not out forethought into potential dangers, trajedies like this happen. It is sad, but preventable.



> Quote:I sure as **** hope that you never have a siezure or something and lose sight of your kid for the 30 seconds or so that he could use to get into trouble.


As for my having a seizure...Did this woman have a seizure? If she did, then my apologies, it was not her fault. My guess is that if there was something happening to physically prevent her from caring for her child, the newspaper would have said so. I could be wrong, but I still think the blame most likely lays with her.


----------



## Mandalay (Apr 21, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: selzer My point is you do not have to agree with what this woman is doing, but you cannot deny her the right to do it.


This, I agree with. She has the right to sue whoever she wants. Heck, she can sue us all on this board for not finding out who she was and not coming to her aid beforehand if she truly feels like it.

But all she is doing is contributing to clogging up our criminal justice systems so that people with real issues cannot get timely trials. She is wasting resources; judges, courtroom time, etc etc. 

Whats going to happen when someone sho is trying to sue someone else for committing a "real" crime can;t because her bs case is being heard and that person then goes back and sues her for taking up the courtoom time? See where I am going? What she is doing affects all of us. She is suing someone else for her lack of true common sense.


----------



## scannergirl (Feb 17, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

I think this is a good illustration of where the fault lies for frivolous lawsuits. This one is crazier than the pet door one, IMHO. It is from the link I posted a page back on this thread- credit Time Magazine. The bold and color emphasis is mine.

_Steven Trunnell's wife, Judy, was the first American resident to die from H1N1. A special education teacher in south Texas, she was eight months pregnant when she contracted the disease; she delivered the baby girl by Caesarean section shortly before she died. Now Trunnell is exploring a lawsuit against Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pork producer, which owns a swine farm in Mexico where the H1N1 outbreak may have originated. Trunnell's lawyer, Marc Rosenthal, claims that Smithfield's dense swine farms created the necessary conditions for H1N1's emergence — and that the company may therefore be responsible in some way for H1N1-related deaths. So far, however, tests done by Mexican authorities found no evidence of the H1N1 virus among Smithfield's Mexican pigs. (See pictures of the effects of swine flu in Mexico.) 

*For Trunnell, the question is more straightforward. "I need someone to be responsible for this," he says.*

Trunnell may be the first person to seek legal redress for H1N1, but he's unlikely to be the last — <span style="color: #3366FF">Rosenthal has already taken on the family of another victim. </span>And it's not hard to imagine parents whose children contracted the disease in class suing city officials for failing to close schools earlier._

Sorry, it's a disease. This is so sad and there is no way I can begin to understand this man's grief but there is no fault here. 
IF the pigs were the source of infection and IF Smithfield knew about it and IF they were negligent about informing public health or attempting to cover it up- none of those situations apply.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

Sue, I'm not sure where you are going with this. Of course anyone has a right to sue anyone for whatever they want. Are you saying you agree with the mother and would do the same thing?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

No, the thread was getting really nasty, I was saying I make allowances for a grieving mother. 

I just do not have the anger that many here have expressed at this woman. I have nothing but pity for her. 

Mandalay, 

This will not slow up anyone's criminal court case because criminal law and civil law are generally tried in different courts and have different dockets.

When I was growing up, there were no little sensor things that tell when an errant toddler has gone out of bed and is roaming. Every day I become more and more shocked that my siblings and I have survived this long.


----------



## emsoskar (Oct 17, 2008)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

Ranfone argued, "It was just unbelievable to me that all of these accidents happened as a result of doggie doors and how come I wasn't informed? I would never have bought the door."

She would have been told what?? That it is possible for her child to fit through an OBVIOUS opening?? Why would it not have occured to her that if her dog can fit thru....and her child sees the dog doing so...that a 2 YEAR OLD may be inclined to give it a try also??

As a mother of 2 children, I feel terrible for this woman and I can't imagine how she feels. A good friend of mine lost her 12 year old daughter in a house fire a few years ago. Her dryer caught on fire and none of the smoke detectors in the house worked. She ran in to wake her daughter and get out of the house. She thought her daughter was coming behind her, but she never got out of the bed...she had already passed from smoke inhalation. She didn't try to sue the dryer manufacturer for killing her child. 

Sometimes things happen due to us parents not realizing hidden dangers or at times, not really giving things enough thought before we do them. Unfortunately, it is often our children who pay the price.


----------



## short1cake (May 29, 2009)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

I really sympathize with the mother for her loss. However, if the child HAD to get out of the house, for a fire or something, and the doggie door didn't function, I could see a lawsuit, possibly. But...to have a doggie door, and have an unfenced pool area with a toddler comes down to irresponsibility on the mother's part. She may have been responsible for 99% of her child's life, but in my opinion failure at that 1% caused this horror, not the door company.


----------



## kg14 (Feb 9, 2009)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

My $0.02

I send my deepest sympathies to the mother. I don't have kids, but I know this must be very hard for her to go through. Loosing a child, especially one that hasn't grown up yet, is something no parent should ever have to go through. That being said, I don't agree with her wanting to sue the dog door manufacturer. If her son were to fall and scrap his knee on concrete somewhere, does that mean its the fault of the people that poured it? I'm not angry with the mother, by no means. I understand the fact that she is grieving. However, if this lawsuit is heard in court, whether she wins or not, the dog door company will have to pay a lot of money to defend themselves. This cost will most likely get passed on to the consumer. That, or some of their lower position employees will have to take a cut in pay. Or perhaps something else, but someone will suffer because of those costs. Costs that came about because of her irrational decision to sue.




> Originally Posted By: selzer
> 
> ...My point is you do not have to agree with what this woman is doing, but you cannot deny her the right to do it. She may not win, she may come away worse off than when she started. The doggy door manufacturer may take a serious hit, even if he wins. ...


I understand that it is her right to sue anyone she wants, and no, we can't deny her that right. But this is another example of this quote from one of my fav movies, Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility." Yes, she does have the power to sue anyone she wants. But with that power comes the responsibility of using that power wisely, which she isn't doing here. I'm sorry, but her grieving is no excuse to make things hard for others for no good reason. I'm not blaming her for her son's death, it was obviously an accident. But I don't think that she should be blaming the dog door company either. I'm surprised no one has stepped up to offer some alternative to help her deal with her grief.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*

Ok, I am sure there are layers somewhere, maybe on this site. Isn't it a professional's responsibility to say, "Lady, you don't have a case."

If the lawyer takes the case, isn't he capitalizing off of someone's grief and pain, even if she stands no chance of winning. Why is that ok? 

I may be so dumb that I do not know to tie my shoes before walking down the street. I may trip over the lace and break my knee. I may choose to sue the shoe company. If I engage a lawyer, should not the lawyer refuse to take the case, and tell me why? 

Why do we hold a grieving mother accountable and not the slimeball that is sucking up her money on a case they can't win? 

This is not a slur on lawyers. My sister's a lawyer. But there are some that will do ANYTHING whatever the cost. These people should be regulated somehow.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

*Re: Child Death, Mother Crusades Against Pet Doors*



> Originally Posted By: selzer...
> Why do we hold a grieving mother accountable and not the slimeball that is sucking up her money on a case they can't win?
> 
> This is not a slur on lawyers. My sister's a lawyer. But there are some that will do ANYTHING whatever the cost. These people should be regulated somehow.


I won't argue about your opinion of some lawyers, I believe a lot of them are called ambulance chasers. 

I could be wrong, but I don't know of any state in the Union that doesn't license and regulate lawyers.

I was curious about the lawyer the article said Carol Ranfone hired, here's his website if you're interested in seeing it.
http://www.productsafetyattorneys.com/Our-Firm


----------

