SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (6985)6/9/2007 11:39:43 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) of 10087
 
There is a difference. The baby sitter was payed to be watchful and so there is that requirement of parenting that is elevated as the number one priority.

If a parent had done the things a reasonable adult should be expected to do with regards to the pool then, a parent should not be charged, if the kids got around them somehow. It would be hard to claim the baby sitter, paid to watch, had done what a reasonable adult in the same circumstance would be expected to do. At a minumum she should have had some plan to deal with the kids waking up that was safe and reasonable. That's why she was there.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News