are you suggesting that a parent, who is (presumably) at work during the school day, ought to be more responsible for their kid's well being than the school where their kid is legally required to attend? hhhmmmm...that doesn't sound terribly reasonable, does it?

In civil suits, we have to show REAL damages in most cases. There will be no McDonald's coffee lawsuit for $3 million in Canada. BTW, that case went to a jury...a stupid jury...one that had a juror quoted as saying that this case was about the "callous disregard for the safety of the people" by McDonalds, simply because they had paid out in other cases and knew that their coffee "could" cause serious burns. There's more to it, but that's ludicrous logic, IMHO.

The case of kids in school...that's about legally requiring kids to be in school, thus a school has a duty of care to those students. How would it be reasonable to have a law requiring students to be in school, but for the school to have no responsibility for their well being?

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT are you suggesting that a parent, who is (presumably) at work during the school day, ought to be more responsible for their kid's well being than the school where their kid is legally required to attend? hhhmmmm...that doesn't sound terribly reasonable, does it? In civil suits, we have to show REAL damages in most cases. There will be no McDonald's coffee lawsuit for $3 million in Canada. BTW, that case went to a jury...a stupid jury...one that had a juror quoted as saying that this case was about the "callous disregard for the safety of the people" by McDonalds, simply because they had paid out in other cases and knew that their coffee "could" cause serious burns. There's more to it, but that's ludicrous logic, IMHO. The case of kids in school...that's about legally requiring kids to be in school, thus a school has a duty of care to those students. How would it be reasonable to have a law requiring students to be in school, but for the school to have no responsibility for their well being?

There have been plenty of frivolous lawsuits in Canada, they just don't get publicized as much because unlike Americans, Canadians don't seem to be capable of laughing at themselves. I'm pretty sure I could find you a list or two though, want me to?

And well, remember who you're arguing with here, I don't think it makes any sense to legally require kids to be in school in the first place.

But don't forget that I never had a problem with banning the sale of junk food in public schools. Public schools are, well, public, which means the government can regulate them to their heart's content, as long as the regulations never seep into the private school system. My point has always (and only) been that the negative effects of junk food in schools are VERY minor compared to the effects of millions of parents taking their kids to McDonald's every weekend because "they won't eat anything else" - and let's not kid ourselves, we've all heard at least one parent give us a lame excuse like this.

Will banning junk food help? Sure, maybe a tiny bit, but band-aid legal solutions which ignore the real problem only servce to quicken the path to nanny-statism and don't provide any significant lasting benefits.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Last edited by DigiNut on Nov-16-2004 at 02:09