What Price A Child's Life?

[paraffin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-119941 5/Parents-toddler-drowned-holiday-park-pond-or dered-repay-25-000-compensation.html

Grieving parents of drowned toddler ordered to repay �25000 compensation by 3 Judges at the Court of Appeal because "accidents do happen."

Are the noble lords applying the law correctly?

[Ice.Maiden]

It's a difficult one to answer paraffin, because no amount of money could compensate for this child's life.
My personal opinion, is that parents are responsible for keeping a watchful eye on their children. They might not've been told that there was a pond nearby, but all manner of other horrible accidents could've happened.
Youngsters DO toddle off, and a child of that age should've been kept on reins, or been held by the hand - but so many parents don't give a thought to turning away for a few minutes. It's a horrible story, and that's all I can say.

[paraffin]

Great answer, Ice, couldn't have put it any better.

It's a tragedy it happened in the first place, although this decision by these "Noble Lords" can only have compounded the parents' grief, if that's possible.

[Ice.Maiden]

Absolutely. To take away the compensation once it'd been awarded was cruel, but I imagine it was the terrible grief which the parents were going through, which made them fight for compensation in the first place. When tragedies such as this happen, it's natural to want to blame someone other than yourselves, but quite frankly, although no one could ever wish for such an accident to happen, had the parents been more vigilant, it wouldn't have.

[buildersmate]

To be fair and transparent, any appeal process has to work both ways. It is a fundamental principle of law.
So both culprit and victim have equal rights in terms of deciding to appeal. And equal opportunity for the 'greater decision-maker' to change the origin decision.
I cannot envisage a process that could say 'those lower-level judges got it wrong, still it would be a bit unfair to take it off you now'.
However it enabled the Daily Mail to sell a few more newspapers.

[barry1010]

I'm very pleased this has been recognised as a tragic accident.
After all, if you re looking for somebody to blame you could just as easily charge the parents with neglect as the park owners.

[susiespider]

It's the right and common sense decision. I can't understand the mentality of parents trying to make money from the loss of their child, it's not as if they've suffered any financial loss, the opposite if anything. I speak as someone who has lost a son and even if I felt someone was to blame, there is no way I would ever dream of sueing them, as my son was worth far more to me than all the money in the world. If I'd been given a sum of money for losing him, I would never in a million years be able to bring myself to spend one penny of it. The very idea of being "compensated" for his loss by money would be an insult to his memory and to my love for him.

[pinktwink]

yes a tough one indeed no amount of money compensates for the loss of a child. Its a parents job to be vigilant with their children especially in strange places where children may wander off. I guess these parents will struggle for the rest of their lives with some sense of guilt and so it is easier to lay blame at the owners then face the harsh reality that maybe the accident could have been prevented. God love their loss

[paraffin]

Thanks for the contributions, guys.

A truly emotive subject and one, I believe, where there were no "winners". God forbid that these things should even happen.