Thanks, so the town was sued for managing a summer camp where the supervisor couldn't supervise the kids, and it was a structural problem (if was alone peddling 12 kids)
> so the town was sued for managing a summer camp where the supervisor couldn't supervise the kids
Only in the same sense that if one of them had slipped in the shower, hit his head, and died as a result, that would have been equally the fault of the town for not adequately supervising the showers?
If they were supposed to watch after the kids in the shower, well yes.
There was an incident a few months ago about a school van: one of the kids at the rear of the van slept or didn't step out for whatever reason, the driver didn't count the kids and shut the van and went away. The kid was too small and too weak to properly ask for help when it realized it couldn't get out, and died in the bus.
This would be a completely random incident, with no one at fault, if it wasn't for the explicit responsibility of the driver to get the kids out of the bus.
A family wouldn't have the same responsibility, a parent bringing their kids and friend to some game and making the same kind of mistake might also not be at fault. Being a professional with a written explicit responsibility to watch after the kids makes it a different matter.
PS: in the case of the article, I assume there must be a law about not leaving the kids unattended outside in the first place, with a minimum ratio (x adult supervisor for y kids), whatever the circumstances, body of water or not.
> PS: in the case of the article, I assume there must be a law about not leaving the kids unattended outside in the first place, with a minimum ratio (x adult supervisor for y kids), whatever the circumstances, body of water or not.
...that is definitely false, and a truly wild assumption. Why would you believe that?
13-year-olds wander around towns unattended all the time.
