CHARLESTON, W.Va. Elementary school playgrounds in one West Virginia county are losing their swing sets.

Swings are being removed from Cabell County schools in southern West Virginia in part because of lawsuits over injuries.

Cabell County schools safety manager Tim Stewart said Wednesday that a lot of parents are accusing him of being un-American, but he says the cost of maintaining a safe surface is too expensive.

Stewart says a lawsuit in the past year involved a youngster who broke his arm jumping off a swing like Superman. It was settled for $20,000.

Other equipment such as monkey bars will remain. Stewart says the schools are able to maintain the proper protection underneath them.

------

IMO, this all stems from the lack of personal responsibility. If my kid jumped off something and broke his arm, I wouldn't even think of sueing anyone. But with medical costs as high as they are in the US (due partially to lawyers and their lawsuits), maybe this was the only way to cover the expenses? If we could only do something about all the lawyers - but then American politicians are mostly lawyers themselves (Obama included) so I guess we're stuck. I just sincerely hope the rest of the world doesn't follow suit (pardon the pun) but I'm afraid that there is too much easy money involved for it not to.

The Elf 'n' safety brigade started doing this years ago in Blighty.

Pointless if you ask me, kids will always find a way to hurt themselves.

In a world where we are taught that things happen to us and not because of us then it's easy to see how events are rationalized to lay blame for our misfortunes elsewhere.

How many would take responsibility for their own illnesses, for instance? Er, not many. How many would take responsibility for the way they feel at any given time? How many would take responsibility for their own welfare? For their own lot in life?

I wouldn't expect a resounding "Yes!" from anyone on the above. But then the conundrum regarding responsibility becomes apparent with the question, "Where does our responsibility begin and where does it end?" It's easy to see how that question could be debated eternally without an answer ever being determined by concensus.

Perhaps there could never be agreement because there is no grey area in the answer? Perhaps the truth is that we are 100% responsible for all of the events of our lives? Perhaps we have been taught wrongly all along yet we have since become so utterly convinced of this "truth" that now to even consider accepting the concept of total responsibility would be utterly preposterous?

And in accepting full responsibility what would this imply in regards to who we are? Would it point to the idea that we create our own lives? And would that be a preposterous idea? Could anyone be accepting of such awesome responsibility? And when we lay blame are we not assigning this power to create to others? In which case we rationalize that they have power to create (after all, they are doing such and such to us) and we don't? Or maybe their power is greater and ours is less?

What would the world look like if we were to accept full responsibility for every aspect of our lives? And what does the world look like when we refuse? Is the contrast stark enough?

Sorry, koheesti, for taking this topic and delving deep under the surface of what appears to be an innocuous subject with some hard questioning aimed at the root. These could be ideas which would be fun to play with. To do so would require that folks set aside, at least temporarily, any preconceived ideas they may have regarding this subject for the fun of considering other possibilities. Perhaps there is more to learn?

Mai pen rai, Tipp.

I'm responsible for myself. My stay here in Europe has been extended 2-3 weeks because I somehow injured my knee and will need surgery. I do not have insurance. I have friends who have offered to put me on their company as an employee so I could get state funded healthcare. I've told them that I knew the risk I was taking being uninsured. I'm lucky that I can say this because the surgery is affordable ($650 USD). If it were in the tens of thousands of dollars, I might have to take them up on their offer and felt bad about it.

Mai pen rai, Tipp.

I'm responsible for myself. My stay here in Europe has been extended 2-3 weeks because I somehow injured my knee and will need surgery. I do not have insurance. I have friends who have offered to put me on their company as an employee so I could get state funded healthcare. I've told them that I knew the risk I was taking being uninsured. I'm lucky that I can say this because the surgery is affordable ($650 USD). If it were in the tens of thousands of dollars, I might have to take them up on their offer and felt bad about it.

It's good to hear about someone taking responsibility for themselves - especially in these days where the entitlement mentality is spreading like a virus.

Sorry to hear about your knee, koheesti. Enjoy your extended stay. A silver lining in every dark cloud?

The loss of the swings in the playground is but one example of many where our freedoms are being taken away because of the greed that is pervasive and growing in today's world. Punish all due to the greed of a few. I don't blame it on the lawyers (big surprise ), for if the public was not greedy, there would be no one for the lawyers in this type of scenario to represent.

The loss of the swings in the playground is but one example of many where our freedoms are being taken away because of the greed that is pervasive and growing in today's world. Punish all due to the greed of a few. I don't blame it on the lawyers (big surprise ), for if the public was not greedy, there would be no one for the lawyers in this type of scenario to represent.

Greed can be involved, for sure. But I can see where a lot of laws restricting our freedoms are grounded in the issue of safety. Something bad happens to someone, they refuse to take responsibility and blame others for their misfortune, then scream intolerably until politicians acquiesce by passing laws to "protect" us. Of course what's implied in all of their screaming is that if someone doesn't take action (the action they would like to see and believe to be appropriate and workable) then our "leaders" are being "irresponsible." (Sorry, I have to place quotes around "leaders" because I don't think any these politicians are qualified be my leader.) And those who do accept responsibility feel strangled by all of these laws.

Where safety is the issue, I have to ask whether or not anyone can truly protect anyone else? While I certainly think it seems so at times I do believe that the ultimate reality says, "No." We keep trying and from what I see it's not working out too well.

The loss of the swings in the playground is but one example of many where our freedoms are being taken away because of the greed that is pervasive and growing in today's world. Punish all due to the greed of a few. I don't blame it on the lawyers (big surprise ), for if the public was not greedy, there would be no one for the lawyers in this type of scenario to represent.

Greed can be involved, for sure. But I can see where a lot of laws restricting our freedoms are grounded in the issue of safety. Something bad happens to someone, they refuse to take responsibility and blame others for their misfortune, then scream intolerably until politicians acquiesce by passing laws to "protect" us. Of course what's implied in all of their screaming is that if someone doesn't take action (the action they would like to see and believe to be appropriate and workable) then our "leaders" are being "irresponsible." (Sorry, I have to place quotes around "leaders" because I don't think any these politicians are qualified be my leader.) And those who do accept responsibility feel strangled by all of these laws.

Where safety is the issue, I have to ask whether or not anyone can truly protect anyone else? While I certainly think it seems so at times I do believe that the ultimate reality says, "No." We keep trying and from what I see it's not working out too well.

The OP's example has to do with swing sets that are being misused by the injured students ("lawsuit in the past year involved a youngster who broke his arm jumping off a swing like Superman"). So in this case it has nothing to do with the safety of the device, but the irresponsibility of the user.

I agree with you if the instrument causing the injury is inherently unsafe. But that was not the case here.

The OP's example has to do with swing sets that are being misused by the injured students ("lawsuit in the past year involved a youngster who broke his arm jumping off a swing like Superman"). So in this case it has nothing to do with the safety of the device, but the irresponsibility of the user.

I agree with you if the instrument causing the injury is inherently unsafe. But that was not the case here.

The swing sets are being removed precisely due to being determined that they are unsafe as injuries result from their use, which then prompt lawsuits by those who refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions. Do you not suppose the lawsuits revolve around a lack of safety?

Of the millions upon millions of kids who have used swing sets and derived pleasure and happiness from them without any mishaps whatsoever the rationale is that as long as a few do injure themselves it is in the best interest of safety for all to now prohibit their use.

I do blame the lawyers because they are not interested in truth but in money only. They willing promulgate falsity in belief by offering flawed rationales to serve as proofs that encourage and allow people to neglect their responsibility while at the same time laying blame where it does not exist. Can there be greater examples of lack of self-integrity?

Yes, koheesti is highlighting the crux of the issue, and I agree; the refusal of people to accept responsibility for themselves. You pointed out that this leads to freedoms getting revoked as a result. I'm illustrating how safety more often than not becomes the misleading focal point.

The OP's example has to do with swing sets that are being misused by the injured students ("lawsuit in the past year involved a youngster who broke his arm jumping off a swing like Superman"). So in this case it has nothing to do with the safety of the device, but the irresponsibility of the user.

I agree with you if the instrument causing the injury is inherently unsafe. But that was not the case here.

The swing sets are being removed precisely due to being determined that they are unsafe as injuries result from their use, which then prompt lawsuits by those who refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions. Do you not suppose the lawsuits revolve around a lack of safety?

Of the millions upon millions of kids who have used swing sets and derived pleasure and happiness from them without any mishaps whatsoever the rationale is that as long as a few do injure themselves it is in the best interest of safety for all to now prohibit their use.

I do blame the lawyers because they are not interested in truth but in money only. They willing promulgate falsity in belief by offering flawed rationales to serve as proofs that encourage and allow people to neglect their responsibility while at the same time laying blame where it does not exist. Can there be greater examples of lack of self-integrity?

Yes, koheesti is highlighting the crux of the issue, and I agree; the refusal of people to accept responsibility for themselves. You pointed out that this leads to freedoms getting revoked as a result. I'm illustrating how safety more often than not becomes the misleading focal point.

Perhaps I was not clear. It was the IMPROPER use of the swings (children letting go of the swing and flying through the air like "Superman") that was the cause of the injuries. If the swing sets were inherently dangerous, thereby resulting in injury to children using them PROPERLY (not flying through the air), the manufacturers of the swing sets would have been liable, not the school, and the plaintiffs would not be shirking responsibility by seeking damages (money) as the result of the malfunctioning swings.

Blaming lawyers due to their alleged interest in money is not only misplaced, but supposition. Even if your guess about the lawyers' motives is true, they would not have any clients if the parents of those injured as the result of IMPROPER use of the swings were not greedy.

Conversely, if a lawyer has a client whose claim is valid (injured as the result of the PROPER use of a defective product), then clearly it is in the client's best interest that the lawyer is successful. Success in a personal injury case is often measured by the amount of money (damages) secured on behalf of the client.

The OP's example has to do with swing sets that are being misused by the injured students ("lawsuit in the past year involved a youngster who broke his arm jumping off a swing like Superman"). So in this case it has nothing to do with the safety of the device, but the irresponsibility of the user.

I agree with you if the instrument causing the injury is inherently unsafe. But that was not the case here.

The swing sets are being removed precisely due to being determined that they are unsafe as injuries result from their use, which then prompt lawsuits by those who refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions. Do you not suppose the lawsuits revolve around a lack of safety?

Of the millions upon millions of kids who have used swing sets and derived pleasure and happiness from them without any mishaps whatsoever the rationale is that as long as a few do injure themselves it is in the best interest of safety for all to now prohibit their use.

I do blame the lawyers because they are not interested in truth but in money only. They willing promulgate falsity in belief by offering flawed rationales to serve as proofs that encourage and allow people to neglect their responsibility while at the same time laying blame where it does not exist. Can there be greater examples of lack of self-integrity?

Yes, koheesti is highlighting the crux of the issue, and I agree; the refusal of people to accept responsibility for themselves. You pointed out that this leads to freedoms getting revoked as a result. I'm illustrating how safety more often than not becomes the misleading focal point.

Perhaps I was not clear. It was the IMPROPER use of the swings (children letting go of the swing and flying through the air like "Superman") that was the cause of the injuries. If the swing sets were inherently dangerous, thereby resulting in injury to children using them PROPERLY (not flying through the air), the manufacturers of the swing sets would have been liable, not the school, and the plaintiffs would not be shirking responsibility by seeking damages (money) as the result of the malfunctioning swings.

Blaming lawyers due to their alleged interest in money is not only misplaced, but supposition. Even if your guess about the lawyers' motives is true, they would not have any clients if the parents of those injured as the result of IMPROPER use of the swings were not greedy.

Conversely, if a lawyer has a client whose claim is valid (injured as the result of the PROPER use of a defective product), then clearly it is in the client's best interest that the lawyer is successful. Success in a personal injury case is often measured by the amount of money (damages) secured on behalf of the client.

A kid pretending he was Superman was the sole example of injuries cited and there's no debate that his injury was due to improper use. And it was probably the single example cited because it may have been the most obvious in illustrating an unwarranted lawsuit (that was won) due to refusal of accepting personal responsibility. The article goes on to say that the cost of providing a safe surface underneath was too costly, hence swing sets are not inherently but potentially dangerous (as is just about anything else one can think of). So the swing sets are being removed because they are not considered safe without a safe surface. Monkey bars are equipped with a safe surface and therefore remain.

The parents of this kid sued, and settled, for $20,000. If it is so obvious to most everyone that this kid should accept responsibility for his actions and therefore would have no right to sue (find blame elsewhere) then it is my opinion that it is equally obvious that the lawyer(s) who took this case was unscrupulous. They are, therefore, to blame, or in other words they play their parts, in promoting societal values which condone shirking responsibility.

I would not think of generalizing lawyers to conclude they are all to blame, obviously. If you were a lawyer (and perhaps you are?) would you accept a case such as the example in the article?

The OP's example has to do with swing sets that are being misused by the injured students ("lawsuit in the past year involved a youngster who broke his arm jumping off a swing like Superman"). So in this case it has nothing to do with the safety of the device, but the irresponsibility of the user.

I agree with you if the instrument causing the injury is inherently unsafe. But that was not the case here.

The swing sets are being removed precisely due to being determined that they are unsafe as injuries result from their use, which then prompt lawsuits by those who refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions. Do you not suppose the lawsuits revolve around a lack of safety?

Of the millions upon millions of kids who have used swing sets and derived pleasure and happiness from them without any mishaps whatsoever the rationale is that as long as a few do injure themselves it is in the best interest of safety for all to now prohibit their use.

I do blame the lawyers because they are not interested in truth but in money only. They willing promulgate falsity in belief by offering flawed rationales to serve as proofs that encourage and allow people to neglect their responsibility while at the same time laying blame where it does not exist. Can there be greater examples of lack of self-integrity?

Yes, koheesti is highlighting the crux of the issue, and I agree; the refusal of people to accept responsibility for themselves. You pointed out that this leads to freedoms getting revoked as a result. I'm illustrating how safety more often than not becomes the misleading focal point.

Perhaps I was not clear. It was the IMPROPER use of the swings (children letting go of the swing and flying through the air like "Superman") that was the cause of the injuries. If the swing sets were inherently dangerous, thereby resulting in injury to children using them PROPERLY (not flying through the air), the manufacturers of the swing sets would have been liable, not the school, and the plaintiffs would not be shirking responsibility by seeking damages (money) as the result of the malfunctioning swings.

Blaming lawyers due to their alleged interest in money is not only misplaced, but supposition. Even if your guess about the lawyers' motives is true, they would not have any clients if the parents of those injured as the result of IMPROPER use of the swings were not greedy.

Conversely, if a lawyer has a client whose claim is valid (injured as the result of the PROPER use of a defective product), then clearly it is in the client's best interest that the lawyer is successful. Success in a personal injury case is often measured by the amount of money (damages) secured on behalf of the client.

A kid pretending he was Superman was the sole example of injuries cited and there's no debate that his injury was due to improper use. And it was probably the single example cited because it may have been the most obvious in illustrating an unwarranted lawsuit (that was won) due to refusal of accepting personal responsibility. The article goes on to say that the cost of providing a safe surface underneath was too costly, hence swing sets are not inherently but potentially dangerous (as is just about anything else one can think of). So the swing sets are being removed because they are not considered safe without a safe surface. Monkey bars are equipped with a safe surface and therefore remain.

The parents of this kid sued, and settled, for $20,000. If it is so obvious to most everyone that this kid should accept responsibility for his actions and therefore would have no right to sue (find blame elsewhere) then it is my opinion that it is equally obvious that the lawyer(s) who took this case was unscrupulous. They are, therefore, to blame, or in other words they play their parts, in promoting societal values which condone shirking responsibility.

I would not think of generalizing lawyers to conclude they are all to blame, obviously. If you were a lawyer (and perhaps you are?) would you accept a case such as the example in the article?

We agree.

I am a lawyer, and no, I never would accept a PI case for the purpose of rewarding irresponsible behavior.

We agree.

I am a lawyer, and no, I never would accept a PI case for the purpose of rewarding irresponsible behavior.

:jap:

i put the insurance companies in the firing line because they are the ones who push the lawyers to make the changes that save them money. one of the nice things about living in s.e. asia is the no fault aspect of life,i.e. if i walk on a wet floor and fall on my ass it is my fault not the stores. when the situation is serious such as medical mal practice the two parties get together and make settlements typically without insurance companies or lawyers envolved.

i put the insurance companies in the firing line because they are the ones who push the lawyers to make the changes that save them money. one of the nice things about living in s.e. asia is the no fault aspect of life,i.e. if i walk on a wet floor and fall on my ass it is my fault not the stores. when the situation is serious such as medical mal practice the two parties get together and make settlements typically without insurance companies or lawyers envolved.

Where there is money to be made (in the case of insurance companies it is to receive premiums for coverage whilst fixing laws and setting fine print so that they can then deny claims) there is no path some people won't go down - self-integrity be damned. Little do they understand what the true trade-offs are for their short-sighted greed.

I concur with your sentiment regarding the "no fault" aspect of life in S.E. Asia. It's refreshing (for however long it will last).

Its ok for the kids to act like monkeys (retain monkey bars) but not like superman (eliminate swings) Seems to be typical thinking/logic in that part of the world anymore.

Its ok for the kids to act like monkeys (retain monkey bars) but not like superman (eliminate swings) Seems to be typical thinking/logic in that part of the world anymore.

Stewart says a lawsuit in the past year involved a youngster who broke his arm jumping off a swing like Superman. It was settled for $20,000.

When word gets out that one can get a decent amount of money for injuring themselves by misusing a swing set expect copy cats to start coming out of the woodwork.

It's like not long after that old woman sued McDonald's after spilling hot coffee on herself and finding out it was indeed hot, some guy in Holland I think it was tried to sue because the filling of his McD's apple pie burned his arm.

Here's an imaginative exercise for all: in what ways would the world change if people accepted 100% responsibility for not only everything that happened in their lives but also for the way they feel?

I'll start with the most obvious . . . their would be far less blame laid, if any. That would be a HUGE difference. The effects would be vast and touch us in so many ways it would be difficult to describe them all.