Is this a step too far

[unicorn]

I just saw an advert on tv for this company http://www.kidzclaimz.co.uk/About%20us.htm
they specialise in compensation for accidents children have had.
Is this a step too far?
Does this now mean that if your child has a friend round playing on your swing set in the garden and the child has an accident requiring hospital treatment, you can be claimed from?
I find this more than a little bit scary :eek:. You can also watch the advert on the site.

[Julia]

I saw the very advert you are referring to quite a long time and I remember being quite shocked! It's a fact of life that kids fall or trip over and it is certainly very sad that someone has thought up ways to profit from 'normal' playtime.

[nanoo]

I just saw an advert on tv for this company http://www.kidzclaimz.co.uk/About%20us.htm (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.kidzclaimz.co.uk/About%20us.htm)
they specialise in compensation for accidents children have had.
Is this a step too far?
Does this now mean that if your child has a friend round playing on your swing set in the garden and the child has an accident requiring hospital treatment, you can be claimed from?
I find this more than a little bit scary :eek:. You can also watch the advert on the site.
I agree with you on this Unicorn. Scrapes and scratches and even the more serious broken ankle,wrist,arm or leg was always refered to as the knocks of life, you got over it and got on with life in general. Everything is changing(and not for the better, i might add) My Mum used to say, what does'nt kill you, makes you stronger.

[changilass]

The government should stamp on this one, its bliddy stupid.

There are that many overweight kids these days and this is just another way of stoping them playing and getting exercise.[disgust]

[unicorn]

Are we all going to have public liability insurance just in case our child brings home a friend who has an accident in the garden or will we just have to stop kids visiting so as not to be at risk of financial crippling :eek:

[rockchick]

I thought your home buildings insurance covered at least a certain amount of liability.

Across the pond a $1,000,000 policy is standard with every homeowner's policy.

[connieb19]

The government should stamp on this one, its bliddy stupid.

There are that many overweight kids these days and this is just another way of stoping them playing and getting exercise.[disgust]With so many overweight kids on the go I often wonder why no under 16's are allowed into the Wick gym. It's probably down to something stupid like people trying to sue but if they are supervised I don't see what harm they could come to as long as they were not lifting the weights. :confused It seems silly that a council run gym don't allow kids to take part.

[unicorn]

There are lots of people who don't have house insurance though, so who would pay?
I assume the gym don't let under 16's in due to an insurance clause and with claims companies now targeting the child market I suppose many other places may well change their policies now too.
Kids often have accidents it is a fact of life.

[rockchick]

There are lots of people who don't have house insurance though, so who would pay?
I assume the gym don't let under 16's in due to an insurance clause and with claims companies now targeting the child market I suppose many other places may well change their policies now too.
Kids often have accidents it is a fact of life.

I suppose it's a sign of a more litigious society, but pretty much everyone, whether renter or owner, has either homeowner's or tenant's insurance across the pond. Now with more people getting sued here, and if court awards make it feasible that people will get worried about the cost of getting sued, it's a sure thing the insurance industry here will start rolling out these policies (but at British prices, of course!)

The under-16's policy at the gym would be (at least) two-fold: First, the gym has a higher duty of care to children than to adults...the gym isn't supervised other than cctv, and that wouldn't be considered reasonable to protect children. In comparison, the pool has a life-guard at the poolside at all times. Secondly, children's bodies aren't quite fully formed, and softer bones can actually be damaged by the use of weight equipment. It's better to weight until they're fully grown before undertaking a weight-training program.

[Rheghead]

I think this is just a legal safety net for those instances where our children (who are the most vulnerable in our society) do have proper legal representation and isn't there for just scrapes and accidents. If someone is deemed to be responsible or negligent then why should a child's injury be shrugged off as one of those things when an adult in the same situation could sue for big compo?

[connieb19]

The under-16's policy at the gym would be (at least) two-fold: First, the gym has a higher duty of care to children than to adults...the gym isn't supervised other than cctv, and that wouldn't be considered reasonable to protect children. In comparison, the pool has a life-guard at the poolside at all times. Secondly, children's bodies aren't quite fully formed, and softer bones can actually be damaged by the use of weight equipment. It's better to weight until they're fully grown before undertaking a weight-training program.Surely as long as they stayed off the weights though there wouldnt be too much of a problem. What harm could they come to by going on the crosstrainer, treadmill, bikes or rowing machine. You would think they would allow for under 16's even if only one night a week.

[ett23]

Surely as long as they stayed off the weights though there wouldnt be too much of a problem. What harm could they come to by going on the crosstrainer, treadmill, bikes or rowing machine. You would think they would allow for under 16's even if only one night a week.

I took Standard Grade P.E. in school and we were allowed to use the weight machines in the high school - from the age of 12/13!! Why should kids not use weight machines in council gyms? And the type of things they make you do in P.E. are sometimes even more strenuous than a gym workout!!! At least that was my experience. ;)

[connieb19]

I took Standard Grade P.E. in school and we were allowed to use the weight machines in the high school - from the age of 12/13!! Why should kids not use weight machines in council gyms? And the type of things they make you do in P.E. are sometimes even more strenuous than a gym workout!!! At least that was my experience. ;)I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying if theyre not allowed to use the weights then surely they should be allowed to use all the other stuff. The Government shouts about kids being overweight, banning junk food adverts and the like but wont let kids use gyms.

[EWOK]

If the council feel they are going to be held responsible for children having accidents in playgrounds I would not be suprised if they take them away. It is going to make me think twice about having other peoples children at our home and garden.

[rockchick]

Surely as long as they stayed off the weights though there wouldnt be too much of a problem. What harm could they come to by going on the crosstrainer, treadmill, bikes or rowing machine. You would think they would allow for under 16's even if only one night a week.

You can actually get seriously injured on this type of equipment, from falling off it (and yes that does happen) to getting fingers/lacers caught, to injuries from over-use or incorrect use. Without competent supervision in the room the gym is leaving themselves wide open legally for these sorts of damages for under 16's. Over 16s would be considered competent enough to supervise themselves, but only after an induction.

Probably the only way the gym could allow it is if the parent(s) of the child undertook to supervise their under-16 while using the gym.

School use of weights and gym equipment are done under the supervision of a PE teacher.

If kids want to get fit, there's always swimming, running outdoors (instead of on a treadmill), ride a real bike (instead of a stationary one) or even just walk to school. Most gym activities can be done to a certain extent without using a Universal Gym (i.e. press-ups, ab crunchs, squats...). Don't use lack of access to a gym as an excuse not to get fitter.