lol her english is horrible! anyway she was deep in texting and it seemed like nothing would stop her. maybe we should put cones on the street so she doesnt walk into traffic too.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Teen Girl Falls In Open Manhole While Texting
- Thread starter samcraig
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I remember when this happened. As soon as those workers turned and left the manhole unattended, they were in violation of OSHA code 1910.23
End of discussion.
End of discussion.
that's not the end of the discussion LOL... That's just stating a fact that supports the guilt of the city.
But thanks for playing!
And absolves the girl of any wrongdoing. From a legal standpoint, anyway.
Cut & Dry, open/shut...whatever your preference. She shouldn't have to have been paying attention. There should have been a barricade or a human to alert her of a hazard.
Thanks for trying.
Ok - so legally she's excused. In the court of public opinion however, her lack of acceptance that perhaps she shouldn't have been texting and not paying attention makes a slight fail against her.
And this thread isn't asking if she is legally or not legally responsibly. It's a DISCUSSION thread. So your attempt at ending a thread just because you think there's nothing to discuss is what I was referring to. Thanks for trying. Unfortunately - you didn't succeed in ending the discussion with your "finale."
Your OP asked if she should take SOME responsibility. The answer is no, she shouldn't. No more responsible than if she was walking while looking up to look at a low flying helicopter or some other distraction. She shouldn't have to look for open manholes while taking a stroll.
I think she's dumber than a bag of hammers, but she's in no way responsible for her fall.
I'm the OP. But I guess you didn't read the whole thread - or the indication next to my name in this thread.
And I disagree - she's no way LEGALLY responsible. There's a difference. And someone should be alert at all times when walking AND texting. Or they shouldn't be texting while walking.
OSHA codes are made to protect workers in their work place not the public in general. City ordinances and laws are written for public safety. If the city has no rules or laws about what to do if a man hole is uncovered, then it will be up to a judge to decide how much each party is at fault. My personal feeling is the person falling in the hole is at fault for not watching where she was going.
I have seen people walk into street signs and get seriously hurt is that the cities fault. No because pedestrians are expected to watch where they are going. If people get hurt because they neglected their duty to pay attention they may be considered at fault. It really depends on all circumstances involved. The girl freely admitted she was not paying attention, which most likely means if she had not been texting she could have avoided the open hole.
Yes, I know. That's why I started my post with the words 'Your OP'. But I guess you didn't read the whole post.
- It's a legal requirement to cordon off and signpost a manhole cover _before_ opening it.
- It's therefore not an unreasonable expectation that if such a cover is open there will be a cordon and signposts.
- It's therefore the case that the minimum requirement for paying attention that any pedestrian should have expected of them is to look out for obstacles above ground level.
- It also follows that no-one here knows that she wasn't doing that considering it doesn't say she walked into a person, a tree or in front of a car/van/truck/lorry.
- If it's not an unreasonable expectation that all major hazards will be above ground level then pedestrian areas can be considered safe enough for walking+texting within limits.
Those codes are extended to the public in general when the workplace is not fenced off as a hardhat/construction area. As for the rest of your post, see above for response.
This is where your logic fails or falls apart. It's reasonable that any pedestrian would/should be paying enough attention to their surroundings regardless. Whether they are walking in bare feet and step on glass, walking into a new mailbox that wasn't there before or whatever.
Pedestrians have the right of way - does that mean they SHOULDN'T look both ways before crossing at a crosswalk? You know - just in case?
I would accept your logic here if for some reason she was walking and suddenly and without warning, the sidewalk gave way and because she was texting didn't have the same reflexes. Or that even if she wasn't texting - she failed to get out of the way of a crumbling sidewalk.
my .02 Again - I am not saying she's legally at fault. Nor am I saying the city is innocent in any way. But it's not UNREASONABLE to suggest that if she wasn't lost in her world of texting the accident could have been avoided.
Again - contributing factor. Her REACTION is what is off-putting. She acted as if she should be able to walk anywhere without paying attention. Her "shock" is what is offputting
