Playground bullies

Ugh, another one of those "lawsuits are killing playgrounds" stories in the New York Times Tuesday...

All of these stories hew to a typical formula: Wise elders bemoan that kids are getting lazy/fat/fearful/depressed/stressed out because lawsuits have deprived them of the tall slides/monkey bars/other dangerous equipment of old, from which to take risks and exercise their growing muscles. All such stories, including the one in the Times, use the author's own sepia-toned childhood memories of "unstructured free time" as a benchmark for measuring the new "nanny state" and its efforts to protect children from injury.

Every time I read one of these, I have to think that the authors haven't spent much time on playgrounds lately, because the rare new playground equipment going into the lucky few places that can afford it, is really, really cool--way cooler than anything I ever played on as a kid, and it's far from boring. Right now, my local city playground is about to install a rock-climbing wall that's high enough to give the geezer parents in our neighborhood heart palpitations.

Apparently, though, the folks at Common Good, the tort reform group that is the genesis for much of the "dumbed down playground" news coverage, think turning your knees into hamburger every time you go out to play is a character-building exercise. They think that our litigious culture has given kids a "bubble-wrapped" existence that doesn't subject them to enough risk. If they don't break a few bones falling off monkey bars, Common Good argues, they won't grow up to be risk-taking "entrepreneurs" (or maybe insurance defense lawyers, in the case of Common Good's former executive director Franklin Stone, whose bubble-wrapped quote appeared in the Times).

Really, though, these death of the playground stories miss the big picture. Besides the fact that there isn't exactly a big parent constituency lobbying for more dangerous play structures, drive around any suburban gated community and you'll see all that's missing at the playground: a swing set in every yard, a Moonbounce in every basement. The biggest threat to the modern playground is not the lawsuit, but the lack of investment in public parks and public schools.

I wish that lawsuits were as effective at directing municipal behavior as Common Good's luminaries believe. If they were, the D.C. parks and rec department might clean up the broken glass and condoms off our playground in a more timely fashion. In some areas of the city, the only way to get city workers to a playground is to report the presence of a corpse in the sandbox. Kids in our city face plenty of risks when they venture on to the playground. Unfortunately, they're not the sort of risks that can be remedied in a courthouse. 

Comments

[Jim Collins]

Would you support a law that prohibited lawsuits from use of playground equipment and facilities? I'm not talking about injuries from equipment and facilities that were in disrepair.

An example of what I'm referring to would be if little Billy broke his leg because he decided to jump off of the swing at the top of it's arc. If the swing's chain broke causing a broken leg that is entirely different and wouldn't be covered by the law.

Reason I'm asking is that the town I live in banned skateboarding on the sidewalks. They built a free skateboard area at the local park. A week after it opened, a kid broke his leg trying to do a handstand on his board. The parents promptly sued the city. The park has been locked up since.

[JMG]

No, but I would support saying that this is simply another example of the WA Monument effect mentioned earlier--anyone filing what is (as described) a baseless suit that will soon be dismissed summarily causes the loss of the entire park.

Municipalities get sued for roads/buses/elevators/signage/zoning/etc. etc. ALL THE TIME. If they closed the skate park because someone sued them, then they should close the streets and sidewalks for the same reason. The bottom line is that a kid trying to do a handstand is not a good plaintiff for an action against the city. Defending these suits is what city attorneys are for.

[Elliot]

"Municipalities get sued for roads/buses/elevators/signage/zoning/etc. etc. ALL THE TIME. If they closed the skate park because someone sued them, then they should close the streets and sidewalks for the same reason. The bottom line is that a kid trying to do a handstand is not a good plaintiff for an action against the city. Defending these suits is what city attorneys are for."

City Attorneys cost money. Defending even a baseless case can cost a lot. If the City gets sued for the condition of the streets and sidewalks, they pretty much have to eat those costs, because they can't eliminate streets and sidewalks. But they *can* eliminate playgrounds, so they will do so if the litigation costs are too high.

[Webdude]

Mr. Collins can correct me if I'm wrong, and identify his city, but googling his email address I found a jimc5499 who lives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. That city has no apparent shortage of year-round skateparks. http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/parks/html/more_activities.html

[Jim Collins]

Actually I live in a smaller town about 30 miles from Pittsburgh. I work in Pittsburgh. What we had was an old tennis court that was reconstructed into an unsupervised skateboard area. The area was fenced in, but the gates were open all of the time. After the kid broke his leg the gates were locked by the Parks Department. An article about the suit was in the local newspaper and stated that the City was keeping the area locked due to their insurance company refusing to cover the skateboard area.

[Webdude]

So the problem is not skateparks, per se, it's that the city had neglected to obtain insurance which would cover accidents in skateparks? That's a bit like your buying a second car, getting into an accident, trying to make a claim with your insurance, and being told, "You should have added that car to your policy if you wanted coverage, and by the way we don't issue policies to cars with salvage titles."

[Jim Collins]

No. It is like skydiving after packing your own parachute wrong and then having your family sue the parachute manufacturer.

If the skatepark had broken concrete surfaces, or if the half-pipe had collapsed while being used then I would agree with the City being sued. That didn't happen. This kid tried a stunt with some risk to it and injured himself as a result.

The lawsuit over what is basically a self-inflicted injury is what made the insurance company decide to no longe provide coverage for the skatepark.