Lawsuits over Sling Deaths

[Tiff]

I was curious what everyone things of the lawsuits against the company that made the slings and had LOs pass away in them. Do you think its right of the parents to sue the company?

There is a part of me that understands the need to blame something/someone for all of it. I was reading a friends blog who spoke about this and it made me really sit and think about it all.

She pointed out that she has never purchased a sling or any infant product that advises parents that they don't need to be vigilant with checking on their children in any type of child paraphernalia. Be it a high chair, stroller, jumperoo, infant carrier... etc...

I can see people wanting to have companies not only recall but discontinue slings or anything of that nature that has been found to be harmful to a child. But at what point does parental protection stop and Company negligence start?

Was curious on other people's opinions.

 

[special_kala]

i think like everything slings need to be used correctly to be safe.

i had a babasling and didnt like it as i couldnt get the positioning right so we didntt use it. i like to think i am very very aware of river in our carriers and when she is asleep and up close then im even more aware of her and check on her alot.

 

[Rachel_C]

I don't know really. If it was a type of sling that was known to be perfectly safe and hard to get it dangerously wrong but the parents still did get it wrong, then I don't think they should sue. In that case, it's their fault (though it's horrible to say that) and they'd probably just be trying to place the blame elsewhere. But if there is a type of sling that lots of people are using wrong, that makes me think that the design is flawed so maybe suing is justified in that situation.

 

[aob1013]

Totally wrong to sue them IMO. It is up tp the parent to educate themselves correctly in order to use the sling efficiently.

 

[Tiff]

I don't know really. If it was a type of sling that was known to be perfectly safe and hard to get it dangerously wrong but the parents still did get it wrong, then I don't think they should sue. In that case, it's their fault (though it's horrible to say that) and they'd probably just be trying to place the blame elsewhere. But if there is a type of sling that lots of people are using wrong, that makes me think that the design is flawed so maybe suing is justified in that situation.

Its crazy how people can get things wrong though. Not trying to argue, just pointing it out. Reminds me of the quote "Idiotproof something and they'll make a better idiot."

 

[Lu28]

Unless something is particularly flawed and therefore dangerous, I don't think anyone should sue. People seem very slow to take responsibility for themselves these days...

 

[Kaites]

I agree that people should educate themselves and are ultimately responsible for their children's safety with all kiddie products. That being said, there are some slings out there that are unsafe (Infantino Slingrider comes to mind) and imo, shouldn't be sold since they probably aren't safe under any circumstance.

 

[Rachel_C]

Yep I hate the suing culture, but putting a disclaimer on something like "don't smother your baby to death by using this sling wrong" doesn't remove the maker's responsibilty IMO, if the sling makes it hard not to smother the baby. Does that make any sense?! What I mean is that if the design of something makes it hard to use right, it's the maker's fault too. I don't know enough about those slings to say about them though.

 

[Tiff]

That makes total sense. That's why I was thinking more along the lines of lobbying to get the slings that are proven to be dangerous off the market, not just with a simple recall... iykwim?

 

[lfernie]

I feel horrible for the women who have lost their babies, however I do wonder how they didn't notice their baby suffocating maybe I'm being daft but I always check on Ryan when I have him in a wrap and he's upright but I just feel like I should still check on. So no I guess is my answer, I don't think they should be suing the company but I also understand that they are looking for somewhere to blame as they must be suffereing a lot of hurt. The slings are like everything else, they have to be used with safety in mind IMO x

 

[Kit]

I don't like the idea of suing the company over this, although as others have said, I can understand why the parents want to sue. We are unfortunately now a society that automatically assumes that when something goes wrong, it must be someone's fault. We don't seem to have the concept of a pure accident any more. If the slings in question had a design fault that meant that something tore or broke or something then that would be a different matter, but my view is that a sling is something that everyone should realise has to be used with care, if only because a baby is something that needs to be treated with care! Babies are at risk of various things, including suffocation, and need to be protected from these things while they are little and helpless. I'm not explaining myself very well but what I am trying to get at is that it is not so much that the sling is dangerous, but that a baby is vulnerable and accidents do happen and mistakes are made. If someone had rolled onto their baby or fallen asleep breastfeeding and smothered the baby, there wouldn't be anyone to sue - it would be a tragic accident.
I had a kari-me when my LO was tiny and I made the decision not to use the horizontal carry because I wasn't confident that he wasn't going to suffocate. The sling wasn't dangerous, but I felt that using it in that particular way, at that time, was too risky.
Also, if you used an ellaroo or a kari-me wrong and the baby suffocated, would you still expect to be able to sue over what is effectively a big piece of fabric? At what point does the carrier become enough of an individual design for the company to be liable? Sorry, I am rambling!

 

[Tiff]

I agree!

It does seem we're a society that likes to sue. Someone in my family is a lawyer, and he actually had to sue one of the big restaurant companies here on behalf of someone. The waitress failed to mention to the patron that his soup was hot.

In turn, he got 2nd degree burns in his mouth, and he sued the company because she should've told him his soup was hot.

I mean okay, maybe if its THAT hot then okay? But who orders soup that is supposed to be hot (cold soups aren't popular here) and expect it not to be?

 

[moomin_troll]

i think its crazy! i feel for them for losing their babes i wouldnt wish that on anyone but its their responsiblity to make sure their child is safe in the sling.

its like trying to sue a blanket company if u werent careful about how ur child was wrapped up

 

[Kit]

When I was a trainee I worked in our clinical negligence department for 6 months and I was always shocked at how many people thought they could sue for absolutely anything. People actually said to me "but I must be able to sue because it went wrong".
There were some really tragic cases, but people found it very difficult to understand that just because a treatment didn't work, or because there were complications, it didn't mean that it was automatically someone's fault, and they found it even more difficult to understand that it didn't necessarily mean they were entitled to money.
An example was a man whose wife had died from a brain tumour, leaving him with 3 young children. They had been told that the tumour was inoperable and that she had only about 6 months to live and that the tumour could be partially removed which might buy her a tiny bit more time, but was likely to leave her partially paralysed. They looked for other options and found a doctor in the US who was willing to try to remove the tumour, with the same advice given, and managed it, but she was left partially paralysed and died after about 8 months. The family wanted to sue first the doctor that had carried out the procedure, on the basis that it hadn't saved her life or bought her much more time, and then they wanted to sue the UK doctors for not carrying out the procedure as it might have worked. I felt horribly sorry for them but it was impossible to advise them. They were adamant that the doctors should have been able to save her life and they wouldn't accept the experts' advice that she was always going to die.
Another example was a woman who suffered complications following surgery - the complications were sorted out immediately with further surgery and she was left with no long-term effects at all - but she still thought she should be able to sue.

 

[FemmeEnceinte]

Most toys/baby paraphernalia comes with correct safety warnings/instructions... problems with them are easy to identify. By instinct we don't place young babies in jumperoos and leave them unattended. Babies shouldn't be left unattended in slings/carriers either, however... anything that can force a baby into such a dangerous position needs to be reconsidered.

I don't understand suing. Will it bring them any comfort or their babies back? No. Molly was overdosed in hospital and it was incredibly traumatic. I could sue, but it wouldn't change anything. I would still feel the same way about it.

Like somebody said, lobbying against them and having them removed from circulation completely is the way forward, imo. So, should they sue? Who cares... it's not like the company making them cared enough and were so distressed by the whole thing as to close down as a result, they're still going. If they want to, fine. But it won't help them at all.

 

[moomin_troll]

When I was a trainee I worked in our clinical negligence department for 6 months and I was always shocked at how many people thought they could sue for absolutely anything. People actually said to me "but I must be able to sue because it went wrong".
There were some really tragic cases, but people found it very difficult to understand that just because a treatment didn't work, or because there were complications, it didn't mean that it was automatically someone's fault, and they found it even more difficult to understand that it didn't necessarily mean they were entitled to money.
An example was a man whose wife had died from a brain tumour, leaving him with 3 young children. They had been told that the tumour was inoperable and that she had only about 6 months to live and that the tumour could be partially removed which might buy her a tiny bit more time, but was likely to leave her partially paralysed. They looked for other options and found a doctor in the US who was willing to try to remove the tumour, with the same advice given, and managed it, but she was left partially paralysed and died after about 8 months. The family wanted to sue first the doctor that had carried out the procedure, on the basis that it hadn't saved her life or bought her much more time, and then they wanted to sue the UK doctors for not carrying out the procedure as it might have worked. I felt horribly sorry for them but it was impossible to advise them. They were adamant that the doctors should have been able to save her life and they wouldn't accept the experts' advice that she was always going to die.
Another example was a woman who suffered complications following surgery - the complications were sorted out immediately with further surgery and she was left with no long-term effects at all - but she still thought she should be able to sue.

wow! i cant believe they wanted to sue on those grounds that crazy too.
ive said alot about my local hospital and theres been many things they have done wrong that my family could of sued over but we didnt because we were more upset with my nan dying (being one of the things they messed up on i wont go into it)

it is a suing nation we r living in. some people just dont want to take responsibilty for their own actions. i no if i had used a sling and zane died id blaim myself for not checking my child while being on my body.

its a awful situation