if a childcare provider drops a child, it's an accident. that doesn't mean the provider wouldn't be liable if the child was injured and had a medical bill. the provider is also liable for the children in his/her care. whether or not a child busted another child's face open by accident or on purpose is really irrelevant. it's not hard to prove negligence of a provider when there is an injury caused to one child by another. it can always be argued that the injury "could have" been prevented.
"maybe" the toy causing harm shouldn't have been allowed if it could do that much damage. "maybe" you weren't supervising closely enough to stop the child. being negligent isn't limited to locking kids in a room while you stay in another room watching TV all day or not bathing them, feeding them, etc. it's failing to fulfill your responsibilities, and your responsibility as a provider is to keep kids SAFE from harm. going to the ER for stitches or X-rays is not safe from harm.
if i'm driving and hit black ice that causes me to hit a car, that doesn't mean i was negligent. there was no way for me to know the black ice was there but i'd still be liable for the damages. there's no way to know a child is gonna bust open another child's face with a toy, but it's still a liability. that's why it's called liability insurance and not negligence insurance.
it has nothing to do with my personal opinion or what i would/wouldn't do as a parent or provider. i haven't even stated that. it's just amazing that people are so clueless to the facts and think that microsoft word and an ink pen is all they need to keep them safe from lawsuits that can destroy their business and their lives, really.
you can ask 10 lawyers the same question and get 13 different responses. you say the "waiver" doesn't amount to jack if you are negligent, and you don't think "accidents" are considered negligence. so, what exactly is the point in the waiver?
now, can you agree to disagree?
