Originally Posted by misol:
Ouch! I am very sorry that happened to your daughter. Although I would be livid, I am not sure how the teacher would have been able to prevent this from happening. Even if she was sitting there watching 2 kids playing in the dirt together she had no way of anticipating that one child would throw dirt in another child's face. Another example is if a child in your care falls on the playground and breaks their arm. As long as the equpiment was age-appropriate and the provider was properly supervising, that's not negligence. Sometimes injuries are truly just bad accidents. If this is not the case then maybe I just don't have a true understanding of the meaning of negligence.
When a parent takes their kid to any place where there are other kids around and there is physical activity involved (daycare, school, park, skating rink, etc.) they have to understand that there is some increased risk of injury.
Might get flamed for this but I think that sometimes (not always) when a person/entity offers to pay medical expenses it's a hopeful attempt to avoid being sued. 1) The parents appreciate the gesture and 2)it's cheaper to pay the doctor's bill than to pay attorney's bill.
I am lucky enough to have had parents who trust me and have been totally understanding when their child was injured in my care. Although they may be understandably upset, reasonable parents know that when children are at play, accidents happen. The bottom line though is that yes, it is better to have liability insurance than not!
that may not have sounded right - i didn't blame the teacher. i was quoting the director.
"when we spoke afterward, she said if i did take her that they would have to pay the bill (which she didn't mind) because technically the teacher should've been able to prevent it -
even though i know it wasn't her fault - it could be considered negligent bc she got hurt in their care."
i worked at the daycare when it happened (in another room) and they were freaking out when i got to her, urging me to take her to the ER. i was a nervous wreck with people yelling, "you need take her now!" but all i was thinking is if i took her, she'd be suffering during the long jog to the car and the car ride when i could probably fix it on the spot myself much faster- which i did thankfully.
but yeah, she didn't have to worry about me personally trying to sue or anything crazy, but it probably is easier (and a lot less painful) in general to just pay the bill if a child does go to the doctor because in the end - the person providing care for the child is going to be held responsible if something happens to them. it might not be "fair" but it wouldn't be fair to the parent who wasn't even there to have to pay either really. that was their philosophy anyway which made sense to me. the whole conversation came up bc i was saying if i did have to take her - the parents of the child who did it should have to pay - not the daycare. but then of course the parents of that child would say, "weren't you watching her? how could you not have stopped it?" it's not fair for the daycare to pay, but the victim's parents certainly shouldn't have to. it's just too complicated. it's ridiculous that if a kid you don't know falls in your pool you can be held liable if you don't have a fence (cus they shouldn't be on you property anyway) or if they get hurt on your swingset - well, it's your fault bc it's "an attractive nuisance." so, yeah, definitely better to have insurance. based on my record, i could do without car insurance if i just had to worry about myself - it's all the people around me that i don't trust!