DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**loyalgagora** · 11-14-2011, 05:51 PM

Declaring a place to be safe that quite clearly isn't safe should just open them to more lawsuits. If anything, they are more liable and subject to more penalties by being so negligent.

Yeah I'm not sure where exactly this park is but its local. The community its in is not letting it go. They want to keep the dog park but they want it moved. And this local reporter has reported on it a few times. Its keeps coming back up so something will be done about it. Its not so much the electric company at fault, its the city for building it there. I guess it could be both though because obviously something is wrong there. So honestly I guess the city is at most risk for getting sued.

I believe the city is willing to tear it down but not willing to rebuild it elsewhere. So they can either have a dangerous dog park, or no dog park at all. And that is where the bigger issue is coming it. And that is when they had the electric company come out twice and have it evaluated and they claim there is no way that those injuries were caused by electric shock. But why does it keep happening? Obviously something is wrong there.

11-14-2011, 05:51 PM	#11
loyalgagora Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 472 Senior Member	Declaring a place to be safe that quite clearly isn't safe should just open them to more lawsuits. If anything, they are more liable and subject to more penalties by being so negligent. Yeah I'm not sure where exactly this park is but its local. The community its in is not letting it go. They want to keep the dog park but they want it moved. And this local reporter has reported on it a few times. Its keeps coming back up so something will be done about it. Its not so much the electric company at fault, its the city for building it there. I guess it could be both though because obviously something is wrong there. So honestly I guess the city is at most risk for getting sued. I believe the city is willing to tear it down but not willing to rebuild it elsewhere. So they can either have a dangerous dog park, or no dog park at all. And that is where the bigger issue is coming it. And that is when they had the electric company come out twice and have it evaluated and they claim there is no way that those injuries were caused by electric shock. But why does it keep happening? Obviously something is wrong there.
	Quote