[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: 5010 Now if you want to prevent children from dying, consider this: The attractive nuisance doctrine prevents death and injury compared to a doctrine that places no liability on anyone. Great! However, if parents/guardians are liable for the death and injury of children under their care when allowing them to run wild and unsupervised, then it would prevent even more deaths. Why? Because it gives people with kids incentive to protect them from all dangers, not just those that are attractive nuisances on private property. So not only does it mean less kids getting killed by someone's pool or trampoline, but ALSO less kids geting run over by trains, falling out of trees, slaughtered by stray dogs, picked up raped and murdered by child predators, falling off cliffs, drowning in creeks rivers and lakes, getting stuck in culverts, etc etc etc etc etc etc...

Oddly, this is the common sense from which thier current philosphy supposedly "evolved".