Sorry Mom, I was going off on PD on the other page. Ok, I promise to behave and please excuse my immature outburst. It's just how I roll this time of night (she drinks). So, are you saying that TVRPD should provide supervision at all their facilities or just West Park A) BECAUSE it has a feature that is expected to be hazardous  or    B) because the hazardous feature is the one that attracts the most (delinquent?) kids? If I were an attorney (or played one on TV! sip), I'd logically have to argue that by that one glaring omission of supervision  A) smack in the middle of the entire park system   or   B) the only one singled out for supervision, The TVRPD is inevitably courting some form of litigation from the next parent who watches their child airlifted or bussed down the hill for medical treatment?      

B)  It's hazardous feature attracts lots of kids--more than any other park- who want to watch and has become a hangout for the kids. It has a great spectator appeal to it and it is were most of the kids from Tehachapi gather as it is also centrally located.

OK. By law, admitting that the inherent risk posed by an unsupervised skatepark, TVRPD would be entering an unspoken contract with residents by providing a visible form of security providing said parents with the reasonable expectation of security for their kids who use the park. (Geez, now I'm starting to sound like PD! ) But as of last year, state law also now says that even parents who sign waivers, let alone enter into an unspoken contract (again, the reasonable assumption of personal security/supervision) can now sue recreation providers for gross negligence. How hard would it be to prove it is gross negligence if TVRPD decides to supervise the foxes gathering place in order to leave the hazardous hen house unguarded?  

Gross negligence would be if the skatepark was in poor condition or unsafe due to structural problems and someone got hurt.  Then they could be held liable.  Leaving the hen house unguarded would be ok as there is an assumption of risk associated with the use of skateparks.

But then again, I haven't graduated and passed the bar yet!  ;  )

It is in bad condition! they did some bandaid repairs, but it is falling apart. By providing supervision outside the perimeter BECAUSE of that assumption of risk is creating a new assumption of risk you're now directly attributing to the skate park's appeal/purpose. (siiiippmm yawn). Too bad we can't break into a disco frenzy while we're bloggin...do you watch So You Think You Can Dance?? If so, I'm a week behind, so don't spoil it for me.  

I had assumption of risk explained to me several years ago by an attorney friend after I hit a tennis ball out of the tennis court and we heard it thump off someone's car out in the parking lot.  I had never hit a tennis ball before and swung at it like I was Lou Gerig and was surprised to see it sail over the fence and hit someone's hood.  When you park next to a ballfield there is an assumption of risk that a ball might fly out and hit your car.  And the ballfield is not responsible.

...passed the bar?! Sure, I'll have another! I Love You Man, I mean Mom! I mean awsmom! 

Never took up tennis...Love the clothes. Much better than golf. Hard to look hot in golf shoes...Fore!  

you guys are funny

Hugs and Kisses to you too! No, I don't dance--it's a genetic thing.  So I have never watched So You Thnk you can Dance.  Don't bogart that bottle...pour me another one!

You giving us the eyeball, Yaso? 

That was the first and last time on the court.  Made my carpal tunnel flare up.  And I couldn't decide whether to hold the raquet in my left or right hand--drove my friends crazy cuz I kept switching depending on the angle that the ball was coming from.

HA heck ya im pouring the drinks for ya /wink wink

Yaso--have you tried some Xanex? You need to relieve the twitching in that eye!  Here's looking at you kid!