You're understating the US's policy on recklessness. We have "attractive nuisances," which means that if you put a trampoline in your backyard, and a kid passing through sees it, decides to do a sick jump off of it, and breaks their leg, that was partly your fault for having something so awesome that kids would probably like.

▲

Aurornis 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> which means that if you put a trampoline in your backyard, and a kid passing through sees it, decides to do a sick jump off of it, and breaks their leg, that was partly your fault for having something so awesome that kids would probably like.

That's not exactly accurate. The two key parts of the attractive nuisance law are a failure to secure something combined with the victim being too young to understand the risks.

So if you put a trampoline in your front yard, that's an easy attractive nuisance case.

If you put a pool in your back yard with a fence and a locked gate, it would be much harder to argue that it was an attractive nuisance.

If a 17 year old kid comes along and breaks into your back yard by hopping a 6-foot tall fence, you'd also have a hard time knowing they didn't understand that their activities came with some risk. Most cases are about very young children, though there are exceptions

	▲	fuzzfactor 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>put a trampoline in your front yard This is exactly what one of our neighbors did when I was growing up. All the kids loved it. There just weren't very many lawsuits back then like there are now after the number of attorneys proliferated so much. To be as safe as they could, the parents put the trampoline in a pit where the bouncing surface was at ground level. If you drove by, you wouldn't even be able to see it, or have any idea that it was there. Unless there was somebody bouncing at the time. You should have seen the look on peoples' faces when they drove down our street and saw that for the first time :)

▲

qball 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And that law is incredibly and hideously stupid, as it's a heckler's veto on having cool stuff.

The Internet is basically the final frontier where this harmful law doesn't reach, though the Karens are really trying to expand their power there.

▲

rootusrootus 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It would not be quite that simple. The trampoline (or pool, or whatever) would have to be visible, in a place children were likely to be, not protected by any reasonable amount of care, and the kid would have to be young enough to not know any better.

The legal doctrine is also not specific to the US, of course.