[italk2u]

Originally Posted by RavYak

For every hole/trench that is exclusion fenced there is a multitude of ones that aren't.



The charge of manslaughter would never hold up.

The parents have a legal obligation to supervise their child and a child's ignorance of the dangers and refusal to acknowledge the signs and barrier does not make it an accident.

Any lawyer would be able to argue that the hole was adequately guarded with sufficient warning signs and that the incident only happened due to improper supervision and a disregard for the safety measures put in place.

This is what I have been trying to tell you guys all along... The way this law is written you only have to guard and warn. You don't have to protect against each and every possibility(by children, blind people, dare devils etc). No matter how well you defend an aerator someone will find a way to fall in, all you have to be able to do is prove that there were sufficient barriers/signs in place to warn and deter people. If they choose to ignore those barriers/signs that is their problem.

Assuming you are not a lawyer and assuming the ACA does have one. Why haven't they confirmed your analysis of this situation? Why do they still intend to shut off all their aerators?
Perhaps there is more to this than some simple explanation such as yours would indicate.