Question:
Why is that whenever a kid accidentally drowns in a swimming pool you never
hear:
A TV reporter asking the bereaved parent whether he or she still thinks
having a swimming pool at home is a good idea?
Politicians hopping on the band wagon decrying the thousands of kids who
are killed in pool accidents every year.
Children's advocates declaring that nobody needs a swimming pool at home
because there are public swimming facilities available?
Answer:
Your focus is too narrow. Children die in bathtubs, down at the creek, etc.
I propose:
THE HYDRAULIC SAFETY ACT OF 1997
Legal mumbo-jumbo aside, my new life saving legislation would ban any utensil,
vessel or container, natural or man-made, capable of collecting any fluid to
a depth of two inches, or the length of Clinton's nose, whichever is greater.
Courts have found that the only way an association may avoid liability
for rules that discriminate against children is to show two things: (1)
that the pool rule is rooted in a ¡°compelling business necessity,¡± and
(2) that the rule constitutes the ¡°least restrictive means¡± to achieve
the desired effect. In the context of swimming pools, concerns about
safety and sanitation typically prompt associations to adopt rules that
limit children¡¯s use of the pool. Of course, keeping the pool safe and
sanitary presents a compelling business necessity, but the Act requires
that associations come up with more inventive ways to address their
safety and sanitation concerns than simply forbidding minors under a
certain age or non-toilet trained children from using the pool.
