Garage jumping?
 

So, here's the link and the story out of Orlando:
My first reaction to this story was anger. I'm pissed off that the taxpayers of Orlando are going to have to pay for protective fences to stop these morons from killing themselves. Sometimes, you've just gotta let defective genes remove themselves from the pool, you know?

I can feel an enormous rant boiling within me about the death of Common Sense....

Is there a length of fence long enough to stop morons bent on destruction?

I did stupid shit like this when I was a kid too... fence or no fence it's utterly irrelevant.

The building owners are responsible for making sure people don't jump off of the buildings????

Looking at the parents, I can understand why their son jumped off of a building. Two generations of fucking stupid.

The building owners are being sued? geez, people just amaze me sometimes

its like here when we had a rash of people (about 3 I think) threaten to jump off an interstate bridge and they stopped traffic for HOURS each time...now most overpasses you see have fences on them.

These parents need to spend a little more time talking to their kids about doing dumb shit rather than sueing people for how they handle their PRIVATE PROPERTY

I live about 40 mins from Orlando and go there to party a lot, but I've never heard of people jumping across buildings..

I agree with you.... survival of the fittest right?

Oh, I see now. The parking garages are an "attractive nuisance", and the city of Orlando is at fault.

http://www.urbanfreeflow.com/

This is what these kids were doing. It's called free running- it's like using the natural/manmade elements of your environment as a big jungle gym.

I think this comment pretty much made my day.

Don't you achieve terminal velocity after 66 feet? I'd say that kid is very lucky to be alive.

Well, 'terminal' in this case doesn't mean 'deadly'. It just means you won't fall any faster. And, I think that if you reach terminal velocity, the wind feels different, and your body relaxes, which increases your likelihood of survival.

A quick google tells me "A man has a terminal velocity of about 200 mph when curled into a ball and about 125 mph with arms and legs fully extended to catch the wind like a parachute." I don't have the time to do the math, but I don't think you would reach that rate in only 66 feet.

EDIT:
Oooooh, here's a good PDF: How Terminal is Terminal Velocity?. From this document:

This gets my day off to an amusing start.

Wow, I usually only jump off something that tall if there's a lake of water underneath me.

stupidity for stupidity's sake.

a HUGE part of free running is about knowing your limits...
you do a bigger jump when a miss is gonna drop you 5 feet and not nearly kill you once your able to do that... then you can move up...

and free running is not about huge jumps, their just one small part of it.

Wow, a news story from my very own corner of the universe makes the TFP. It's sad it's not the first time it's happened, and also that they always seem to be really stupid stories.

I can't even think of which two garages they're jumping between, though there really are only a few, and i've used most all of them at one time or another to park when I go to the clubs or bars downtown on a friday or saturday (or whenever).

It's absurd how personal responsibility has been replaced with the world being responsible for every person. These kids were being idiots. The parking garage was obviously not put there as a jungle gym. If kids are stupid enough to use it as one, then it's their fault when they get hurt, NOT the parking lot's owners. There is no way for a property owner to completely idiot-proof his property. It's high time the idiots start paying for their own mistakes rather than collecting fat checks from the rest of the world.

Really, there's little incentive to be smart anymore. The idiots get rich by doing stupid stuff while the intelligent ones look on wondering why they have to be intelligent.

These guys remind me of a dumber, less fit version of free runners.

i've heard that more than 50 percent of people die in falls of 25 feet or more.....this dude is really lucky he did not croak it here(obviously) This is one of those "who the hell was the first potential organ donor to come up with the idea that this would be fun?" deals for sure.

wow... I love how people can sue for crap like this. haha made my day(night) too.

garage jumping is cool! but not as cool as free french fries

as a matter of fact, the garage owners are required by law to erect all physical barriers within their reasonable power to prevent the injury of their patrons. I believe the legal term in tort law is "attractive nuisance." Just as everyone who has an in-ground swimming pool in my area is REQUIRED to have a 6' tall fence on their yard, the parking garages are REQUIRED to take reasonable safety precautions. no fences on the upper stories? ASKING for a lawsuit. i think everyone's reactions would have been different if a small child had somehow gotten away from a parent (as all small children have a propensity for doing) and ran off the edge of the building by mistake. the fences wouldn't just prevent garage jumping, they would also limit a large amount of risk of other accidents occuring.

i applaud the mother for making the city of Orlando responsible for this. Lord knows they'd find her responsible if a small child drowned in her backyard pool if she didn't have a fence.--it's happened. it is a matter of tort law, and pretty basic tort law at that. the city and the company should have put up barriers from the get-go when the garages were erected--for their patron's protection from harm and their protection from liability. it's dumb on their part not to have done so sooner, and now they will pay the price. thankfully no one died from their negligence of the LAW.

Yes, because if you live by the law, you'll never get hurt, it's like a failsafe, you don't even have to use common sense anymore?

"Garage jumping is a dangerous new trend" -- trend - 4: the popular taste at a given time...I found this in the dictionary.

What...is this cool!? I am not that old but what the fuck!?!

And they are going to sue....shit...my old man would have grabbed me by the ear and dragged me to the garage manager...made me apologize and say I was lucky to be alive.

Funny thing is, is that I am not surprised anymore by 1) the kid's action...I mean a few years ago kids thought it was cool to lie on the median of the road. 2) his luck in surviving...people get lucky all the time. 3) his parent's intent to sue...someone got million or so because he spilt some friggin' hot coffee.

I read recently an article about no-fault malpractice insurance or something in Sweden where you can't sue for punitive damages and get only so much depending on a scale of severity etc. They should do something similiar in the States for stupid acts such as this. Just my 2 cents worth.

Yes, I realize that it doesn't mean you are going to die. In fact, deadly doesn't mean that you are 100% fucked. It means it's a good possibility however. I sure as fuck wouldn't want to hit the ground after obtaining terminal velocity, would you?

Thanks for the info. I got the 66 feet number from a friend. Now I'll have to give him shit for telling lies.

I've got no problem with free running. Different strokes, you know? However, if you fall and bust your ass doing something you chose to do, don't you DARE call your lawyer and make me pay for it through tax dollars, you doodle fuck!!!

Have the balls to own up to your own responsibility and admit you fucked up. My cash should have no part in it whatsoever.

no, but the point is the company should have already had them in place--it's a matter of keeping themselves covered and providing safety to ALL their patrons, not just the daringly idiotic ones.

Homeowners and building owners are held responsible for the safety of people who are on their property. That's a legal maxim that's been held for decades. Like I said, the fences would also be in place to prevent other accidents such as runaway small children. Having dealt with small children in a dangerous (to them) environment teaching them to swim, and monitoring others as I lifeguarded, I've seen time and again how easy it is for children to slip away from their parents, and run themselves right off the edge of something (in this case, the side of the pool) without regard to what's underneath. I think alot of you would agree that if it were a small child that had run off the side accidentally, the company would be responsible--that's because they are. Them not having fences up around their upper stories to prevent people access to a major hazard (6-8 story drops) to their health is an active form of negligence, and odds are they will be held accountable. One of the largest aspects of consumer law and tort law is public safety, and lacking those fences both the company and the City of Orlando disregarded everyone's safety.

Additionally, refer back to my example of the backyard swimming pool. If a person has one, they are required to do everything within reason to secure that pool from outside parties that could accidentally do themselves harm. Generally, this means things such as locked gates and fences above the average persons height. If the government will hold private citizens to certain standards regarding attractive nuisances, why should we not expect to hold the government (in this case the city) and companies to the same standards? Is it that terribly unreasonable?

Fences, warning labels, owners/operator's manuals for cars/large equipemnt, and many other things are placed on this earth for no other reason than to guarantee the general person safety. Any company or public authority that decides that their money is worth more than the health of the general public doesn't deserve to be in business or governing.

I don't think a mere fence would have stopped those morons. They should have a decent fence, but they should not be held responsible for some stupid kid jumping off the building.
Now, if he had fallen on some innocent passer-by, that would have been a very interesting (and tragic) case!

rat:

trust me, I'm not saying you're not right about the law, or ethics of companies. And I can agree with your example of the pool... What disgusts me, is the fact that the father actually thinks he's entitled to sue somebody over what his son wittingly and willingly did.

A bit of personal responsibility would go a long way.

If it's the law, then fences should be put up, but these kids would have gotten their way no matter what you put up

From what I understand here, the attorney is the one that's filing the lawsuit against the companies to fix the problem, doesn't sound like he's going for a settlement for the boys lack of common sense.

If anyone thinks I'm wrong feel free to tell me so, this is just what I got from reading the article.

Oh, I missed that. I thought it was the parents initiating the lawsuit.
The important thing is that it's not the jumpers that are taking legal action. Sure it was a stupid risk, they knew that and took it anyway. That's their call. Protecting against accidents is reasonable, but it's impossible to protect people from themselves when they make a conscious decision to do something dangerous. No one should be obligated to try to do so either, unless those actions endager others (and I don't think there was a reasonable risk of that, in this case).

my ponit isn't just the fact that the company and city are required to put up fences, but that they should have prior to the first of these instances. it's negligence on their part, and tolerance of negligence that endangers the public isn't something i have a whole lot of.

additionally, these are kids we're talking about doing idiotic things. it's not exactly like they're of the maturity level to make the most informed of decisions. hell, when i was 13-14, i know i was jumping off of rooves and out of treehouses and such. was it intelligent? no. was it something that alot of us did without contemplating potential injury? yep. some people are inherrently more prone to risk-taking, some more prone to risk-aversion. those prone to risk-aversion tend to classify those prone to risk-taking as "idiots." that last part is simply an observation of tendencies, not a judgement on either party.

I can see your point rat, but they got away somehow without having them. That means not only should they put them in place, but something needs to be put into work to require all buildings in that area to have the same 'barriers' put around their buildings, not just the ones in question and not just the ones already built. That's something that would make a whole lot more sense, to make it a law for all of these types of buildings, and part of a final building inspection...plain and simple, can't 'operate' a building like these without a full inspection, and this should be part of the required tasks to pass that inspection. Along with what is already taking place.

I don't know the legal terminology for what I'm trying to say, and might be too tired to make sense, but hopefully someone gets the idea.

-I think what is happening is a good thing, because these situations need to change for the better (not to keep the jumpers off, but to make this place and others safer). And I think that this is a precaution that should be required by all buildings of this type, and those who's top story are open to the public.

I totally agree with you. Any tard can jump from building to building, but it takes skill and training to complete these moves with accuracy and safety. Even so a lot of it is dangerous- and of course the most dangerous/daring moves are the ones videotaped, and emulated.

btw not sure of this should have been a pm, but what is up with the free french fries? every post!



as for the kid, amazing that he is not dead, but to sue the building owner. just sad. i'll think i'll go stab myself with a kitchen knife and sue because it was so sharpe....lovely.

He's gone, don't worry about him.

"...you've just gotta let defective genes remove themselves from the pool..."

I wholeheartedly concur.

cheers! was getting annoying.

Too bad we don't have a Florida tag.

I guess this means when our friends jump off a bridge, we will all jump too.

This is the one of the stupidest things I ever heard. Do people not take danger seriously anymore?
I know if I did something like that as a kid, if the fall didn't kill me, my father would have for being too stupid to live.

Wow. You have to sort of deranged to vault yourself over a gap, 80 feet in the air. And suing the city? Wtf is that man. Its not the cities fault they go out and do this.

this is a classic example that proves the point I made earlier:

I love how people who choose not to take risks that potentially endanger life or limb like to classify those who do as idiots. While you're at it, you might as well call test pilots, people who test new styles of parachutes, astronauts, skydivers, bungee jumpers and base jumpers "idiots." Every single one of those professions and hobbies comes with an inherrent risk that your life could be ended if something goes wrong. However, what you fail to acknowledge with your judgemental ways is that every single person that gets behind the wheel of an automibile risks their life to a greater extent than any of the above stated activites. Your potential for serious injury and death while behind the wheel of a car is far greater than participating in any other activity people do in their lives. These kids didn't know their limits because they are fucking kids for christ's sake. But guess what, people don't learn their limits without testing them, and as adolescents, we're far more prone to take risks far beyond the envelope of our physical capabilities.

Actually, by law and ethical standards, due to gross negligence on the city and company's fault for failing to provide adequate preventative measures for safety by not erecting even simple chain link fences, along with the fact that it occurred on their property, they ARE responsible for the actions of those kids. As a property owner, you are liable for ALL actions of people on your property, and when you fail to take reasonable measures (ie, floor to ceiling chainlink fences on the upper stories of a parking garage), you are committing a criminal act of negligence, and should be held liable for it. Fences wouldn't just keep people from doing things like this, but protect ALL their patrons, especially those with small children that could slip away from parents and stumble off the edge. Fences are NOT an unreasonable expense or even that costly of one to ensure the safety of your clients and their families. In fact, not having them should turn out to be far more costly for them in the long run. It's a matter of consumer/tort law that companies/property owners have to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of their patrons and people on their property. why do you think that Wet Floor signs are put up when a place has a spill and/or after they mop the floor--your safety.

A fence isn't going to solve the problem. Kids will find something else that's dangerous to do. I do dangerous stuff all the time, but nobody tries to put a fence up when I get hurt. It's the kid's fault that he didn't make it.

I read this story and the last line, among other amusing and disturbing anecdotes, has become an all too typical response to what the normal majority of people would consider ludicrous behavior. This is akin to the parents of morbidly obese children blaming the fast feeders like McDonald’s for their child’s condition. It beguiles me that people who have produced off spring blame fast feeders for their overweight children when those very parents are responsible for FEEDING them crap in the first place. But that’s a borderline thread jack so before I digress too far let’s get back to the parents of the dumb asses that think jumping from one garage to another is a fun-tastic idea.


No, parents of the dumb ass kid who is a garage jumper, you are purely wrong and you need to be told this. The garages here take full responsibility for providing you and your dumb ass spawn a place to park your car. Their responsibility ends there.

If you are dumb ass enough to “garage jump” then you are certainly dumb ass enough to enjoy the consequences without whining about it and blaming someone else for your dumb assed behavior.

<<< Edit >>>

And to other would be garage jumpers out there. Go ahead. Make my day. Just don't whine about it after you, being the "greater risk taker" than I, screw yourself up or worse, perhaps even die, in the process.

Adolescents are old enough to distinguish an activity that may cause them harm. I do not think society should be held responsible for people who decide to put their life in danger this way.
Would anyone think me correct if I ran out into traffic because there's a chance I might or might not come out unscathed. Would I be able to sue the drivers for allowing me to jump in front of them?
This issue points out that many people today just don't want to be bothered taking responsibility for themselves.

And rat, yes, I think parachuters & bungee jumpers, etc. are taking unneccesary risks. I don't want to chance living the rest of my life crippled so I could have a quick adreneline rush. And for driving being dangerous, well, yes it is. But it's a neccesary evil. One does not have to jump from rooftop to rooftop to get to work.

Just my 2 cents...

let them jump, if they think its worth the risk, let them go for it.

You couldn't sue the drivers, but you could sue the city for neglecting to put a crosswalk in the middle of the street. :D

odds are you'd be found responsible for any damages done as there are laws governing the activity you describe, just as there are laws for property owners regarding actions required to prevent harm due to what is termed an "attractive nuisance." god forbid that the city and the company (the two respective garage owners) actually take steps to insure the relative safety of all their patrons. safeguards should have been in place to prevent accidents prior to this but weren't.

let them jump, if over the course of successive generations they develop wings, good for them!

I am losing my faith in Darwin. There is no way this kid should have survived to pass his genes on. It is his responsibilty to the the rest of society to keep jumping until he is dead or sterile. More importantly it is the responsibility of the garage owners to remove any fences that might prevent other morons from tempting to fate natural selection.

All risk is NOT the same. Some risk is taken because it is necessary (driving to work). Some risk is taken because not taking the risk more dangerous (choosing to defend yourself with violence). Some risk is taken by informed adults for the experience itself (SCUBA, parachuting, flying). In the last case, intelligent people understand that life can not be risk free, but they take steps to minimize the danger through education and preparation. Jumping from one building to another or elevator surfing or drag racing is undertaken only by those who are too immature to be free from parental oversight. It is their parent's responsibility to know they need ongoing supervision and hire babysitters for them. The rest of society and the garage owners are not morally responsible. I really don't care what the law says. After all it is the result of a bunch of lawyers getting together and planning on how to best screw the productive members of society.

Rat we aren't talking about an accident, the idiot (or would you prefer 'moron'?) didn't fall off the building... he jumped. Reasonable precautions to prevent injury to a patron don't help when idiots willfully take their risks.

the point isn't how the oversight was brought to the public attention, the point is that the oversight had been made. it's funny how people think liability on one's own property shifts depending upon the behavior of the injured. as I've stated, were it a small child who'd wandered off the edge unintentionally, everyone would be asking "Why weren't precautions taken to prevent this? These damn irresponsible owners...." Regardless of the actions of the kids involved, the garage owners (city of Orlando and the company that owned the other garage) should have already taken reasonable precautions. Is it that ludicrous to think "Hey, there's an 80 foot drop here, maybe we should keep people from being able to fall off"? I mean for goodness sake, any decent size corporation--let alone the City--has a risk management office, and leaving easy access to a potentially fatal drop is a pretty big risk to overlook.

I agree that if there was a law, they had to follow it. But dont single them out because of this case.

If you are going to enforce the law here, you have to enforce it everywhere. The idiot was an idiot and if the place was not doing its job, then the parties involved get no compensation. If the garage is to be punished, make it a fine payable to the city council, but dont dare let the family or espeically the lawyer think they can get it.

I thought it was interesting, when i was reading the article. When it said who was suing the place, the name didnt match the family involved. I was like, what does the guy thats doing the suing have to do with the case.

This made me laugh out loud. Imagine it posed as a philosophical conundrum. Maybe you should start a thread on the Philosophy board!

Business owners have no obligation to protect people from themselves. If you are a dumb-ass and you engage in dumb-ass behavior then enjoy the consequences. Any of the fodder about it being the business’s responsibility to prevent people from being a dumb-ass is just not true.

The idea that fences should be put up to prevent this is crazy talk. That’s like saying that if it snows and the sidewalk in front of my house is covered in snow I should provide snow shoes to those who choose to pass by my house. WRONG. Snow and the potential for ice underneath being slippery is just common sense. Jumping from one garage to another is WRONG and socially aberrant behavior and lacks common sense.

Business owners bear no responsibility for socially aberrant behavior lacking in common sense. It doesn’t mean they won’t capitulate to the pressure from all the nay-sayers who will talk about how evil it is of the business owners to put up such an unsafe facility which is nothing more than a load of S H I T crap.

As for this phenomenae to be somehow similar to the risk you take by driving a car: That's just another load. There are laws that govern the way you are permitted to legally drive your car. Defensive, risk avoidance, driving is taught and preached from the very begining. Just in case I'm way out of touch and that's not another load then the next time I need to have my driver's license renewed I'll be sure to NOT check the "garage jumper" box which if checked would be the equivalent of wearing a sign that says "I'm a dumb ass".

Attention Dumb Asses: You are free (at least in the U.S.) to be a dumb ass. Just don’t whine about it or blame someone else when you screw yourself up in the process.

It’s just that simple folks.

So the garage owner, who did nothing to encourage this behavior, is responsible while the parents, who have the responsibilty of raising their kids to not be complete morons, are blame free? The parents should be sued for neglecting their children. Or better yet, no one should be sued, and hope the kid got a bit smarter.