This past weekend, the senior litigation counsel for a client of mine got married in California. Since he also, purely coincidentally, turned out to be a relative of mine, it seemed like a good idea to attend. My significant other agreed to attend with me, but she drove a hard bargain. Since we were travelling westward anyway, she noted, we should spend some additional time vacationing.
Soon, a few extra days in Los Angeles had morphed into a week in Hawaii, on the island of Kauai. As much as I wanted the week to be one devoid of the practice of law, thanks to modern technology, you can never really escape the office, especially when you are in the midst of briefing a multimillion dollar summary judgment motion. So, laptop in hand, I headed west. It turns out, however, that the law practice back in the home office was the least of my concerns. No sooner had I arrived on the islands than the local papers became flooded with legal stories of national significance – or at least national interest. First there was the case of the drunk dad, who let his very young daughter drive the car after imbibing a bit too much.
After he drunkenly praised her driving abilities in a gas station where she was refilling, a fellow patron called Hawaii 5-0. Okay, perhaps he just called the police, but you get the point. It turns out, however, that Hawaii doesn’t have a law against contributing to the driving of an unlicensed minor infraction, so the police who pulled over the family auto, charged the man with child endangerment. Unfortunately for the police, all witnesses claim she was driving perfectly, and appeared to be in no more danger than any child riding in a car with a sober parent at the wheel.
When my fellow vacationers learned of my legal education, they all wanted to know my opinion. If the choice was to drive drunk with the daughter in the passenger seat, or to let her drive knowing she was experienced despite her age and unlicensed status, which was more dangerous? Of course, they forgot about the other possibility – they do have taxi cabs in Hawaii. The prosecuting attorney didn’t care that she did a good job. It was the obvious possibility of injury that mattered, even if under these specific circumstances injury was not probable.
The PA’s position still echoed in my mind, when I learned of the next national news item to occur in the islands. This one, sadly, was not a human interest story. Rather, the next day’s paper told the sad tale of a sightseeing helicopter crash on a neighboring island, killing all on board. As all in the hotel lobby rethought our own plans for sightseeing, the conversation about risks of helicopters versus risks of driving unfolded. A teacher from Nebraska was of the opinion that, undoubtedly, the tourists who perished that day had signed the omnipresent waivers of liability before entering the chopper. The confluence of events made her wonder: If a parent takes a child on a helicopter ride, or to a wild animal petting zoo, or to any number of attractions at which they sign waiver papers ahead of time acknowledging the dangers and risk of death to which they are exposing themselves and their child, should they be arrested for child endangerment as well? Is not the same “possibility if even not probablilty of injury” present?
The question is actually not a bad one. As society feels compelled to intervene more and more into child rearing decisions due to the increased dangers society presents, there are no easy lines to draw. Is letting a child have the second fried taco an issue? Is snowmobiling in Wisconsin a problem? In today’s day and age, where in fact do we draw the line?
© 2011 under analysis llc. Under analysis is a syndicated column of the Levison group. Charles Kramer is a principal of the St Louis based law firm, Riezman Berger PC. Comments or criticisms about this column may be sent to the Levision Group c/o this paper or direct via email to comments@levisongroup.com.