Kindergarten head acquitted of negligence in drowning of 3-year-old boy

So, you have a group of toddlers in a paddling pool and no one noticed this little chap was drowned until everybody got out? Seriously? It's interesting that the director was quitter because negligence could not be proven. The kid drowned in the care of the school and was obviously not well supervised. How much proof does one need?

Twelve kids and only one supervisor? There should have been one or two more, I think.

Apparently it is not as easy as you would think to spot the signs of drowning.

http://lifehacker.com/5578943/recognize-the-real-signs-of-drowning-and-save-a-life

Negligence by definition. Maybe it came down to the puissance of the respective legal teams.

Do we know if the kindergarten made a settlement offer and the parents rejected it? In Japan it's quite common for judges to get their revenge on people who insist on taking their case to a final judgement. I hope they can win on appeal.

How about filing a civil suit for damages if they already haven't?

Tessa is correct.

Most deaths by drowning are "quiet" affairs, unnoticed by others close by. This is especially the case in a pool.

In Australia, when getting my swimming instructors license years ago, the focus of the course was safety esp drowning.

With kids, after a simple gulp of water, the drowning process can begin as breathing becomes difficult. Kids often bob up and down in water play, holding their noses or opening their eyes. And they often remain in an upright position, right until the end. Determining who is drowning and who isn't, esp in the case of a bunch of active excited kids, is not always so easy. Only moments are required to drown.

The best solution to this tragic problem is - after a compulsory water safety awareness program for carers - is to have multiple observers. I think in Australia the ratio of adult supervisors to small kids in pool activities is about 1:4.

In the Kanagawa case there should have been a minimum of 2 supervisors and preferrably 3.

Apparently it is not as easy as you would think to spot the signs of drowning.

But, I'm pretty sure the fact the kid was fauve down in the water would have been a strong hint.

However, the court ruled that negligence on the part of the kindergarten employees could not be proven, Fuji TV reported.

This is ridiculous. What does one have to do to "PROVE" 12 small children per 1 teacher isn't enough!! At the very least, this woman needs to lose her business license, and close up shop.

There are some good points here. But what the Court saw was that there was no "gross" negligence on the part of the kindergarten. That is why she was aquitted.

So if it wasn't negligence, then what was it? Suicide? Murder by a fellow toddler or toddlers?

Japan Inc.

No accountability.

@Wc626

It can also be argued that when a parent takes his or her child to day care, that there is a reasonably expectation that the day care facilities will have enough staff on board to handle large number of children (especially in a pool) and that the child will be returned to the parent safely and ALIVE.

If a child dies under the care of caretaker, I think it is reasonable to assume that either some protocols weren't being followed, or the day care facility had not adopted proper safety precautions, either of which can be construed as negligence. They are in the BUSINESS of taking care of small children, so any action or inaction that leads to harm or death is definitely gross negligence.

However, the court ruled that negligence on the part of the kindergarten employees could not be proven, Fuji TV reported.

She is free and could go out and celebrate. I hope that other parents have taken the hint and not send their children to this foul place and that the principal and teachers will feel it for the rest of their lives. If I were a parent of this boy, I'd fight it until my very last cent.

No, for this to be negligence it would have had to have happened in another country. Negligence cannot be proven in a place where there is no burden of responsiblity. I am sure, however, the former head made several very impressive bows before acquiescing to disappear and be forgotten.

WOW negligence could not be proven!!!

But the court found that no gross negligent circumstances existed because a teacher was actually there in the pool. Say the teacher left the pool and kids unattended for about 2-3 min, now gross negligence comes into play.

In the legal world, there is a difference between neglect & gross neglegence.