Former student suing Geelong Grammar for "failing to get her into law"

[ninwa]

Read the article again. She had burns on her CHEST. That's pretty fucking close to the fire

here:

She suffered deep dermal burns to the left side of her face, left ear, neck and chest, severe facial disfigurement.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/disfigured-former-cadet-sues-melbourne-high-school-20120522-1z2l5.html#ixzz1vz9Dw9q3

[JellyDonut]

But it wasn't solely the chest. If you were able to burn just your chest and have your fucking face remain intact, then you were too close. If you burnt your chest, in addition to your face, shit, anyone would burn if they fainted in front of an open flame, even if they stood from an ordinary cooking dsitance

[Mao]

ordinary cooking dsitance

EPIC PHRASE RIGHT THERE.

[paulsterio]

Only if what they told her to do is reasonable, if it was unrealistic or potentially dangerous and she was never warned (like she's alleging) then that seems like negligence to me.

And don't be stupid, saying nobody forced her to do it is being deliberately obtuse. She's on a cadet camp. She's told to do something. What, you want her to refuse to prepare dinner because there's a chance she might hurt herself?

Whether or not she has a case depends on the specifics rather than the media spin, but there is zero reason to assume it's her fault and she's just out to try and win some money and not take responsibility.

Yeah, but she could have refused and said that she thought it was dangerous, if they told her to go jump off a cliff, would she do it?

I don't understand all this legal chat, but I'm still asserting that if she was instructed to do something that is, in retrospect, inappropriate then she can't be held at fault for doing it, especially in a program that prides itself on organization and discipline.

But how can you classify something as inappropriate, I'm sure that this is probably a one-in-a-million case and that it doesn't happen that often. If I was told to boil water to make a coffee and I proceeded to spill that water on me, then you know, it's the same thing really...I don't think that would mount any sort of legal case.

[Russ]

Yeah, but she could have refused and said that she thought it was dangerous, if they told her to go jump off a cliff, would she do it?

But how can you classify something as inappropriate, I'm sure that this is probably a one-in-a-million case and that it doesn't happen that often. If I was told to boil water to make a coffee and I proceeded to spill that water on me, then you know, it's the same thing really...I don't think that would mount any sort of legal case.

So what you're saying here is that she shouldn't have done it because it was dangerous but it isn't actually dangerous because it's a freak accident...

[paulsterio]

What I'm saying is that it's her decision, everything comes with a chance of something going wrong, and if you partake in something, you should accept that there are consequences. It's not the camp's fault.

[John President]

This response is hilarious.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/they-must-pay-for-ones-bitter-disappointments/

[Russ]

ugh scratch that not happening