![\"Diverse](\"https:\/\/www.allenandallen.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/mi-pham-xtd3zYWxEs4-unsplash-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
What about a childcare provider or a facility offering childcare alongside other services? \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\nIf parents are generally not responsible, can childcare facilities or businesses be held responsible if they offer to supervise children while adults use the facility? One important case on this issue is New Bay Shore Corp. v. Lewis.[3]<\/a> In that case, a woman lost her balance and was injured when young boys riding on New Bay Shore\u2019s merry-go-round moved from their seats in violation of the merry-go-round rules. The woman sued New Bay Shore for her injuries, and New Bay Shore claimed that it had no responsibility for the boys\u2019 behavior. Consequently, they claimed that they owed no duty to the injured woman to prevent harm to her while on the merry-go-round.\u00a0 The Supreme Court of Virginia rejected the claim that New Bay Shore was not liable for the actions of the boys.\u00a0 The court stated:<\/p>\n\u201cChildren from 7 to 10 years of age often act upon childish instincts and impulses. They are thrilled and excited when permitted to ride on merry-go-rounds. It is natural for them, unless prevented from so doing, to take chances, move about on the platform, and change seats, with little or no regard for their own safety, or for the safety of others. These facts required defendant to exercise that degree of care and caution to prevent injury to those invited upon its premises that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.[4]<\/a>\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\nThe Court ruled that the precise nature of the potential injury to a person need not be foreseen by the business, \u201cbut it is sufficient if an ordinarily careful and prudent person ought, under the same or similar circumstances, to have anticipated that an injury might probably result from the negligent acts.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\nThe ruling in New Bay Shore<\/em> shows the duty that a business owes to patrons who might be injured by the acts of children.\u00a0 If a business undertakes to watch over children while the parents exercise, or shop, etc., then the business has to anticipate that the children might act up and hurt others.\u00a0 Consequently, it has to exercise reasonable care necessary to prevent the youngsters in its charge from engaging in activities that might hurt others.<\/p>\nFor example, if a gym is aware that young children use its facilities\u2014or offers to supervise children while the parents exercise, the gym owes its patrons a duty \u201cto exercise that degree of care and caution to prevent injury to those invited upon its premises that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
[1]<\/a> Va. Code \u00a7 8.01-43 and 8.01-44.<\/p>\n[2]<\/a> Va. Code \u00a7 8.01-64 and \u00a0\u00a7 46.2-335.<\/p>\n[3]<\/a> 193 Va. 400 (1952).<\/p>\n[4]<\/a> New Bay Shore<\/em>, 193 Va. at 409, (emphasis added).<\/p>\n
\u201cChildren from 7 to 10 years of age often act upon childish instincts and impulses. They are thrilled and excited when permitted to ride on merry-go-rounds. It is natural for them, unless prevented from so doing, to take chances, move about on the platform, and change seats, with little or no regard for their own safety, or for the safety of others. These facts required defendant to exercise that degree of care and caution to prevent injury to those invited upon its premises that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.[4]<\/a>\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The Court ruled that the precise nature of the potential injury to a person need not be foreseen by the business, \u201cbut it is sufficient if an ordinarily careful and prudent person ought, under the same or similar circumstances, to have anticipated that an injury might probably result from the negligent acts.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n The ruling in New Bay Shore<\/em> shows the duty that a business owes to patrons who might be injured by the acts of children.\u00a0 If a business undertakes to watch over children while the parents exercise, or shop, etc., then the business has to anticipate that the children might act up and hurt others.\u00a0 Consequently, it has to exercise reasonable care necessary to prevent the youngsters in its charge from engaging in activities that might hurt others.<\/p>\n For example, if a gym is aware that young children use its facilities\u2014or offers to supervise children while the parents exercise, the gym owes its patrons a duty \u201cto exercise that degree of care and caution to prevent injury to those invited upon its premises that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Va. Code \u00a7 8.01-43 and 8.01-44.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Va. Code \u00a7 8.01-64 and \u00a0\u00a7 46.2-335.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> 193 Va. 400 (1952).<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> New Bay Shore<\/em>, 193 Va. at 409, (emphasis added).<\/p>\n