|
The second link is to a personal injury law firm trolling for cases. That doesn't mean what they say is inaccurate just that they have a financial incentive to maximize the perceived risks.
The third link to the CDC is to a case where the protective drain cover was missing for some reason so very well might have happened regardless.
But my point is not that this regulation is unwarranted (as I said, I don't know enough to know), just that just as the "supervise your kids" thing is misguided, I think the "it's a real risk so the cost is a moral obligation which justifies making it a legal obligation regardless of the relative risk" is also misguided.
|