Letters/Discussion Forums
Paluch family entitled to full disclosure and justice
Who decides whether something is an accident or obvious negligence? Should a devastated family who have buried a child accept the argument of an “accidental”, albeit ill-secured soccer post having toppled? There has never even been a simple public apology.
Caroline Myerson, Johannesburg
Nevertheless had there been one, surely the Paluchs would still be entitled to full disclosure of what occurred on that fateful day, when Yeshiva College Primary and High School children assembled for break, with inadequate supervision, complaints from numerous parents of bullying in the school, and a goal post that “somehow” toppled and killed a child.
After a narrow internal inquiry failed to expose a clear timeline of events, and subsequent refusal to respond to the parents’ plea to communicate, obviously they cannot be regarded as the litigious party. The Paluch family are merely following the path so sadly paved by a school which has only ever offered silence in response to a catastrophic situation that occurred on its watch. If this was your child, would the adjective “accident” suffice?
And finally, to the Kaplan family, who too have suffered the unspeakable tragedy of losing a child, surely you know the value of others remaining silent, and humbly giving a traumatised family the space to grieve, while seeking justice for their beloved lost child?