does not make a pool owner responsible.
Come to think of it, don't think i've heard of any charges brought to pool owners in the recent drownings.
Fenced in is all thats required apparently in Ga.
Different states have different rules. Regardless, I don't think the pool owner should have to worry about it, wouldn't have happened had the child been watched!! If poor Raydin had been run over by running out in traffic, guess you'd blame the driver too.
RIP Raydin, you will have justice sweet one :-)

Do you people actually read? Or just read in something not said nor inferred.

BTW, it is not legal to leave a pool unsecured, which means having a secure cover or a fence with a closed gate that will prevent children from gaining access. Many insurance companies go beyond that and require pool covers as part of their policy requirements. At the very least, the owner of this pool might be successfully sued by the child's parents, regardless of the irresponsible actions of the aunt.

Getting hit in the street is a totally different kind of thing, which surely you must realize, unless of course the driver is drunk or breaking the law in some other way.

Requiring some sort of fence around a pool is reasonable. Requiring a cover to be on the pool at all times when no one is in the pool is entirely unreasonable.

Notice in the story that the gate in the fence was found open. Of course it was open after the toddler opened it and walked in. There is no proof that the gate was open when the toddler first showed up. It is unreasonable to require that gates to your back-yard fences be locked at all times except when entering or exiting.

Adults please watch out for your little ones. It saddens me a great deal when I hear of harm brought to children.

Uncovered pools or charging someone with neglect will not bring back this child.

We owe it to our young ones to protect them. When will one of these tragedies ever create a wake-up call?

hope they lock her up for a long time!