Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Vince Fedoroff

LEGAL ACTION LAUNCHED – The youngster involved in the litigation fell from this spot up to 4.5 metres (15 feet) onto a rock pile during a field trip at the Yukon Government Main Administration Building (above). Additional vertical bars – shown here – have been installed since the incident.

Child's field trip tumble spurs lawsuit

A six-year-old child is suing his former daycare and the Yukon government after he fell up to 4.5 metres (15 feet) onto a rock pile during a field trip at the government's main administration building.

By Christopher Reynolds on May 23, 2014

A six-year-old boy is suing his former daycare and the Yukon government after he fell up to 4.5 metres (15 feet) onto a rock pile during a field trip at the government's main administration building.

Andrew Diego Sprokkreeff launched the legal action last week against the Tree House Play School, employee Emily Gallant and the government.

On Dec. 7, 2011, Tree House arranged for some of the children to attend a Christmas performance at the legislative building at 2071 Second Ave.

When the production ended, the four-year-old Diego stepped outside while Gallant, who was supervising him, remained inside nearby.

From the outdoor landing, the boy began to peer through the entrance.

"Diego saw someone approaching the glass doors from the interior of the YG building and stepped back to allow that person to exit through the glass doors,” the lawsuit states.

"When Diego stepped back, he fell through or under the railing on the landing next to the glass doors” — immediately to the left of the entrance as you approach it.

"Diego fell approximately 12 to 15 feet and landed on a rock pile below.”

He suffered cuts to his scalp, bruises and soft tissue injuries as well as "decreased ability to concentrate” and post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the suit.

"It's quite a drop to the walk below. It's quite horrific, actually,” James Tucker, Diego's lawyer, said in an interview.

The statement of claim points the finger at the government for having unsafe railings — ones that "permit a child to pass between them” — and failing to post adequate warning of "the hazard.”

Alternately, the plaintiff argues his fall resulted from the negligence of Gallant for failing "to adequately supervise Diego while he was in her care.”

The legal action also alleges Tree House may be at fault for negligence stemming from a failure to employ qualified staff or train them properly.

The government has installed more closely spaced railings since the incident.

"As a result of the fall and his injuries, Diego has suffered loss of enjoyment and amenities of life, pain and suffering,” according to the suit, filed last Friday.

He continues to receive medical treatment and therapy.

"Diego has lost his capacity to earn income (in) the future,” the suit adds.

He is claiming general and special damages, legal costs, and interest.

Diego's mother, Cheryl Buych, is acting on his behalf as legal guardian in the suit.

Residents of Whitehorse at the time of the accident, the family now lives in Faro.

The Department of Justice declined comment as the case is before the courts.

Gallant could not be reached for comment.

Tree House Play School is a daycare off Wann Road in Porter Creek.

"We have been in business for many years and take pride in serving the surrounding area,” the website states.

"All of our employees carry with them a wealth of experience to ensure professional results each and every time. We are not satisfied with our work until you are. And that's a guarantee.”

Owner Susan Langer declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Comments (13)

Up 1 Down 12

ray ban aviators sale uk on Jun 2, 2014 at 2:02 am

I do love the way you have presented this particular situation and it really does present me some fodder for consideration. Nevertheless, through just what I have seen, I just wish when the responses pack on that people remain on point and in no way embark on a soap box associated with some other news du jour. Yet, thank you for this outstanding point and even though I do not really concur with it in totality, I regard your point of view.

ray ban aviators sale uk http://www.yalae.com/rayban-rb3026-ray-ban-aviator-sunglasses-019-p-2475.html

Up 17 Down 3

Adam Macquaid on May 29, 2014 at 8:09 am

A 6 year old not being able to work for the rest of their life? That's a bit premature? Also from my experience if a child has a one on one worker, they already have some special needs, so to say all these symptoms are from a fall are a bit far fetched. Also the story states he fell on a rock pile, note when the fall happened, there was like 3 feet of snow over top of the rocks. But to make it sound much worse they leave that out.

Up 32 Down 5

Just Say'in on May 28, 2014 at 2:16 pm

Here we go again! All about the no personal responsibility. All Daycares should close, and parents should look after their own special babies, instead of expecting others to do it. As a worker in a daycare or as anyone in a supervisory position you can be held financially responsible even though you have no right to enforce their compliance to the rules. The world is loosing its grip. Smarten up people.

Up 6 Down 39

hmmm on May 28, 2014 at 6:52 am

I hope Diego receives the compensation he deserves, every child deserves to be safe and to feel safe, and a parent should be able to feel that their child is safe in childcare that they pay for.

Up 27 Down 5

AJCarter on May 27, 2014 at 7:24 am

It would alter my view of my parents if I learned they had sued anyone because as a 6 year child I had fallen down, not pushed or kicked but fell.

Up 8 Down 24

Jonathan Colby on May 26, 2014 at 7:32 am

If a child sustains a head injury, there may be developmental problems ahead. If so, the little guy may end up in a vocation that pays less because of his inability to perform as a properly developed adult. If proven true, I support the claim made by his parent on these grounds.

Up 7 Down 37

justamom on May 26, 2014 at 7:02 am

Missing the point here people. This family paid a darn good sum, in some cases it's half or more of a double income household to have their pride and joy looked after. I'm pretty sure the definition of "looked after” is not let them out of your sight in a public place. I'm sure the family didn't consider this accident as a potential risk when they intrusted the love of their life into care. Who would? You would expect the absolute safest condition when leaving your child in ‘professional care". To receive anything less is unacceptable. So toss stones if you like, but I think they are completely justified in the legal action. This is after all a child.

Up 39 Down 4

melba on May 26, 2014 at 2:03 am

The article says the little guy is still receiving medical treatment for the fall, two and a half years later. I am sure his mother would far have preferred that he never got injured in the first place over any amount of money she could get from a lawsuit. If Diego is going to need special help for life, I guess it is responsible for the mother to try to put this in place now to pay for it.

This is why I would never, ever in a million years run a daycare or look after kids. Way too much risk. Kids fall down and get into accidents all the time. It is a risk of growing up. But if someone is being paid to look after them when it happens - look out! You are supposed to be perfect, and even if you are perfect and an accident happens anyway, you are going to get sued and called down big time. Not worth it, no way.

Up 65 Down 6

BnR on May 24, 2014 at 10:25 am

In the history of the YG building, no one else except this kid has ever been injured at that doorway.

Accidents can and do happen.

Sounds like someone trying to cash in.

Cha-Ching!

And who's going to pay, yup, taxpayers.

Up 63 Down 4

Unreal on May 24, 2014 at 9:22 am

PTSD? This is hilarious.

The worker or the day care is not at fault, only YG is for having an outdated railing.

If I could sue anyone even remotely involved for any injuries I had as a child I would be a trillionaire.

Up 78 Down 4

Bob on May 23, 2014 at 8:39 am

A six year old has lost his capacity to earn income? Really? That isn't even a LITTLE bit of a stretch?

Up 84 Down 8

FedUp on May 23, 2014 at 8:22 am

You kidding me? The kid had a fall, yes...but he's SIX YEARS OLD and already his parent and lawyer are claiming "Diego has lost his capacity to earn income (in) the future,” the suit adds. He is claiming general and special damages, legal costs, and interest.

There is always SOME JOB he could do, so to be deemed useless for the rest of his life, because of a fall....He's SIX YEARS OLD. With the therapy he receives, he will quite possibly recover and have a full life.

Give me a break. Raise your kid to believe he's useless to society, can't do things (rather than teach him what he CAN do)...way to go, people.

Up 84 Down 13

Tami on May 23, 2014 at 8:20 am

No offense, but how can one know "Diego has lost his capacity to earn income (in) the future"?

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.