Boy Toy: Two-Year-Old Boy Climbs Into Claw Machine

Customers interested in using a claw machine to secure a candy or prize were a bit surprised in Perth, Australian to find Cohen Stone, 2, staring back at them from inside the machine. Stone had climbed through the hatch of the machine in search of candy and become trapped. The picture with the story below makes the read worth it.


His mother Kyra had to wait for a locksmith to arrive to free the boy. It does not appear that anyone tried to simply use the grabber claw.

One would think that such an attractive nuisance would have been designed to prevent child explorers like Stone. However, this is not the first time such an accident has occurred (here and here). Here is a video of such a case.

This strikes me as an obvious design flaw in these machines and a solid case for attractive nuisance. The Restatement Second Section 339 states five elements, including (1) the place where the condition exists is one on which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass; (2) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, (3) the children, because of their youth, do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in inter-meddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it; (4) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and (5) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children

The Stones appear content, however, to have left with a £30 voucher.

For the full story, click here.

22 thoughts on “Boy Toy: Two-Year-Old Boy Climbs Into Claw Machine

  1. “What’s that you have there, Timmy?”

    “It’s a prize I won from the claw machine, Mom! Can I keep him?”

  2. Very good point AY. I have no doubt whatsoever that my more curious son would have easily found himself into one of these tempting toy machines when he was small enough to pull it off. How unfortunate for him that his mama was/is a bear!!

  3. Looking at it from a slightly different angle, I find it reassuring that the human spirit of adventure has not been completely stamped out by the health and safety nazis. The child must now be sent to a safety awareness re-education facility until his 18th birthday……

  4. Maaarrghk
    ” Looking at it from a slightly different angle, I find it reassuring that the human spirit of adventure has not been completely stamped out by the health and safety nazis. ”

    You have a really good point, adventurous kids are a lot of fun, and parents of these little guys need to balance curiosity with safety without completely stomping out their spirit for adventure.

  5. Maaarrghk!

    “Looking at it from a slightly different angle, I find it reassuring that the human spirit of adventure has not been completely stamped out by the health and safety nazis. The child must now be sent to a safety awareness re-education facility until his 18th birthday……”

    Aren’t you from England? This is the second time you have commented/complained about this (health and safety Nazis). Things not going so well with national health care in the UK?

  6. Not at all Byron. My own experiences with the NHS have all been very good apart from some of the waiting involved, during which time I’ve been kitted out with all necessary pain relief until the wait is over. Really cannot understand why some of you guys are so against something which can only change your lives for the better.

    As for the H&S thing I must admit to being somewhat averse to having to wear gloves and goggles just to take a couple of measurements and write them on a piece of paper. Also pretty peeved about not being able to go cheese rolling this year….

  7. Maaarrghk!

    so you have found it to be a pretty good experience? What does it cost as a percentage of an average British subjects wages? And what is your overall tax rate as a percentage of income?

    We have a Canadian friends who thinks the care is ok, except for the waiting times. But they pay 60% in taxes.

  8. Byron. To be perfectly honest I’m not sure of the exact percentage and can’t be bothered to find out. As a proportion of our earnings it’s only around 2 or 3 percent, although as a percentage of overall tax revenue it’s a lot higher. However we consider it well worth the tax we pay and it would be the death of any political party who were to seriously suggest its abolishion.
    Critics will point to various scandals within the NHS, but we do not claim that it is a perfect system in all its aspects. There are people in all sectors who are incompetent, on the take, or try to cut corners to look good in front of their superiors/put the savings made into a better company car etc…
    Also true that it’s not as efficient as it could be – too many “managers” and administrators and too many services being farmed out to the private (for profit, not service) sector.
    But on the whole we love the NHS. Criticize it at your peril ;)

  9. OK Byron, so I just couldn’t resist and did a little digging. The NHS gets the largest amount from our taxes at 12.9% of total spending of all taxes collected.
    That’s a little different than saying 12.9% of the tax that I pay because everyones tax bill is different depending on there earnings/circumstances as you will appreciate.
    But quite how the 60% figure for Canada is arrived at I have now idea – it sounds unrealistically high.
    You haven’t been watching Foxy “news” have you?

  10. Maaarrghk!:

    first of all thanks for the info. the 60% is her income tax rate. I don’t know how much their plan is in terms of total government outlay. Per wiki it is about $5,500 Canadian per individual. My wife and I pay $7,200 per year for a family of 4 if you include the employer portion (which is a benefit/salary) so that is $1,800 per year. the delta is $3,700 per year, actually a little less due to the exchange rate. So Canada pays a little less than 3 times what we do per individual for health care.

    So 12.9% of your income goes to your health care basically. My wife and I pay about 6-7% (maybe a little less if we have a good year) of our income to health care and that is including the employers portion which is money we do not earn but is part of the employment package. So your system is, in terms of dollars to individuals, about twice ours. We pay for non-covered people to use the ER as well so by extrapolation it might be fair to say our system delivers care more efficiently for less cost.

    Anyway just some things to think about and again thanks for the info.

  11. “So Canada pays a little less than 3 times what we do per individual for health care.”

    An unscientific study but I imagine most people in the states pay about $200-$300 per person per month for an insurance policy.

  12. Byron – Your friend must be very rich to be in the 60% bracket. Maybe some day soon we will reume top marginal tax rates back to their historic levels, especially while we are at war. I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable, but this seems pretty sound:

    “Government and public health and public policy analysts often make a comparison of the Canadian and American health care systems[1][2][3][4] because the two countries at one time had very similar health care systems until the Canadians began reforming their system in the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada, both on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.[5] In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.[5] In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States. Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private).[6]”

  13. Byron.
    I guess I should explain further. It’s 12.9% of all taxes collected, not 12.9% of my pay or 12.9% of the taxes that I pay. How much an individual pays into the system depends on their taxable earnings.
    If I payed 12.9% of my income tax I would be paying about $1160 per year for myself, my wife and as many kids as we decide to have. The actual figure, bearing in mind my first paragraph is probably about double this amount. Say around $2300 at current exchange rates.
    But here’s the thing Byron. The NHS will treat me or my family WHATEVER we are ill with. There are no conditions that are not covered and we are never refused cover for any pre-existing conditions.
    Kiddie gets leukemia? They get everything they need and your business does not go bust because you have already paid for the treatment. So you keep your job, your employees keep theirs and you also get to keep your home, car, second car and dog – although the Doctors might advise that you get rid of the dog for a while at least.

  14. Maaarrghk!

    I am pretty sure it is inevitable here. Oh well England was once a great power as well and Greece was once a great country. The new century belongs to the Indians and the Chinese as America fades into debt and irrelevance.

    At least the health care will be free, well not really since personal income tax will be footing the bill.

  15. Maaarrghk!, what is the lawsuit climate over there? Are people as freaked out about that sort of risk?

  16. Wootsie, can you elaborate? In general we are becoming more litigious over here, but I think a lot of this is down to “ambulance chasing” lawyers.
    Byron, if you are trying to tell me that our having free health care is the reason why we are not a “great country” anymore, then that is hilarious! Really, I have seldom heard anything so funny.
    The fact is that Britain has been in decline for almost a hundred years now. We had an empire that relied on us taking over other countries. This empire was already in decline before WW2 because many of these countries prefered to rule themselves, even if badly.
    Currently our decline is continuing not because of free healthcare, but because of thirty years of governments beholden to the financial service sector and not supporting our industry. It is because most of our industry has disappeared that we are in decline. It has nothing whatsoever to do with our health service.
    I will not tell you that the NHS is perfect and without its problems, but these are currently due to overmanagement and the current “target” driven culture and have nothing to do with it being tax payer funded.

  17. A few yeas ago the Today Show did a story of an American toddler who mastered the same trick — and then they brought out another machine so the kid could show how he did it.

Comments are closed.