Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?
Replies
-
People can be stupid...a sign? how many languages was it in?
OMG. PLEASE do not bring up the issue of multi-language signs. :noway:0 -
Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.0
-
I'm not comfortable letting the zoo throw its hands up in the air and say "OH WELL! THERE WERE SIGNS!" when they knew full well that parents ignored the signs all day long and a trivial amount of work and money could have prevented the death.
We should sue apple because phones are capable of texting while driving even though its illegal and they say not to do it.
Again, totally different situation. There's no easy, cheap, simple, feasible way for Apple to actually prevent people from doing that.
The zoo could easily and simply have prevented this utterly foreseeable death. Apple can't easily and simply prevent people from texting while driving.
Actually they could, they could very easily and cheaply make smartphones not work while moving. Waze, the free GPS app, makes you agree that you are a passenger and not driving when you try to use it while moving. You telling me apple couldn't do something similar and make the phone not work at all. They could do it in an afternoon if they chose to. Texting and driving has killed way more than 1 person in the last 116 years also.
Making smartphones not move while working would mean no passenger in a car, bus, or train could use their phone. That would be ridiculous.
But it saves lives. The only safeguard is a law saying "don't do this". Idiots need protection from themselves, you said it yourself.0 -
and the wall and bar....that in itself is a safeguard, one that appears to be ignored over and over....The only safeguard was a sign saying "don't do this."
Oh you mean the railing that they were fully aware people ignore all day long?
Do you really think it's sufficient to put up a railing and sign and just wash your hands of the whole thing, even though you know people ignore the railing and sign all day long?
Imagine watching parent after parent after parent putting their kid up on the railing, knowing that if any of those kids fell they would die in front of a hundred onlookers. Wouldn't you, as the zoo administrator, feel some responsibility when one of the kids finally fell and you had done nothing to prevent it?
I think they should just kick anyone out that breaks the rules. That should stop it. Anytime you see an idiot parent putting their child's life at risk, remove them from the property, no refund.0 -
You could do something as simple as using posts that are somewhat pointed at the top, instead of a flat railing, so that you couldn't sit your child on it. No one can deny that would be cheap and trivial. No, it wouldn't make it 100% safe but that's not the point. Nothing is going to be 100% safe. However, it would have prevented pretty much everybody from sitting their child on the railing.
yep, then comes the lawsuit that some idiot parent sat there kid up there and they got stabbed by the post. we have to protect the children here!!!!0 -
You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.
Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.0 -
I'm against as well. People need to be responsible for there own lack of common sense.0
-
You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.
Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.
She basically did. She did what she knew she shouldn't and her child died because of it. A manslaughter charge at least IMO.0 -
You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.
Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.
I gotta agree with this...horrific punishment is an understatement.
While I don't hold the zoo responsible. I wouldn't want to see the mother "punished" any more than she already has been.0 -
For those of you wondering about safety standards for zoos, this is from one of the articles already linked:
"Feldman said the Pittsburgh Zoo successfully completed its five-year review in September, which means it meets or exceeds all safety standards."
So the zoo was meeting (or exceeding) all safety standards. If you think those standards should be higher, that's an entirely different conversation, and an entirely different legal process.0 -
Against.
As a parent, a paranoid one at that, I don't even let my toddler get that close to enclosures because I am afraid that he may fit in between the slats or it may be unstable and he may fall in. I don't feel its the zoo's fault. Hate me if you want it was the mom's fault she should have used better judgment. Had it been a normal railing where he could have simply fallen it would have been bad enough but those are wild animals. So as bad as she may feel right now IMHO its on her just like it would be on me if I made that call.0 -
Read this does it change your mind?
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation_world/20130523_ap_parentssuepittsburghzooinboysmaulingdeath.html
The parents of a 2-year-old boy who was fatally mauled after falling into a wild African dogs exhibit last fall filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium, claiming officials had ample warning that parents routinely lifted children onto a rail overlooking the exhibit so they could see better.
The lawsuit filed on behalf of Jason and Elizabeth Derkosh seeks unspecified damages in the Nov. 4 death of their son, Maddox. The boy fell from a wooden railing after his mother lifted him up to get a better look at the painted dogs.
The bespectacled boy, who had vision issues, became the only visitor in the zoo's 116-year history to die when he unexpectedly lunged out of his mother's grasp atop the wooden railing and into a net meant to catch falling debris and trash, bouncing from it and down into the dogs' enclosure about 10 feet below.
According to the lawsuit, Elizabeth Derkosh tried to climb into the exhibit after her son, but was restrained by another zoo visitor.
"She was forced to watch helplessly as the African wild dogs savagely mauled and literally tore apart her son in front of her," according to the Allegheny County Common Pleas lawsuit filed by Philadelphia attorney Robert Mongeluzzi, an expert in construction site and other accidental deaths.
The boy suffered more than 220 injuries, mostly bites, and bled to death in the attack which included the "evisceration of his organs of the chest, abdomen and pelvis," the lawsuit said.
A zoo spokeswoman did not immediately comment.
"Elizabeth and Jason have asked us to find out why the Zoo had an unsafe exhibit, why they ignored warnings from their own employee regarding the very danger that killed Maddox and to ensure that no other family has to suffer the same unimaginable tragedy," Mongeluzzi said in the statement.
The lawsuit contends a zoo employee told KDKA-TV weeks after the boy's death that he had warned his supervisor that parents lifted their children onto the exhibit railing "at least 10" times daily, but was told, "This is not your concern, go back to work."
The lawsuit cites examples from at least 16 other U.S. zoos which use glass enclosures, wire fencing or other methods that allow children to view African painted dogs without risk of falling into the exhibit.
After the boy's death, the Pittsburgh zoo closed the observation deck, then eventually decided to move the 10 dog to three other American zoos. One of the 11 animals in the exhibit when the boy was mauled was killed by crews attempting to rescue the boy.
Zoo President Dr. Barbara Baker said last month that the exhibit was being closed because zoo staff and surrounding community still "need time to heal" from the boy's death.
Although the county district attorney has determined there was no criminal culpability on behalf of the boy's mother or zoo officials, reviews by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Associations of Zoos and Aquariums were continuing.
These two contradictory statements stuck out to me.
The argument being that there weren't adequate safety protocols in place. 116 years and not a single death? Sounds to me like they take safety pretty seriously.
There were protections put in place to safeguard children. The mother didn't like them, they blocked her son's view. So she deliberately circumvented them so he could get a better look.
Yes they could have been made even stricter. Had the dogs been encased in a concrete barrier I doubt anyone would have been hurt at all.
The fence was there specifically so the child would not fall in. The mother picked up her son and lifted him over the fence to get around that pesky little fact. To claim after the fact that the zoo did not do enough to safeguard her child, after she intentionally removed the safeguards that were in place to begin with, is insanity.
Agree! It is a terrible tragedy that the mother made a bad decision and her son paid with his life. She chose to ignore the signs and barriers. Trying to blame the zoo isn't going to ease her guilt.0 -
For those of you wondering about safety standards for zoos, this is from one of the articles already linked:
"Feldman said the Pittsburgh Zoo successfully completed its five-year review in September, which means it meets or exceeds all safety standards."
So the zoo was meeting (or exceeding) all safety standards. If you think those standards should be higher, that's an entirely different conversation, and an entirely different legal process.
^^^ Thank you for posting this.
0 -
For those of you wondering about safety standards for zoos, this is from one of the articles already linked:
"Feldman said the Pittsburgh Zoo successfully completed its five-year review in September, which means it meets or exceeds all safety standards."
So the zoo was meeting (or exceeding) all safety standards. If you think those standards should be higher, that's an entirely different conversation, and an entirely different legal process.
^^^ Thank you for posting this.
Agreed.
So now it's back to personal responsibility -- and we know how well that's gonna turn out....:ohwell:0 -
You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.
Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.
I gotta agree with this...horrific punishment is an understatement.
While I don't hold the zoo responsible. I wouldn't want to see the mother "punished" any more than she already has been.
So what about parents that leave their children in hot cars and cook them, or don't buckle them in and the die in a crash, etc. Can no blame be placed on the person responsible because they were already "punished" emotionally?0 -
You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.
Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.
and people are acting as if the zoo had signs up saying, please put your child in an unsafe situation for us to be sued0 -
Please go back and read my original response where I said the zoo should NOT have a lawsuit brought against it.
You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.
Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.
and people are acting as if the zoo had signs up saying, please put your child in an unsafe situation for us to be sued0 -
Fair point. If charges were to be pressed against the mother, I would go with Child Endangerment rather than Manslaughter. If it were to be charged as Manslaughter, it would most likely be considered Criminally Negligent Manslaughter, but based on the situation, I don't think the court could find reasonable cause to convict her on that count. "Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability." It wasn't an "omission to act when there is a duty to do so" on the mother's part. I think that's where it differs and would be considered Child Endangerment.
You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.
Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.
I gotta agree with this...horrific punishment is an understatement.
While I don't hold the zoo responsible. I wouldn't want to see the mother "punished" any more than she already has been.
So what about parents that leave their children in hot cars and cook them, or don't buckle them in and the die in a crash, etc. Can no blame be placed on the person responsible because they were already "punished" emotionally?
However, I personally wouldn't want to press charges.0 -
My heart aches for the parents. But I am against the lawsuit.0
-
Fair point. If charges were to be pressed against the mother, I would go with Child Endangerment rather than Manslaughter. If it were to be charged as Manslaughter, it would most likely be considered Criminally Negligent Manslaughter, but based on the situation, I don't think the court could find reasonable cause to convict her on that count. "Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability." It wasn't an "omission to act when there is a duty to do so" on the mother's part. I think that's where it differs and would be considered Child Endangerment.
You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.
Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.
I gotta agree with this...horrific punishment is an understatement.
While I don't hold the zoo responsible. I wouldn't want to see the mother "punished" any more than she already has been.
So what about parents that leave their children in hot cars and cook them, or don't buckle them in and the die in a crash, etc. Can no blame be placed on the person responsible because they were already "punished" emotionally?
However, I personally wouldn't want to press charges.
I am not a lawyer so I am not sure what charges should be pressed, but some should none the less. It's 100% her fault. She broke the rules and common sense and her kid is dead as a result. No ifs, ands or buts to it, had she not lifted her child up there he would be alive. It blows my mind that the zoo will likely get fined out the *kitten* but the mother who basically killed her child will get off free.0 -
Yep.
Fair point. If charges were to be pressed against the mother, I would go with Child Endangerment rather than Manslaughter. If it were to be charged as Manslaughter, it would most likely be considered Criminally Negligent Manslaughter, but based on the situation, I don't think the court could find reasonable cause to convict her on that count. "Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability." It wasn't an "omission to act when there is a duty to do so" on the mother's part. I think that's where it differs and would be considered Child Endangerment.
You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.
Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.
I gotta agree with this...horrific punishment is an understatement.
While I don't hold the zoo responsible. I wouldn't want to see the mother "punished" any more than she already has been.
So what about parents that leave their children in hot cars and cook them, or don't buckle them in and the die in a crash, etc. Can no blame be placed on the person responsible because they were already "punished" emotionally?
However, I personally wouldn't want to press charges.
I am not a lawyer so I am not sure what charges should be pressed, but some should none the less. It's 100% her fault. She broke the rules and common sense and her kid is dead as a result. No ifs, ands or buts to it, had she not lifted her child up there he would be alive. It blows my mind that the zoo will likely get fined out the *kitten* but the mother who basically killed her child will get off free.
Sorry if it sounded rude. I was just trying to clarify the potential charges. Wasn't trying to belittle you or anything. :flowerforyou:0 -
christ, if they start charging you crimes for lack of common sense i want it to be known my last meal will be
a double whopper with cheese, no tomato
large fries
large coke
large Pepperoni Pizza from Anthonys
Peanutbuster parfait from dairy queen0 -
christ, if they start charging you crimes for lack of common sense i want it to be known my last meal will be
a double whopper with cheese, no tomato
large fries
large coke
large Pepperoni Pizza from Anthonys
Peanutbuster parfait from dairy queen
/thread0 -
christ, if they start charging you crimes for lack of common sense i want it to be known my last meal will be
a double whopper with cheese, no tomato
large fries
large coke
large Pepperoni Pizza from Anthonys
Peanutbuster parfait from dairy queen
It wasn't a crime for lack of common sense, she got her child killed. It was neglegent, obviously, since she had a sign right there to tell her not to do it and a pack of ferocious dogs below should be more than enough of a deterrent to risk your child's life like that.0 -
You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.
Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.
I gotta agree with this...horrific punishment is an understatement.
While I don't hold the zoo responsible. I wouldn't want to see the mother "punished" any more than she already has been.
So what about parents that leave their children in hot cars and cook them, or don't buckle them in and the die in a crash, etc. Can no blame be placed on the person responsible because they were already "punished" emotionally?
A mother walks her kid down the street, kid is on the street side, they momentarily go into the street around a parked car as there is a large crowd in front of them, kid pulls away from mom and darts into street....
Is mom negligent because kid was on the "street side"? Because she moved into the street simply trying to get around a "bunch up" ? Thus neglecting the warnings of "don't walk in the street, except at a crosswalk". Come on, this is apples and oranges...
Mom made a terrible judgement call, bypassed warning signs...and then failed to control the motions of her child. That is all true, is she criminally negligent for her childs death as a result? I think it was a grave error on her part, and a horrific accident, and I attribute the "blame" to the mother, but I still consider it an accident.0 -
You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.
Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.
I gotta agree with this...horrific punishment is an understatement.
While I don't hold the zoo responsible. I wouldn't want to see the mother "punished" any more than she already has been.
So what about parents that leave their children in hot cars and cook them, or don't buckle them in and the die in a crash, etc. Can no blame be placed on the person responsible because they were already "punished" emotionally?
A mother walks her kid down the street, kid is on the street side, they momentarily go into the street around a parked car as there is a large crowd in front of them, kid pulls away from mom and darts into street....
Is mom negligent because kid was on the "street side"? Because she moved into the street simply trying to get around a "bunch up" ? Thus neglecting the warnings of "don't walk in the street, except at a crosswalk". Come on, this is apples and oranges...
Mom made a terrible judgement call, bypassed warning signs...and then failed to control the motions of her child. That is all true, is she criminally negligent for her childs death as a result? I think it was a grave error on her part, and a horrific accident, and I attribute the "blame" to the mother, but I still consider it an accident.
I am not even commenting on that because it is a terrible analogy. Leaving your kid in a hot car isn't. People warn you not to do it, there are laws and signs, but when a parent does it they are usually charged with a crime. What is different about this? She clearly put her child in danger and broke clear rules doing it. Should be charged IMO.0 -
Yes, someone may find a way to circumvent the measures. But how many? If changing the railing design made the number of people dangling their children into the pen drop from a dozen a day to a dozen a decade, that would be effective and worthwhile.
I think it's immoral and unethical for the zoo to knowingly allow people to put their kids on the rail day in and day out, knowing how dangerous it is, without doing anything at all about it.
The mother is mostly at fault here. I feel for her but she caused the death of her child by her poor judgment.
However, I also agree with your bolded statement above about the responsibility of zoos.
I read about this horrible incident when it happened and remember the rail had a design that sloped inward toward the viewing platform. That means the zoo knew some people could and would climb on the rail. The inward-slope rail design meant they were aware of possible falls.0 -
300K is all they are asking for (granted i got this off of facebook since some friends know friends etc...)
i think i cost my parents 300K in food and diapers alone. seems to me a kid should be worth a little more than that0 -
Against.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
against but I do feel the parent, even though it was her dumb *kitten* fault, watching a kid get torn to apart, i cant even imagine, so i do feel for her and her family0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions