Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

1101113151622

Replies

  • Mustang_Susie
    Mustang_Susie Posts: 7,045 Member
    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.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2hCa80SJ3WoZRO1L6L3PxaZnYu6X7NKv_7dFhdPBp7-jh-LdDXg

    Seeing this would not fully prevent anyone from entering into the water.... so if said person is to enter the water, "ignoring the signs sings" as it was put, and a shark kills can one sue the city for not providing enough barriers to prevent people from entering in the water? Common sense bro.... common sense.

    The local government who posted this sign didn't charge money to come see their sharks in an exhibit they are purporting to be safe.
  • crista_b
    crista_b Posts: 1,192 Member
    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, one of my friends' dads was developing an app that could prevent you from actually sending or receiving texts/emails/etc. while driving. He was Beta testing it with some close friends and relatives not too long ago. I can guarantee that if he could develop this, Apple could do something. But they won't because why are they going to waste money on something when it's been warned against. You can only protect humanity from its own stupidity to an extent. Eventually people need to figure out how to take responsibility.
  • kellijauch
    kellijauch Posts: 379 Member
    Could they have done more and had better protection/prevention for that? Sure. Are they responsible? Absolutely not.
  • calibriintx
    calibriintx Posts: 1,741 Member
    It sounds like the zoo had several options for viewing these animals, they had a railing and a netting and signs stating not to lift your child onto railings. We cannot protect the world against stupidity. I feel horrible for the family and friends of this boy, but it was a decision that the mother made to disregard the safety signs. Unfrotunately, a decision she will have to regret for the rest of her life. Blaming others won't change that.

    A sign I recently saw. EVERYTHING HAPPENS FOR A REASON, BUT SOMETIMES THE REASON IS THAT YOU'RE STUPID AND MAKE BAD DECISION.

    ***Please note I'm not saying this mother is stupid...just that she made a bad decision.

    The netting was for people dropping cell phones and cameras, not kids.

    It would have been a trivial upgrade to make the netting strong enough to catch a child, but the zoo chose not to do that, despite the fact that they knew parents put their kids up on the railing multiple times a day.

    I know this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but please answer this honestly. you are a liberal, aren't you?

    I think that dividing the political spectrum into an either/or single-dimension line is horribly stupid, and find that only people with primitive political positions and opinions have much use for the terms "liberal" or "conservative."

    It was just your take on rewarding failure/ignorance and ignoring that people have a responsibility to themselves and their children that had me wondering. sorry to get off topic.


    Wow.
  • Danny_Boy13
    Danny_Boy13 Posts: 2,094 Member
    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.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2hCa80SJ3WoZRO1L6L3PxaZnYu6X7NKv_7dFhdPBp7-jh-LdDXg

    Seeing this would not fully prevent anyone from entering into the water.... so if said person is to enter the water, "ignoring the signs sings" as it was put, and a shark kills can one sue the city for not providing enough barriers to prevent people from entering in the water? Common sense bro.... common sense.

    That's not at all comparable. If the area with that sign could spend $1000 on a small device that would actually prevent anyone from getting eaten by a shark, that would be more similar.

    qsps1014.jpg&maxx=300&maxy=0

    Here is something more comparable. A sign at a local swimming pool. Warning sign posted.... Point is there are warning signs...it is up to us to adhere to them or be prepared for possible consequences.
  • LMT2012
    LMT2012 Posts: 697 Member
    I am against most lawsuits it seems. This one included.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    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.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2hCa80SJ3WoZRO1L6L3PxaZnYu6X7NKv_7dFhdPBp7-jh-LdDXg

    Seeing this would not fully prevent anyone from entering into the water.... so if said person is to enter the water, "ignoring the signs sings" as it was put, and a shark kills can one sue the city for not providing enough barriers to prevent people from entering in the water? Common sense bro.... common sense.

    The local government who posted this sign didn't charge money to come see their sharks in an exhibit they are purporting to be safe.
    In an exhibit they are purporting to be safe so long as you follow the rules, you mean.

    The kid would be safe if they weren't dangled over an exhibit containing wild animals and dropped. The same as the kid is safe from the sharks so long as you don't dangle it over the edge of the dock into a group or circling sharks.
  • Katina3333
    Katina3333 Posts: 259 Member
    I'm against it. Apparently some people think that the government or other people need to tell us how to behave in a safe manner... where does it stop?
  • PixieGoddess
    PixieGoddess Posts: 1,833 Member
    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.

    You keep saying this is a "trivial" and "inexpensive" thing to do. I'd love to hear your credentials/research to back that up. As an engineer, I'm very aware of the design requirements to hold a given amount of force/weight, and of the cost of the materials required - not to mention the cost of paying a person to design it, paying people to install it, the costs go on and on and pile up quickly.

    I'm not saying that someone's life is not worth this cost, but please stop making it sound like all they needed to do was buy a $20 volleyball net and have an employee hang it up after-hours one evening. It is neither a "trivial" nor "inexpensive" process.
  • crista_b
    crista_b Posts: 1,192 Member
    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.

    You keep saying this is a "trivial" and "inexpensive" thing to do. I'd love to hear your credentials/research to back that up. As an engineer, I'm very aware of the design requirements to hold a given amount of force/weight, and of the cost of the materials required - not to mention the cost of paying a person to design it, paying people to install it, the costs go on and on and pile up quickly.

    I'm not saying that someone's life is not worth this cost, but please stop making it sound like all they needed to do was buy a $20 volleyball net and have an employee hang it up after-hours one evening. It is neither a "trivial" nor "inexpensive" process.
    QFT
  • smantha32
    smantha32 Posts: 6,990 Member
    Zoos have wild animals. There are fences, gates, walls, and moats around them to protect both the animals and the general public. Being stupid enough to put your child somewhere dangerous and having something horrible happen does not give you the right to sue. I feel awful for the family, but grief and anger are not lessened with money. I'd feel differently if the zoo were negligent and the animal was out of it's enclosure.

    Against. I totally agree with this comment....

    Against also. Same reason.
  • Buddhasmiracle
    Buddhasmiracle Posts: 925 Member
    The lawsuit claims that zoo officials had ample warning that parents routinely lift their children onto a rail overlooking the exhibit so that the children can see the dogs better, according to the report.


    If I understand correctly the lawsuit is stating that the zoo is responsible for the child's death because it was a common practice for parents to lift their children and seat them on the rail, and the zoo took no action (modifying the rail to make it impossible to lift a child up onto it, or zoo personnel did notverbally warning parents not to lift their children up to the rail, therefore by this "non-intervention" they (the zoo) are responsible? I am trying to understand the logic of plaintiff's claim.

    As others have said, it is a tragedy and no doubt painful loss for the parents.

    Against.
  • Joreanasaurous
    Joreanasaurous Posts: 1,384 Member
    Against. Not to sound too harsh, but it was the parent's actions that killed the child, not the zoo. Take some personal responsibility
  • InnerConflict
    InnerConflict Posts: 1,592 Member
    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.

    You keep saying this is a "trivial" and "inexpensive" thing to do. I'd love to hear your credentials/research to back that up. As an engineer, I'm very aware of the design requirements to hold a given amount of force/weight, and of the cost of the materials required - not to mention the cost of paying a person to design it, paying people to install it, the costs go on and on and pile up quickly.

    I'm not saying that someone's life is not worth this cost, but please stop making it sound like all they needed to do was buy a $20 volleyball net and have an employee hang it up after-hours one evening. It is neither a "trivial" nor "inexpensive" process.

    THANK YOU!
  • servilia
    servilia Posts: 3,453 Member
    Against but only bc the parent shouldn't profit off their own stupidity.
    Zoos should have better safeguards to protect children from their idiot parents.
  • andreamelo1
    andreamelo1 Posts: 161 Member
    Against but only bc the parent shouldn't profit off their own stupidity.
    Zoos should have better safeguards to protect children from their idiot parents.

    this ^^^

    both have equal resonsibility
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    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.

    You keep saying this is a "trivial" and "inexpensive" thing to do. I'd love to hear your credentials/research to back that up. As an engineer, I'm very aware of the design requirements to hold a given amount of force/weight, and of the cost of the materials required - not to mention the cost of paying a person to design it, paying people to install it, the costs go on and on and pile up quickly.

    I'm not saying that someone's life is not worth this cost, but please stop making it sound like all they needed to do was buy a $20 volleyball net and have an employee hang it up after-hours one evening. It is neither a "trivial" nor "inexpensive" process.

    In the context of the budget of a zoo, a safety net is a trivial and inexpensive thing to install.

    How much do you think the settlement will be by comparison? They're going to end up building out new safety features because of this anyway.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    The lawsuit claims that zoo officials had ample warning that parents routinely lift their children onto a rail overlooking the exhibit so that the children can see the dogs better, according to the report.


    If I understand correctly the lawsuit is stating that the zoo is responsible for the child's death because it was a common practice for parents to lift their children and seat them on the rail, and the zoo took no action (modifying the rail to make it impossible to lift a child up onto it, or zoo personnel did notverbally warning parents not to lift their children up to the rail, therefore by this "non-intervention" they (the zoo) are responsible? I am trying to understand the logic of plaintiff's claim.

    As others have said, it is a tragedy and no doubt painful loss for the parents.

    Against.

    That seems to be it, yes. The zoo knew it was a dangerous situation, so they put up signs. However, parents routinely ignored the signs. Zoo officials were fully aware of this and did nothing about it.
  • crista_b
    crista_b Posts: 1,192 Member
    The zoo knew it was a dangerous situation, so they put up signs. However, parents routinely ignored the signs. Zoo officials were fully aware of this and did nothing about it.
    They didn't just have wild, carnivorous animals roaming about with signs saying be careful. They had safety precautions. I still fail to see why it's the zoos fault that parents chose to bypass and ignore the precautions.
  • Jerrypeoples
    Jerrypeoples Posts: 1,541 Member
    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.

    You keep saying this is a "trivial" and "inexpensive" thing to do. I'd love to hear your credentials/research to back that up. As an engineer, I'm very aware of the design requirements to hold a given amount of force/weight, and of the cost of the materials required - not to mention the cost of paying a person to design it, paying people to install it, the costs go on and on and pile up quickly.

    I'm not saying that someone's life is not worth this cost, but please stop making it sound like all they needed to do was buy a $20 volleyball net and have an employee hang it up after-hours one evening. It is neither a "trivial" nor "inexpensive" process.

    umm if youre not already dating someone id like to marry you

    thanks