Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

InnerConflict

My question is, as the child was 2 years old, how hard is it to hold your 2 year old child up so he can see better without endangering him? To me it seems like a no brainer, I have been following this story as well, as I'm originally from the general area.

As I have mentioned multiple times, I believe this mother experienced a terrible lapse in judgment. That being said, children of that age do not understand danger and how their body movement can magnify it.

Mustang_Susie

OP
Did you find what you were looking for by posting this topc or was it just too divisive and contentious.
BTW, congratulations on eluding a lock.

christina0089

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.

agreed.

sarahtonin015

Against.

I feel bad for the mother, and it's terrible what happened to that poor boy, but I disagree with the fact that HER actions led to the tragedy and yet she's deflecting the blame and responsibility.

sarahtonin015

Totally against -- parents need to be responsible. This parent was not as responsible as she should have been.

Seriously? She was incredibly stupid, not evil. Good grief.

Also, I'm against the lawsuit. People need to use their brains and be accountable for their own actions.

You misquoted me. Nowhere did I say she was evil. I said she was not as responsible as she should have been. Having grown up visiting wildlife parks where things like buffalo and bears roam free and living in an area where cougars leave footprints in my backyard --

If there is a fence and a barrier and signs saying DANGER DO NOT DO THIS (and from the pictures I saw -- she very clearly had to go above and beyond these to put her child over the barriers and into the air ABOVE the enclosure) -- that is a lack of responsibility. A responsible parent does not put their child in a situation where they are exposed to wild animals. Holding your toddler in the air above an open enclosure? Completely irresponsible behavior and a clear lack of common sense.

I did not miquote you. I quoted exactly what you said. The thing you wished on that mother is a terrible punishment for something that, while stupid, was accidental. Saying she deserves such a thing implies that she did it on purpose, which would make her evil.

Like I said, people need to use their brains and take responsibility -- for actions AND words.

Actually, not to instigate, but no, you didn't quote "exactly what [this poster] said". You did actually misquote him, and your reasoning for doing so is incorrect. The poster wished NOTHING on the mother. What they wrote was:

"Totally against -- parents need to be responsible. This parent was not as responsible as she should have been."

They are expressing that they're AGAINST the fact that the mother is suing the ZOO for HER actions that ultimately led to the tragedy. It's unfortunate, but it's true - they were HER actions, and in light of all the facts, her actions WERE very irresponsible. Intentional? No, not at all - and importantly, the poster never said anywhere in their post that the mom's actions WERE intentional. Your argument basically goes like this:

1. The poster said that the mother deserves "a terrible punishment".
2. This implies that the poster is insinuating that she did it on purpose.
3. It follows that the poster is saying that the mother is evil.

But your first premise is false - in fact, BOTH of your premises are false, because practically everything you said was seriously reading WAY too much into the original post and then putting words into the other person's mouth. I hope it goes without saying that it follows that your conclusion is also false.

I understand your sentiment but the argumentative and logical skills applied here are horrendously weak and demonstrates many fallacies. Don't put words into other peoples' mouths, basically. You will never gain any advantage in a debate by doing that.

Kanohane

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.

Against, There were signs too....the zoo may decide to pay a settlement anyways, but she probably won't win in court since there was a fence for a barrier...that she broke....and a warning sign...that she ignored......Why are there fences at zoos? and warning signs? 100% the mom's fault...she basically killed her son and is shifting the blame...wonder if she had insurance on him...I would never lift my kid on top of a fence filled with wild carnivorous dogs....thats just stupid..but if he cant see, only his eyes need to see the dogs...not the whole body, no excuse

InnerConflict

OP
Did you find what you were looking for by posting this topc or was it just too divisive and contentious.
BTW, congratulations on eluding a lock.

I am pleased with how the thread has gone, although I do feel a few posts have been on the harsh side. I do not wish any ill will toward the mother and think watching her son die a horrible death is punishment enough. I mainly was just curious if anyone felt the same way that I did, that this lawsuit is completely ridiculous. This is definitely a story that will get plenty of coverage here locally, so I will bump the thread with any updates that become available. As suggested previously by another member, I believe the end result will be a settlement. If that is the case, I sure hope the family donates that money to charity.

tallulahthunderbird

I'm actually FOR this suit.

Chubbyhulagirl

I agree that it's not a good solution, but I'm just drawing attention to the fact that by forcing the zoo to protect people from their own stupidity when they ignore precautions, you can't choose where to draw the line. People are ignoring the precautions so when do they start to be held responsible for their actions?

You can't choose where to draw the line? What are you talking about? They choose the draw the line somewhere at each and every exhibit. Here they drew the line at a railing and a sign. How is that different from drawing the line at a railing and sign and a safety net? Or drawing the line at a sign and railing that you can't sit on? You draw the line at the flamingo exhibit with a small railing. You draw the line at the jaguar enclosure with plexiglass and a moat. You draw the line at the king cobra exhibit with a sealed glass cage. Etc etc.

The point is, even if you add extra measures, people are going to find a way to circumvent those measures and do what they want. Every time that happens and leads to danger, we then just keep adding more measures. When does it stop and we say, "Hey, stop doing what you know you shouldn't. You brought danger on yourself."?

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.

I understand what you are arguing however immoral and unethical is not the same as legally responsible.

Could the zoo do more to make the exhibit harder for parents to put their children in danger, yes.
Do they have to do this legally, no.
Might they change things now that someone has died after 116 years, maybe.
Does it change the parent's decision to put their child in harm's way, no.

Ultimately, it was the parent's mistake that got her child killed. Not the zoo having an observation deck, not the zoo using a fence/railing that is short enough for parent's to place their child on, not the zoo installing a net specifically for catching trash and debris (not humans, since humans should not be coming over the railing in any way, shape or form. Especially considering the fence is taller than the majority of human's chest area and even if it is below for some really tall person, they can't fall over a railing leaning their head over it) and not the zoo for posting signs and I am going to assume having zoo workers advise against climbing over or placing children atop the fence even though they are aware people may not adhere to this (which happens often at all zoos, whether it is parents with their children or individuals wanting to get closer to the animals, just google it, happens more often than you would think). They did everything they are legally responsible to do as a business standpoint. You have your opinion on their moral responsibility but in response to that, what about the parent's moral responsibility?

You keep posting that the zoo could easily install a bigger safety net. This way of thinking completely absolves the parents of children or individuals from their personal responsibility to keep themselves and their children as safe as reasonably possible. A person should not be going over the fence period and the fence is designed in such a way that the only possible way to do this is if a person climbs it or assists another person onto/over it. Why would they install a net if a person is not supposed to be going over the fence? You should say that the fence should be too high for anyone to climb or lift another on/over. Even your flat spike railing suggestion could and probably would be circumvented.

The "easiest" and most cost effective solution was put into place. Wall, fence, signs. According to your argument for cost/easiness, wouldn't the opposing argument say it was just as easy for the parent not to put their child in danger? Easier and free cost wise for both the zoo and parent.

You are arguing an ethics standpoint which is a valid argument when it comes to ethics but it does not make the zoo legally responsible for this child's death. At most, it just makes them regretful. Nothing will be changed because the exhibit was removed (well, the animals were. Who knows what will replace them.)

jonnythan

I never said the park is liable BECAUSE what they did was unethical. Their actions were unethical AND I believe they have a legal liability.

The lawsuit, if it goes forward, will determine that.

Mustang_Susie

One final thought:

I have never had my child mauled to death by a pack of wild dogs.
To my knowledge, neither has any other poster on this thread.
And while we can debate the legitimacy of the lawsuit and the irresponsibility of her actions, until we walk in her shoes I think it is unfair to presume to know exactly what she was/is thinking or feeling.

Laces_0ut

maybe we should start suing the state every time a kid gets hit by a car since there aren't barriers on every mile of road.


any sane person is against this lawsuit.

AmericanExpat

ooppps didn't quote what i wanted to

AmericanExpat

For. If the zoo knows that a child can easily fall off a highly accessible railing into a pit with animals that may kill the child, they have some obligation to put safeguards in place to prevent this from happening.

This does not absolve the parent of responsibility. However, there are easy and inexpensive ways the zoo could have prevented this from happening, and many other zoos have taken such steps.

I am confused how you think the zoo did not do this by putting up the railings that the mother had to lift the child up on?

Mustang_Susie

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.

crista_b

One final thought:

I have never had my child mauled to death by a pack of wild dogs.
To my knowledge, neither has any other poster on this thread.
And while we can debate the legitimacy of the lawsuit and the irresponsibility of her actions, until we walk in her shoes I think it is unfair to presume to know exactly what she was/is thinking or feeling.

Very true.

While I'm against the lawsuit, I cannot honestly say that I would or wouldn't do the same in that situation for the very reason you mentioned. It's very easy to get up on a high horse and say something like, "Well I think this is stupid. I wouldn't sue the zoo if I did something wrong!" but until this situation happens to you, you have no idea how you would truly react.

BeachIron

maybe we should start suing the state every time a kid gets hit by a car since there aren't barriers on every mile of road.


any sane person is against this lawsuit.

I think it's a pretty interesting case tbh, the zoo apparently knew people were putting their kids on the railing. We will see what happens but I wouldn't be cocky if I was the zoo's attorney.

WannaDizzolve

It's a soul crushing thing to lose a child. That said, the law did the right thing by not pursuing the mother on criminal negligence charges. The zoo has done everything they reasonably can to keep the animals and people apart and still allow viewing of the wild dogs. So i'm against the lawsuit. This comes under the heading of terrible tragedy...

Qarol

So...she lifted him up on the railing to get a better view? And let him fall, essentially. And didn't jump in after him. And now wants money.

moosegt35

One final thought:

I have never had my child mauled to death by a pack of wild dogs.
To my knowledge, neither has any other poster on this thread.
And while we can debate the legitimacy of the lawsuit and the irresponsibility of her actions, until we walk in her shoes I think it is unfair to presume to know exactly what she was/is thinking or feeling.

Very true.

While I'm against the lawsuit, I cannot honestly say that I would or wouldn't do the same in that situation for the very reason you mentioned. It's very easy to get up on a high horse and say something like, "Well I think this is stupid. I wouldn't sue the zoo if I did something wrong!" but until this situation happens to you, you have no idea how you would truly react.

But why does it make sense to sue someone because you screwed up?

moosegt35

It's a soul crushing thing to lose a child. That said, the law did the right thing by not pursuing the mother on criminal negligence charges. The zoo has done everything they reasonably can to keep the animals and people apart and still allow viewing of the wild dogs. So i'm against the lawsuit. This comes under the heading of terrible tragedy...

No, the law dropeed the ball by not charging the mother for killing her child.

crista_b

One final thought:

I have never had my child mauled to death by a pack of wild dogs.
To my knowledge, neither has any other poster on this thread.
And while we can debate the legitimacy of the lawsuit and the irresponsibility of her actions, until we walk in her shoes I think it is unfair to presume to know exactly what she was/is thinking or feeling.

Very true.

While I'm against the lawsuit, I cannot honestly say that I would or wouldn't do the same in that situation for the very reason you mentioned. It's very easy to get up on a high horse and say something like, "Well I think this is stupid. I wouldn't sue the zoo if I did something wrong!" but until this situation happens to you, you have no idea how you would truly react.

But why does it make sense to sue someone because you screwed up?

It doesn't. That's why I said I'm against the lawsuit.

However, without being in that situation, no one here can guarantee that they wouldn't do what this mother is doing. They would be an EXTREMELY high horse to say otherwise.

InnerConflict

This is also a hot topic on a local news website. Here are two quotes from the message board. Both quotes are hearsay. If it goes to trial, perhaps when she contacted an attorney will be confirmed.

"they had a lawsuit planned from day one. A friend of my wife was at the zoo the day this happened an witnessed the tragedy. She was called in to give a deposition one month after Maddox was buried. I was hoping that commone sense would prevail. Obviously, it did not."

"yes I know all about their lawsuit. One of my cousins went to high school with the mother and they were looking for an attorney the day this happened that they were filing a suit against the zoo. From what I was told they were turned down by many attorneys in the Pittsburgh Area and hired an attorney from Philly. The mother placed her son on the railing, did not hold on to him, yet she is blaming the zoo for her own stupidity."

glovepuppet

However, without being in that situation, no one here can guarantee that they wouldn't do what this mother is doing. They would be an EXTREMELY high horse to say otherwise.

i don't agree with that at all.

ironanimal

However, without being in that situation, no one here can guarantee that they wouldn't do what this mother is doing. They would be an EXTREMELY high horse to say otherwise.

Some of us are sure enough about our own judgement to know we wouldn't dangle a child over a pit full of wild animals, thanks.

16 hands, btw.

moosegt35

One final thought:

I have never had my child mauled to death by a pack of wild dogs.
To my knowledge, neither has any other poster on this thread.
And while we can debate the legitimacy of the lawsuit and the irresponsibility of her actions, until we walk in her shoes I think it is unfair to presume to know exactly what she was/is thinking or feeling.

Very true.

While I'm against the lawsuit, I cannot honestly say that I would or wouldn't do the same in that situation for the very reason you mentioned. It's very easy to get up on a high horse and say something like, "Well I think this is stupid. I wouldn't sue the zoo if I did something wrong!" but until this situation happens to you, you have no idea how you would truly react.

But why does it make sense to sue someone because you screwed up?

It doesn't. That's why I said I'm against the lawsuit.

However, without being in that situation, no one here can guarantee that they wouldn't do what this mother is doing. They would be an EXTREMELY high horse to say otherwise.

I can absolutely guarantee that I am not an idiot. The mother is. End of story. I don't see how anyone could even come up with a reason to sue the zoo when she clearly caused her son's death. She should be charged. What if she was holding him up over a bridge so he could see the water and dropped him in? She would almost certainly be charged. I don't see the difference.

BeachGingerOnTheRocks

I'm for the lawsuit and for a jury to make a determination as to liability following the rules of law that are set out in this country.

I don't know if the mother's actions is a complete defense to the zoo's negligence; I'd have to see all the evidence to make this determination.

Do I believe that any award a jury would give the mom should be cut based on her negligence? Yes. And if she is more than 50 percent negligent, then she should be awarded nothing.

I don't believe in restricting the ability to sue, just in the ability to collect money in a judgment. Lawsuits are usually the catalyst for safety laws.

Would I award the mom anything if I was sitting on the jury? Probably not. But if I was the judge, I don't think I would dismiss the case. The zoo did have some warning that the exhibit was potentially dangerous.

crista_b

However, without being in that situation, no one here can guarantee that they wouldn't do what this mother is doing. They would be an EXTREMELY high horse to say otherwise.

Some of us are sure enough about our own judgement to know we wouldn't dangle a child over a pit full of wild animals, thanks.

16 hands, btw.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :drinker:

What I was trying to say wasn't that everyone here would be stupid enough to dangle their child over the exhibit. I certainly wouldn't do that. I'm not trying to call anyone here stupid. However, I was trying to say that if you had a momentary lapse of judgement which caused harm to your child, it would be very difficult while grieving to sit back and say, "Yes, I'm at full fault because I was an idiot." When you're in that situation, I'm sure that the heartache would temporarily block rational thought.

ETA: the post below by mustang_susie is what I was getting at (she was just better at wording it). :ohwell:

Consider:

The five stages of grief as defined by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross in her 1969 book "On Death and Dying":
denial
anger
bargaining
depression
acceptance
The theory holds that the stages are not stops on a linear time line of grief, not everyone goes through all the stages, nor in a prescribed order.

MRI studies show changes in physiological and neurological processes.

Because of the intensity of the grief emotions (following the death of a child), irrational decisions are often made.

Mustang_Susie

Consider:

The five stages of grief as defined by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross in her 1969 book "On Death and Dying":
denial
anger
bargaining
depression
acceptance
The theory holds that the stages are not stops on a linear time line of grief, not everyone goes through all the stages, nor in a prescribed order.

MRI studies show changes in physiological and neurological processes.

Because of the intensity of the grief emotions (following the death of a child), irrational decisions are often made.

InnerConflict

Great post Susie about the stages of grief. Also don't know how much they were influenced by friends and family. Once the lawyer gets involved and says "you have a case," then it is understandable that someone grieving is going to believe it.