Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

Mustang_Susie

If any of you are interested, the family did start a charity in memory of their son. Their son loved playing with trucks, so they formed Trucks For Maddox. They collect toy trucks for needy kids. I am completely against this lawsuit, but their charity is a worthwhile cause.

https://www.facebook.com/TrucksForMaddox

Bittersweet

jonnythan

No, you just keep beating the point that the costs to install a bigger net is trivial without providing anything to back it up.

What about the flashing walk/don't walk signs for a cross walk? Should there be a barrier preventing people from stepping off the curb when it is says don't walk?

It's certainly trivial to the cost of this lawsuit and the cost of the child's life, wouldn't you say?

This is an attraction at a zoo. There's a sign up, so they know the danger. Employees warned management that visitors routinely ignored the signs. Therefore, the management was fully aware that visitors routinely put their children in dangerous situations. Small changes to the attraction could have easily prevented this, yet they did not make any changes.

Yes, the mother bears responsibility. But the zoo does too. They knew the situation was dangerous, and they could have easily done something about it. They chose not to.

No, not everything needs to be 100% safe. That's silly. But this situation could have been significantly more safe for relatively little extra cost or effort.

jonnythan

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.

luceegj

Yeah I thinkk it just takes a bit of common sense not to lift your child on there! And animal are animals!

jessgetshealthy

Against.

InnerConflict

No, you just keep beating the point that the costs to install a bigger net is trivial without providing anything to back it up.

What about the flashing walk/don't walk signs for a cross walk? Should there be a barrier preventing people from stepping off the curb when it is says don't walk?

It's certainly trivial to the cost of this lawsuit and the cost of the child's life, wouldn't you say?

This is an attraction at a zoo. There's a sign up, so they know the danger. Employees warned management that visitors routinely ignored the signs. Therefore, the management was fully aware that visitors routinely put their children in dangerous situations. Small changes to the attraction could have easily prevented this, yet they did not make any changes.

Yes, the mother bears responsibility. But the zoo does too. They knew the situation was dangerous, and they could have easily done something about it. They chose not to.

No, not everything needs to be 100% safe. That's silly. But this situation could have been significantly more safe for relatively little extra cost or effort.

We are just not going to find common ground on this. Just because they were aware that some parents were putting their child in harm's way, doesn't mean they should be liable for such idiocy in my opinion.

ryrob1721

against, i feel horrible for this mother since i have 2 young boys one of the around the age of her son. This happened at the pittsburgh zoo and at the particular exhibit there is an area where you can see these african wild dogs that is glassed off so that you do not need to lift your child and its safe.

This was a true tragedy and I would never want to experience what this mother had to endure, having to watch her child being tortured by these dogs.

Safety is always first especially at an exhibit like this.

warriorprincessdi

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/23/parents-sue-pittsburgh-zoo-over-toddlers-mauling-death

against, the parent took a risk herself.

crista_b

No, you just keep beating the point that the costs to install a bigger net is trivial without providing anything to back it up.

What about the flashing walk/don't walk signs for a cross walk? Should there be a barrier preventing people from stepping off the curb when it is says don't walk?

It's certainly trivial to the cost of this lawsuit and the cost of the child's life, wouldn't you say?

This is an attraction at a zoo. There's a sign up, so they know the danger. Employees warned management that visitors routinely ignored the signs. Therefore, the management was fully aware that visitors routinely put their children in dangerous situations. Small changes to the attraction could have easily prevented this, yet they did not make any changes.

Yes, the mother bears responsibility. But the zoo does too. They knew the situation was dangerous, and they could have easily done something about it. They chose not to.

No, not everything needs to be 100% safe. That's silly. But this situation could have been significantly more safe for relatively little extra cost or effort.

We are just not going to find common ground on this. Just because they were aware that some parents were putting their child in harm's way, doesn't mean they should be liable for such idiocy in my opinion.

Exactly. It sucks, but there were safeguards in place. If someone chooses to ignore those safeguards, they are assuming full liability for any danger.

If my coffee cup says it's hot but everyday I put it in my lap and take off the lid, and the person selling it sees this, it's not their fault if one day I hit a bump and burn the crap out of myself. That's my own stupidity.

jonnythan

No, you just keep beating the point that the costs to install a bigger net is trivial without providing anything to back it up.

What about the flashing walk/don't walk signs for a cross walk? Should there be a barrier preventing people from stepping off the curb when it is says don't walk?

It's certainly trivial to the cost of this lawsuit and the cost of the child's life, wouldn't you say?

This is an attraction at a zoo. There's a sign up, so they know the danger. Employees warned management that visitors routinely ignored the signs. Therefore, the management was fully aware that visitors routinely put their children in dangerous situations. Small changes to the attraction could have easily prevented this, yet they did not make any changes.

Yes, the mother bears responsibility. But the zoo does too. They knew the situation was dangerous, and they could have easily done something about it. They chose not to.

No, not everything needs to be 100% safe. That's silly. But this situation could have been significantly more safe for relatively little extra cost or effort.

We are just not going to find common ground on this. Just because they were aware that some parents were putting their child in harm's way, doesn't mean they should be liable for such idiocy in my opinion.

I think it does make them liable. If a business knows that visitors routinely place themselves in dangerous situations while at their attractions, I think the business is obligated to do something about it. Either prevent them from putting themselves into such situations, or install a system to mitigate the danger. Putting up a sign doesn't magically absolve you of all liability.

Here's my analogy. If Six Flags had a roller coaster where it was easy to remove the lap bar, and people did so regularly, putting a big sign in the car that says "don't remove the lap bar" isn't enough. They need to make it so that riders can't remove the lap bar.

jonnythan

Exactly. It sucks, but there were safeguards in place. If someone chooses to ignore those safeguards, they are assuming full liability for any danger.

The only safeguard was a sign saying "don't do this."

pixtotts

against...
The mother made poor judgement.
Yes the zoo could cage all the animals up further or keep them in glass tanks so no one could "fall in" but then wouldn't this thread be about a zoo which was keeping all the animals in cages ...
I have never been to a zoo, but I do live near a drive through safari park this is basically the equivalent of the mother driving through with the windows down and letting her children lean out, they could fall and they are wild animals.
The zoo has put signs if parents 'chose' to ignore them making an educated decision to put their children in danger on their head be it.

Hopefully some good will come of all of this and parents will start listening to those signs eh!

crista_b

Exactly. It sucks, but there were safeguards in place. If someone chooses to ignore those safeguards, they are assuming full liability for any danger.

The only safeguard was a sign saying "don't do this."

No. There were nets (which have been discussed in this thread already - it's not that they weren't strong enough to hold the child. He bounced out of it. It's ignorant to think the zoo should cover the entire exhibit in a net to avoid this). There was a clear wall and bar that the mother made the choice to lift her young child over. There were signs saying not to do this. Etc.

The signs were not the only safeguard. The mother just took the choice to bypass the others.

Is the zoo supposed to hire a "guide" to walk with every family so that if they start to do something stupid, the guide can stop them? No. That would be an ignorant way to run the zoo.

HollisGrant

Just saw the headline that the local zoo is being sued by the parents of a boy that was mauled to death in an exhibit of wild African dogs. The boy fell into the exhibit after his mother lifted him on to a railing so he could get a better look. The mother was not charged with negligence.

For or Against the lawsuit?

Against

The parents caused the death of the child by putting him on a rail where he could fall. Unfortunately, the zoo is also at fault. They knew people might sit on the rail because they designed it to slope toward the platform -- so if someone climbed on the rail and fell, they would likely not fall into the animal area. The zoo knew falling was a possibility.

But if the zoo is partly at fault, and I think they are, this opens up a can of worms. There are many zoo exhibits where people can see animals, separated by a rail, then a moat. How much more of an enclosure do you build?

As an aside, I hate zoos. I am originally from Washington, DC and visited the zoo many times as a child until the cages began to disturb me. I can't stand the enclosures, from the cement cages to the little yards to the larger yards with trees, Animals need many acres for a normal life.

Danny_Boy13

No, you just keep beating the point that the costs to install a bigger net is trivial without providing anything to back it up.

What about the flashing walk/don't walk signs for a cross walk? Should there be a barrier preventing people from stepping off the curb when it is says don't walk?

It's certainly trivial to the cost of this lawsuit and the cost of the child's life, wouldn't you say?

This is an attraction at a zoo. There's a sign up, so they know the danger. Employees warned management that visitors routinely ignored the signs. Therefore, the management was fully aware that visitors routinely put their children in dangerous situations. Small changes to the attraction could have easily prevented this, yet they did not make any changes.

Yes, the mother bears responsibility. But the zoo does too. They knew the situation was dangerous, and they could have easily done something about it. They chose not to.

No, not everything needs to be 100% safe. That's silly. But this situation could have been significantly more safe for relatively little extra cost or effort.

We are just not going to find common ground on this. Just because they were aware that some parents were putting their child in harm's way, doesn't mean they should be liable for such idiocy in my opinion.

pixtotts

The only safeguard was a sign saying "don't do this."

and the wall and bar....that in itself is a safeguard, one that appears to be ignored over and over....

crista_b

But if the zoo is partly at fault, and I think they are, this opens up a can of worms. There are many zoo exhibits where people can see animals, separated by a rail, then a moat. How much more of an enclosure do you build?

As an aside, I hate zoos. I am originally from Washington, DC and visited the zoo many times as a child until the cages began to disturb me. I can't stand the enclosures, from the cement cages to the little yards to the larger yards with trees, Animals need many acres for a normal life.

But someone would end up dropping their kid into the moat, and when the child drowns, people would throw a fit that the zoo shouldn't have made a moat where a child could fall into and drown. You're right; by putting fault on the zoo, it would open up a crazy can of worms because people will always try to find a way to blame someone else for their mistakes in judgement.

I agree with your aside. Personally, I hate zoos.

jonnythan

Exactly. It sucks, but there were safeguards in place. If someone chooses to ignore those safeguards, they are assuming full liability for any danger.

The only safeguard was a sign saying "don't do this."

No. There were nets (which have been discussed in this thread already - it's not that they weren't strong enough to hold the child. He bounced out of it. It's ignorant to think the zoo should cover the entire exhibit in a net to avoid this). There was a clear wall and bar that the mother made the choice to lift her young child over. There were signs saying not to do this. Etc.

The signs were not the only safeguard. The mother just took the choice to bypass the others.

Is the zoo supposed to hire a "guide" to walk with every family so that if they start to do something stupid, the guide can stop them? No. That would be an ignorant way to run the zoo.

There was a net on the other side of the railing meant to catch things people drop, like cameras and phones.

The net wasn't designed to catch a child, even though they were warned someone might drop a child.

crista_b

Exactly. It sucks, but there were safeguards in place. If someone chooses to ignore those safeguards, they are assuming full liability for any danger.

The only safeguard was a sign saying "don't do this."

No. There were nets (which have been discussed in this thread already - It's not that they weren't strong enough to hold the child. He bounced out of it. It's ignorant to think the zoo should cover the entire exhibit in a net to avoid this). There was a clear wall and bar that the mother made the choice to lift her young child over. There were signs saying not to do this. Etc.

The signs were not the only safeguard. The mother just took the choice to bypass the others.

Is the zoo supposed to hire a "guide" to walk with every family so that if they start to do something stupid, the guide can stop them? No. That would be an ignorant way to run the zoo.

There was a net on the other side of the railing meant to catch things people drop, like cameras and phones.

The net wasn't designed to catch a child, even though they were warned someone might drop a child.

Yes, but again, the zoo shouldn't be responsible for people choosing to ignore the safety procedures. The net situation and whether or not it should catch a child has already been addressed.

jonnythan

The only safeguard was a sign saying "don't do this."

and the wall and bar....that in itself is a safeguard, one that appears to be ignored over and over....

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?