Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

Mustang_Susie

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."

Hearsay and speculation as to intent (lawsuit planned from day one).
Would the legal team for the zoo try to use her an intent as a defense and if so, how would it be proven/disproven?
She intentionally risked her son's life, even caused his death, for money?
The scope of the implications and ramifications could become quite far reaching.

Mustang_Susie

Also consider the movie "Sophie's Choice".
Although a fictional account, it was based on actual horrific choices parents were forced to make.
Sophie commits suicide as a result.

csuhar

Against. The parent took an active measure that defeated an already reasonable safety measure that would have protected the child.

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."

Hearsay and speculation as to intent (lawsuit planned from day one).
Would the legal team for the zoo try to use her an intent as a defense and if so, how would it be proven/disproven?
She intentionally risked her son's life, even caused his death, for money?
The scope of the implications and ramifications could become quite far reaching.

I don't think the posts on the local site were intended to suggested she intentionally risked her son's life for money. I believe they were simply stating that she had the intention to sue from the day of the accident.

I would like to think that would not be my first reaction if I were in the same situation.

Mustang_Susie

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."

Hearsay and speculation as to intent (lawsuit planned from day one).
Would the legal team for the zoo try to use her an intent as a defense and if so, how would it be proven/disproven?
She intentionally risked her son's life, even caused his death, for money?
The scope of the implications and ramifications could become quite far reaching.

I don't think the posts on the local site were intended to suggested she intentionally risked her son's life for money. I believe they were simply stating that she had the intention to sue from the day of the accident.

I would like to think that would not be my first reaction if I were in the same situation.

Agree.
More playing the devil's advocate in asking how far can this be taken and the inherent pit falls.

moosegt35

I just chucked my kid in my pool and he drowned. Is anyone here a lawyer? I am looking to sue the pool company because there isn't a baby detector that would close the lid on the pool anytime I try to toss one in.