Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

jonnythan

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.

StinkyWinkies

I'm saying that the zoo administration should have done *something* to mitigate a very dangerous situation they were fully aware existed at their attraction.

Against.

They *DID* do something...there are windows and fencing in a enclosure for people to look thru and signs telling people to stay off the rail(s)...People need to take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming everyone else when they do something stupid. (seriously, 116 years of NO Accidents has to mean *something*)

I used to watch people putting or allowing their kids to climb on, swing from, sit on the rails in fast food places when I worked there as a young woman. I would, very politely, ask them to get down. THE PARENTS would cop an attitude with me for this. THEN complain to my manager(s) as well as telling me to mind my own business (only not quite so politely). Boss would then tell me same as the zoo bosses did their employee "it's not your concern."

People are frakin' stupid, that's never gonna change. It's unfortunate that we live in a society where we believe "I Hurt! and SOMEBODY has to pay."

As an aside; I hate zoos and circuses.

DontStopB_Leakin

Against the lawsuit.


HOWEVER, I feel the zoo *should* be smacked with a fine or something of that nature. This happened due to negligence on both sides. The mother should have never, ever lifted her child onto to that railing. Never in a million years would I let my child try to bypass a safety railing in order to get a better view. But, the zoo is also at fault, especially if similar incidents of children being lifting onto or over the safety railings have occurred prior to this. I've never been to a zoo (and I've been to a good deal of zoos), that didn't have a fail safe safety measure put up around particularly dangerous animal exhibits to prevent tragedies like this from occurring. At my cities zoo, every single dangerous animal exhibit is either encased in glass, or has an empty, moat like pit surrounding the exhibit, so if someone *does* fall in, it'd be impossible for the animal to reach them, and the worst that would occur would be a broken bone from the fall.

And for those who have stated, "Maybe the zoo doesn't make enough revenue to put up those kind of enclosures," then you know what? Don't have the damn exhibit. Again, I don't feel the zoo is completely liable for the child's death, but I *do* feel like they should be forced to install better safety protocols to ensure this can never happen again. The zoo should not assume that everyone has the common sense to protect themselves and their children. If they're going to put lethal animals on display, it's their job to ensure that those animals can't harm the general public.

But again, to be clear, I think the lawsuit is utterly ridiculous.

crista_b

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.

But then you know parents will end up holding their kids up in their arms "to see over it" and as young children get excited and start squirming, someone drops their child on a spike. Then we run into a lawsuit saying the spikes are dangerous and the zoo shouldn't do that even though it's warned against lifting your children up by them.

Holding your kid high enough to see over it is not even remotely the same thing as sitting them on the railing with their legs hanging over the edge.

They're both stupid things to do at an exhibit for carnivorous animals. In either situation, the parent should be responsible.

But in one situation, if you drop your kid he falls at your feet. In the other, if you drop your kid he gets eaten by wild animals.

Not necessarily. If you're up against the railing with spikes and lift your child up to see over them and drop your child, they could then end up getting stabbed by the spike.

Spike? It doesn't need to be a spike. Just a post with a rounded top that you can't sit on.

Six Flags has these in the queues for most of its attractions. The railings are metal bars and instead of having a flat horizontal bar at the top, the metal bars continue through the top of the handrail. They're just square metal bars. You can't stab yourself with them, but you can't sit down on them either.

I said "spike" because when you first suggested the idea, your words were,

using posts that are somewhat pointed at the top, instead of a flat railing

Those bars at Six Flags are square and flat on top, and I've been to Six Flags many, many times and see people sitting on them all the time, mostly children.

jonnythan

Against the lawsuit.


HOWEVER, I feel the zoo *should* be smacked with a fine or something of that nature. This happened due to negligence on both sides. The mother should have never, ever lifted her child onto to that railing. Never in a million years would I let my child try to bypass a safety railing in order to get a better view. But, the zoo is also at fault, especially if similar incidents of children being lifting onto or over the safety railings have occurred prior to this. I've never been to a zoo (and I've been to a good deal of zoos), that didn't have a fail safe safety measure put up around particularly dangerous animal exhibits to prevent tragedies like this from occurring. At my cities zoo, every single dangerous animal exhibit is either encased in glass, or has an empty, moat like pit surrounding the exhibit, so if someone *does* fall in, it'd be impossible for the animal to reach them, and the worst that would occur would be a broken bone from the fall.

And for those who have stated, "Maybe the zoo doesn't make enough revenue to put up those kind of enclosures," then you know what? Don't have the damn exhibit. Again, I don't feel the zoo is completely liable for the child's death, but I *do* feel like they should be forced to install better safety protocols to ensure this can never happen again. The zoo should not assume that everyone has the common sense to protect themselves and their children. If they're going to put lethal animals on display, it's their job to ensure that those animals can't harm the general public.

But again, to be clear, I think the lawsuit is utterly ridiculous.

A lawsuit is, as far as I can tell, the proper method for the law to hold the zoo partly responsible for the incident. Otherwise I agree with you.

With that, I'll leave this thread. I have other things to do. I'll just once again reiterate that it is unethical for the zoo to knowingly allow people to so easily and regularly put themselves and their children in such dangerous situations without doing anything about it.

Jerrypeoples

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.

and then the kid falls on the pointed posts and youd cry about how the zoo knew they were sharp and that children climbed up there even though they shouldnt

if i had betting money i would say youre a lawyer

jonnythan

You guys totally have me pegged. I'm a liberal lawyer.

:huh:

Crankstr

I dont get why there was a ledge people would be able to sit their children on above dangerous animals...really i dont.

Wondering if stupid teenager morons could push each other off by accident as well...ALWAYS see them sitting on stuff they shouldnt be sitting on...and most of them feel invincible and would ignore signs as well.

People can be stupid...a sign? how many languages was it in? was it viewable to everyone from every direction? this may have been covered...sorry if i missed it.

BAH the whole thing is disturbing.

fbmandy55

Against. I am sick of parents who sue after their children die as a result of their negligence.

We had a 1st grader who was hit by a car walking to school a few years back. She was walking across a busy road at 7am, in the dark to attend a before school breakfast. Where was mom? She had no job so she was alseep in her bed while her 6 year old walk to school in the dark.

She sued the school for not having crossing guards that early. Though they are stationed at the crossing for a full hour before/after the start of school.

dsckrc

against.

InnerConflict

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:

casy84

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.

moosegt35

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.

moosegt35

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?

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.

moosegt35

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!!!!

DontStopB_Leakin

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.

You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.

Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.

Grimmerick

I'm against as well. People need to be responsible for there own lack of common sense.

moosegt35

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.

You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.

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.

craigmandu

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.

You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.

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.

PixieGoddess

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.