Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?
Replies
-
What are the parents claiming was the zoo's liability?
Good question0 -
.and that is why we pay ridiculous amounts for insurance.
How much zoo insurance do you have, and what do you pay for it?
Obviously I mean in general, lawsuits are the reason insurance cost so much.0 -
.and that is why we pay ridiculous amounts for insurance.
How much zoo insurance do you have, and what do you pay for it?
Obviously I mean in general, lawsuits are the reason insurance cost so much.
I could get political but IC doesn't want his thread locked too.0 -
^^This^^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.0 -
.and that is why we pay ridiculous amounts for insurance.
How much zoo insurance do you have, and what do you pay for it?
Obviously I mean in general, lawsuits are the reason insurance cost so much.
No, spreading the costs of claims over a pool of insureds is the reason isurance costS so much. Because: Math. When we have claims to pay out, they come from the pool of money collected from all the insureds. That's how insurance works.
Against the lawsuit. It was a horrible mistake, but I see nothing that shows the zoo was negligent.0 -
.and that is why we pay ridiculous amounts for insurance.
How much zoo insurance do you have, and what do you pay for it?
Obviously I mean in general, lawsuits are the reason insurance cost so much.
I could get political but IC doesn't want his thread locked too.
I wasn't attempting to make it a political discussion at all just point out that frivolous lawsuits are not beneficial to anyone. Especially when the person suing used their own poor judgement in the situation.0 -
Read this does it change your mind?
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation_world/20130523_ap_parentssuepittsburghzooinboysmaulingdeath.html
The parents of a 2-year-old boy who was fatally mauled after falling into a wild African dogs exhibit last fall filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium, claiming officials had ample warning that parents routinely lifted children onto a rail overlooking the exhibit so they could see better.
The lawsuit filed on behalf of Jason and Elizabeth Derkosh seeks unspecified damages in the Nov. 4 death of their son, Maddox. The boy fell from a wooden railing after his mother lifted him up to get a better look at the painted dogs.
The bespectacled boy, who had vision issues, became the only visitor in the zoo's 116-year history to die when he unexpectedly lunged out of his mother's grasp atop the wooden railing and into a net meant to catch falling debris and trash, bouncing from it and down into the dogs' enclosure about 10 feet below.
According to the lawsuit, Elizabeth Derkosh tried to climb into the exhibit after her son, but was restrained by another zoo visitor.
"She was forced to watch helplessly as the African wild dogs savagely mauled and literally tore apart her son in front of her," according to the Allegheny County Common Pleas lawsuit filed by Philadelphia attorney Robert Mongeluzzi, an expert in construction site and other accidental deaths.
The boy suffered more than 220 injuries, mostly bites, and bled to death in the attack which included the "evisceration of his organs of the chest, abdomen and pelvis," the lawsuit said.
A zoo spokeswoman did not immediately comment.
"Elizabeth and Jason have asked us to find out why the Zoo had an unsafe exhibit, why they ignored warnings from their own employee regarding the very danger that killed Maddox and to ensure that no other family has to suffer the same unimaginable tragedy," Mongeluzzi said in the statement.
The lawsuit contends a zoo employee told KDKA-TV weeks after the boy's death that he had warned his supervisor that parents lifted their children onto the exhibit railing "at least 10" times daily, but was told, "This is not your concern, go back to work."
The lawsuit cites examples from at least 16 other U.S. zoos which use glass enclosures, wire fencing or other methods that allow children to view African painted dogs without risk of falling into the exhibit.
After the boy's death, the Pittsburgh zoo closed the observation deck, then eventually decided to move the 10 dog to three other American zoos. One of the 11 animals in the exhibit when the boy was mauled was killed by crews attempting to rescue the boy.
Zoo President Dr. Barbara Baker said last month that the exhibit was being closed because zoo staff and surrounding community still "need time to heal" from the boy's death.
Although the county district attorney has determined there was no criminal culpability on behalf of the boy's mother or zoo officials, reviews by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Associations of Zoos and Aquariums were continuing.0 -
What are the parents claiming was the zoo's liability?
Good question
Edited the OP to add more about the claim.0 -
.and that is why we pay ridiculous amounts for insurance.
How much zoo insurance do you have, and what do you pay for it?
Obviously I mean in general, lawsuits are the reason insurance cost so much.
I could get political but IC doesn't want his thread locked too.
I wasn't attempting to make it a political discussion at all just point out that frivolous lawsuits are not beneficial to anyone. Especially when the person suing used their own poor judgement in the situation.
Didn't say you were.
I just have other thoughts about why health insurance is so costly.0 -
.and that is why we pay ridiculous amounts for insurance.
How much zoo insurance do you have, and what do you pay for it?
Obviously I mean in general, lawsuits are the reason insurance cost so much.
No, spreading the costs of claims over a pool of insureds is the reason isurance costS so much. Because: Math. When we have claims to pay out, they come from the pool of money collected from all the insureds. That's how insurance works.
Against the lawsuit. It was a horrible mistake, but I see nothing that shows the zoo was negligent.
Yes and when people sue for millions over their own mistakes that cost goes up.0 -
.and that is why we pay ridiculous amounts for insurance.
How much zoo insurance do you have, and what do you pay for it?
Obviously I mean in general, lawsuits are the reason insurance cost so much.
I could get political but IC doesn't want his thread locked too.
I wasn't attempting to make it a political discussion at all just point out that frivolous lawsuits are not beneficial to anyone. Especially when the person suing used their own poor judgement in the situation.
Didn't say you were.
I just have other thoughts about why health insurance is so costly.
Oh I agree with you on that one.0 -
Against, of course. If you're going to dangle a child over a safety barrier put in place to keep people behind said barrier, you better make sure you've got a very good grip.
Natural selection.0 -
Read this does it change your mind?
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation_world/20130523_ap_parentssuepittsburghzooinboysmaulingdeath.html
The parents of a 2-year-old boy who was fatally mauled after falling into a wild African dogs exhibit last fall filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium, claiming officials had ample warning that parents routinely lifted children onto a rail overlooking the exhibit so they could see better.
The lawsuit filed on behalf of Jason and Elizabeth Derkosh seeks unspecified damages in the Nov. 4 death of their son, Maddox. The boy fell from a wooden railing after his mother lifted him up to get a better look at the painted dogs.
The bespectacled boy, who had vision issues, became the only visitor in the zoo's 116-year history to die when he unexpectedly lunged out of his mother's grasp atop the wooden railing and into a net meant to catch falling debris and trash, bouncing from it and down into the dogs' enclosure about 10 feet below.
According to the lawsuit, Elizabeth Derkosh tried to climb into the exhibit after her son, but was restrained by another zoo visitor.
"She was forced to watch helplessly as the African wild dogs savagely mauled and literally tore apart her son in front of her," according to the Allegheny County Common Pleas lawsuit filed by Philadelphia attorney Robert Mongeluzzi, an expert in construction site and other accidental deaths.
The boy suffered more than 220 injuries, mostly bites, and bled to death in the attack which included the "evisceration of his organs of the chest, abdomen and pelvis," the lawsuit said.
A zoo spokeswoman did not immediately comment.
"Elizabeth and Jason have asked us to find out why the Zoo had an unsafe exhibit, why they ignored warnings from their own employee regarding the very danger that killed Maddox and to ensure that no other family has to suffer the same unimaginable tragedy," Mongeluzzi said in the statement.
The lawsuit contends a zoo employee told KDKA-TV weeks after the boy's death that he had warned his supervisor that parents lifted their children onto the exhibit railing "at least 10" times daily, but was told, "This is not your concern, go back to work."
The lawsuit cites examples from at least 16 other U.S. zoos which use glass enclosures, wire fencing or other methods that allow children to view African painted dogs without risk of falling into the exhibit.
After the boy's death, the Pittsburgh zoo closed the observation deck, then eventually decided to move the 10 dog to three other American zoos. One of the 11 animals in the exhibit when the boy was mauled was killed by crews attempting to rescue the boy.
Zoo President Dr. Barbara Baker said last month that the exhibit was being closed because zoo staff and surrounding community still "need time to heal" from the boy's death.
Although the county district attorney has determined there was no criminal culpability on behalf of the boy's mother or zoo officials, reviews by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Associations of Zoos and Aquariums were continuing.
This makes me more in favor of the zoo - the parents are basically saying the zoo should have known better than we did0 -
pretty much.It's really sad that it happened.. but not the zoo's fault. How could you expect the zoo to prevent this from happening? The railing was obviously there for a reason and the mother chose to ignore that. I mean, I could see lifting your kid up to see above the railing, but not ONTO the railing, which is clearly not safe. The dogs are wild animals, and the zoo has no way of controlling their behavior in response to negligence like that.
i have kids, i've been to zoos. i made sure they kept behind the railings.0 -
Read this does it change your mind?
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation_world/20130523_ap_parentssuepittsburghzooinboysmaulingdeath.html
The parents of a 2-year-old boy who was fatally mauled after falling into a wild African dogs exhibit last fall filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium, claiming officials had ample warning that parents routinely lifted children onto a rail overlooking the exhibit so they could see better.
The lawsuit filed on behalf of Jason and Elizabeth Derkosh seeks unspecified damages in the Nov. 4 death of their son, Maddox. The boy fell from a wooden railing after his mother lifted him up to get a better look at the painted dogs.
The bespectacled boy, who had vision issues, became the only visitor in the zoo's 116-year history to die when he unexpectedly lunged out of his mother's grasp atop the wooden railing and into a net meant to catch falling debris and trash, bouncing from it and down into the dogs' enclosure about 10 feet below.
According to the lawsuit, Elizabeth Derkosh tried to climb into the exhibit after her son, but was restrained by another zoo visitor.
"She was forced to watch helplessly as the African wild dogs savagely mauled and literally tore apart her son in front of her," according to the Allegheny County Common Pleas lawsuit filed by Philadelphia attorney Robert Mongeluzzi, an expert in construction site and other accidental deaths.
The boy suffered more than 220 injuries, mostly bites, and bled to death in the attack which included the "evisceration of his organs of the chest, abdomen and pelvis," the lawsuit said.
A zoo spokeswoman did not immediately comment.
"Elizabeth and Jason have asked us to find out why the Zoo had an unsafe exhibit, why they ignored warnings from their own employee regarding the very danger that killed Maddox and to ensure that no other family has to suffer the same unimaginable tragedy," Mongeluzzi said in the statement.
The lawsuit contends a zoo employee told KDKA-TV weeks after the boy's death that he had warned his supervisor that parents lifted their children onto the exhibit railing "at least 10" times daily, but was told, "This is not your concern, go back to work."
The lawsuit cites examples from at least 16 other U.S. zoos which use glass enclosures, wire fencing or other methods that allow children to view African painted dogs without risk of falling into the exhibit.
After the boy's death, the Pittsburgh zoo closed the observation deck, then eventually decided to move the 10 dog to three other American zoos. One of the 11 animals in the exhibit when the boy was mauled was killed by crews attempting to rescue the boy.
Zoo President Dr. Barbara Baker said last month that the exhibit was being closed because zoo staff and surrounding community still "need time to heal" from the boy's death.
Although the county district attorney has determined there was no criminal culpability on behalf of the boy's mother or zoo officials, reviews by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Associations of Zoos and Aquariums were continuing.
No, it doesn't change my opinion. Bringing in an emotional element by telling us how horrible it was (to vivid detail) doesn't change my mind.0 -
Against, of course. If you're going to dangle a child over a safety barrier put in place to keep people behind said barrier, you better make sure you've got a very good grip.
Natural selection.
Inappropriate0 -
that's really sad but. I don't see how this is the zoo's fault. I mean it wasn't like they were pigeons or something. they were wild dogs. people get attacked by "domesticated" dogs
I understand that the display could have been better secured, but everything is visible in hindsight. should the schools in oklahoma be sued for not having sufficient tornado protection? 0 -
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.0 -
AGAINST the suit.
FOR personal accountability-parents are responsible for the safety of their children. A reasonable person would not lift a child onto the railing IMHO.
DUH! Give the mother a cuppa from McDonald's. If it's too hot and she gets burned, then it is the restaurant's fault. If they say "hot coffee" on the menu and it isn't hot enough, then it's false advertising, so she can sue them for that. Some things should be apparent without a disclaimer to cover every eventuality by a STUPID person.0 -
Against, of course. If you're going to dangle a child over a safety barrier put in place to keep people behind said barrier, you better make sure you've got a very good grip.
Natural selection.
Inappropriate
I agree. Is it impossible to discuss a topic with sensitivity?0 -
Against. As someone who has been to that zoo many times, I can assure you that there are plenty of signs posted everywhere warning people not to lift their kids on the rails. I have a 2 year old nephew and would never dream of sitting him on a railing at that zoo. As sad as this is, the fault lies with the mother.0
-
Read this does it change your mind?
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation_world/20130523_ap_parentssuepittsburghzooinboysmaulingdeath.html
The parents of a 2-year-old boy who was fatally mauled after falling into a wild African dogs exhibit last fall filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium, claiming officials had ample warning that parents routinely lifted children onto a rail overlooking the exhibit so they could see better.
The lawsuit filed on behalf of Jason and Elizabeth Derkosh seeks unspecified damages in the Nov. 4 death of their son, Maddox. The boy fell from a wooden railing after his mother lifted him up to get a better look at the painted dogs.
The bespectacled boy, who had vision issues, became the only visitor in the zoo's 116-year history to die when he unexpectedly lunged out of his mother's grasp atop the wooden railing and into a net meant to catch falling debris and trash, bouncing from it and down into the dogs' enclosure about 10 feet below.
According to the lawsuit, Elizabeth Derkosh tried to climb into the exhibit after her son, but was restrained by another zoo visitor.
"She was forced to watch helplessly as the African wild dogs savagely mauled and literally tore apart her son in front of her," according to the Allegheny County Common Pleas lawsuit filed by Philadelphia attorney Robert Mongeluzzi, an expert in construction site and other accidental deaths.
The boy suffered more than 220 injuries, mostly bites, and bled to death in the attack which included the "evisceration of his organs of the chest, abdomen and pelvis," the lawsuit said.
A zoo spokeswoman did not immediately comment.
"Elizabeth and Jason have asked us to find out why the Zoo had an unsafe exhibit, why they ignored warnings from their own employee regarding the very danger that killed Maddox and to ensure that no other family has to suffer the same unimaginable tragedy," Mongeluzzi said in the statement.
The lawsuit contends a zoo employee told KDKA-TV weeks after the boy's death that he had warned his supervisor that parents lifted their children onto the exhibit railing "at least 10" times daily, but was told, "This is not your concern, go back to work."
The lawsuit cites examples from at least 16 other U.S. zoos which use glass enclosures, wire fencing or other methods that allow children to view African painted dogs without risk of falling into the exhibit.
After the boy's death, the Pittsburgh zoo closed the observation deck, then eventually decided to move the 10 dog to three other American zoos. One of the 11 animals in the exhibit when the boy was mauled was killed by crews attempting to rescue the boy.
Zoo President Dr. Barbara Baker said last month that the exhibit was being closed because zoo staff and surrounding community still "need time to heal" from the boy's death.
Although the county district attorney has determined there was no criminal culpability on behalf of the boy's mother or zoo officials, reviews by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Associations of Zoos and Aquariums were continuing.
Sad the zoo officials ignored the employee.
Perhaps this could have been prevented.
Lessons are too often learned at a high price.0 -
no.Read this does it change your mind?0 -
Against, of course. If you're going to dangle a child over a safety barrier put in place to keep people behind said barrier, you better make sure you've got a very good grip.
Natural selection.
Inappropriate
I agree. Is it impossible to discuss a topic with sensitivity?
Apparently, but I would still like to at least try.0 -
No, it doesn't change my opinion. Bringing in an emotional element by telling us how horrible it was (to vivid detail) doesn't change my mind.
The fact that the zoo's own employees pointed out to management how unsafe the attraction was, and were told to shut up, doesn't change your mind?
Clearly the zoo knew that the attraction was unsafe. The zoo should have done something long before this actually happened.
Ask yourself this: do you think the zoo will install more effective barriers now? Of course they will. Why did it take a child actually dying for them to install more effective barriers? It shouldn't have. The zoo knew that parents put their kids up on the railings and knew that if the kids fell in they may die. They could, and should, have done something to prevent before a parent actually dropped their child.0 -
Lessons are too often learned at a high price.
Exactly. The zoo will now do something to prevent it from happening in the future.
They should have done something to prevent it from happening in the first place. They didn't. It took a child actually getting eaten by wild animals for them to do something.0 -
Of course if I was the Mom I would have punched the people in the face who were restraining me and jumped down into that enclosure. I would have probably been killed but I couldnt have stood there and watch them eviscerate my child.
He was an adorable looking blonde boy with glasses! :sad: so sad
I dont know why parents take the really young ones to zoos anyways it's often too hot. It's crowded. The exhibits arent kid friendly for them to really see any animals. The animals are often hiding. And at 2 years old they dont care they just want the stuffed animal from the gift shop.0 -
The issue I have in reading the article is that the mother tried to save her child's life but was held back. Perhaps if she had made it to him, she could have done something, even if that meant losing her own life to save his. I'd be pissed if I tried to save my child's life and someone prevented me from getting to him.0
-
What's sensitivity going to achieve?Against, of course. If you're going to dangle a child over a safety barrier put in place to keep people behind said barrier, you better make sure you've got a very good grip.
Natural selection.
Inappropriate
I agree. Is it impossible to discuss a topic with sensitivity?
Should I feel sorry for her? I honestly don't. She was stupid enough to hang her child over a pit full of wild animals. I feel sorry for the child and the dog that was killed, but she deserves nothing.0 -
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.
First response FOR the lawsuit. Perhaps the other zoos generate more revenue and could afford to better protect patrons from their own negligence.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions