Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

rml_16

Argh! NM. I'm on my phone and thought I was quoting the guy who said they should let the put raw meat on the mom's stomach. Sorry! Tried to edit the above response and it's too difficult from the phone.

rml_16

id like for them to take raw meat, place it on the mothers belly and let the dogs have a go at it

This was what I meant to respond to in my first post.

Mea culpa.

Jerrypeoples

id like for them to take raw meat, place it on the mothers belly and let the dogs have a go at it

This was what I meant to respond to in my first post.

Mea culpa.

not for her child dying, even i am not that insensitive but for bringing about a lawsuit over something she was ultimately responsible for

Jerrypeoples

the official statement on why they are suing

Full statement issued by the attorney for Elizabeth and Jason Derkosh, whose son, Maddox, was killed in the African painted dogs exhibit at Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium:

In response to numerous media inquiries, we can confirm that we have filed a Civil Complaint in the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas asserting claims that include wrongful death and negligence, resulting from the November 4, 2012, fatal mauling of two-year-old Maddox Derkosh by a pack of African wild dogs on the grounds of the Pittsburgh Zoo. The Complaint, which names the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium and the Zoological Society of Pittsburgh as defendants, was filed on behalf of Elizabeth and Jason Derkosh, parents of Maddox Derkosh. He was their only child.
Our Complaint details the events -- including the litany of institutional lapses in fundamental exhibit design, safety, and security that caused Maddox's death. 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.

The filing marks just the beginning of the legal process to demonstrate that the death of Maddox Derkosh was absolutely preventable and that the Zoo failed in its responsibility to protect Maddox -- and every other visitor to the wild dog exhibit -- from harm. We now know, and the Complaint details, that the Zoo's management was warned, before the tragedy, by at least one employee, that parents would lift their children to see through the viewing enclosure "at least ten" times every day. Rather than thanking their employee for bringing this hazard to their attention, and then correcting it, the Zoo curtly reprimanded him and told him, "This is not your concern, go back to work."

Tragically, Maddox fell as his mother held him to see into the exhibit through the viewing opening. The Complaint details and includes photos of the precautions taken by other Zoos to protect their patrons from African wild dogs including the use of barrier glass, moats, and wire mesh, preventing the very tragedy that occurred at the Pittsburgh Zoo.

The Zoo knew or should have known how to protect its visitors from the killer dogs, and the fatal consequences that would likely result when "human prey" suddenly appeared in their territory. Any chance of survival was diminished by the Zoo's abysmal emergency response plan, which included blank and useless tranquilizer darts.

Elizabeth and Jason are loving parents. They still mourn. They still hurt and will hurt the rest of their lives. They deeply appreciate the support of the greater Pittsburgh community and they are determined to do what they can to ensure that what happened to their only child can never happen again at the Pittsburgh Zoo, or at any zoo. They remain especially grateful for the outpouring of love and goodwill for the "Trucks for Maddox" holiday toy truck drive that celebrates the legacy of Maddox and his caring for other kids.


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/the-derkosh-familys-statement-on-the-filing-of-a-lawsuit-against-the-pittsburgh-zoo-688843/#ixzz2UEp9Pybz

amazing that nowhere in the statement do they even acknowledge they had a responsibility to heed the signs posted


IF there is proof other than he said she said that they were warned that people were ignoring the signs saying not to do this i would find at most both sides guilty and award the parents the lump sum of $1 or ensure anything greater would go to charities and not to them

Danny_Boy13

the official statement on why they are suing

Full statement issued by the attorney for Elizabeth and Jason Derkosh, whose son, Maddox, was killed in the African painted dogs exhibit at Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium:

In response to numerous media inquiries, we can confirm that we have filed a Civil Complaint in the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas asserting claims that include wrongful death and negligence, resulting from the November 4, 2012, fatal mauling of two-year-old Maddox Derkosh by a pack of African wild dogs on the grounds of the Pittsburgh Zoo. The Complaint, which names the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium and the Zoological Society of Pittsburgh as defendants, was filed on behalf of Elizabeth and Jason Derkosh, parents of Maddox Derkosh. He was their only child.
Our Complaint details the events -- including the litany of institutional lapses in fundamental exhibit design, safety, and security that caused Maddox's death. 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.

The filing marks just the beginning of the legal process to demonstrate that the death of Maddox Derkosh was absolutely preventable and that the Zoo failed in its responsibility to protect Maddox -- and every other visitor to the wild dog exhibit -- from harm. We now know, and the Complaint details, that the Zoo's management was warned, before the tragedy, by at least one employee, that parents would lift their children to see through the viewing enclosure "at least ten" times every day. Rather than thanking their employee for bringing this hazard to their attention, and then correcting it, the Zoo curtly reprimanded him and told him, "This is not your concern, go back to work."

Tragically, Maddox fell as his mother held him to see into the exhibit through the viewing opening. The Complaint details and includes photos of the precautions taken by other Zoos to protect their patrons from African wild dogs including the use of barrier glass, moats, and wire mesh, preventing the very tragedy that occurred at the Pittsburgh Zoo.

The Zoo knew or should have known how to protect its visitors from the killer dogs, and the fatal consequences that would likely result when "human prey" suddenly appeared in their territory. Any chance of survival was diminished by the Zoo's abysmal emergency response plan, which included blank and useless tranquilizer darts.

Elizabeth and Jason are loving parents. They still mourn. They still hurt and will hurt the rest of their lives. They deeply appreciate the support of the greater Pittsburgh community and they are determined to do what they can to ensure that what happened to their only child can never happen again at the Pittsburgh Zoo, or at any zoo. They remain especially grateful for the outpouring of love and goodwill for the "Trucks for Maddox" holiday toy truck drive that celebrates the legacy of Maddox and his caring for other kids.


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/the-derkosh-familys-statement-on-the-filing-of-a-lawsuit-against-the-pittsburgh-zoo-688843/#ixzz2UEp9Pybz

amazing that nowhere in the statement do they even acknowledge they had a responsibility to heed the signs posted


IF there is proof other than he said she said that they were warned that people were ignoring the signs saying not to do this i would find at most both sides guilty and award the parents the lump sum of $1 or ensure anything greater would go to charities and not to them

I agree with your statement. I would find it hard for the parents to win due to the fact that the park passed minimum safety inspection standards that are put in place to operate this establishment.

Thriceshy

Against. If it were a case of children being able to easily fall in, I'd be for. If it were a case where these animals were presented as tame and gentle? I'd be for. If it were a case of barriers collapsing or otherwise failing, I'd be for. I'm reminded of Michael Jackson holding that poor infant over the railing to give the photographers a look. If he'd lost his grip on that child, that would be on him, not on the hotel, no matter how many other parents had also dangled their children over the edge. When I was a child, my father used to dangle me over the railing of a bridge spanning the Susquehanna. If I'd fallen and died, that would have been my father's fault, not the bridgemaker's, not the municipality's.

I don't care how many parents do something foolish, it doesn't absolve them of responsibility. "Everyone else does it" wasn't an excuse when I was a kid and it's not an excuse now.

Alison12121

Against. She shouldn't have lifted the child above the railing. Doing that was risking the child falling in, and I'm sure there were signs to warn against doing that, but she thought that wouldn't happen to her.

rml_16

id like for them to take raw meat, place it on the mothers belly and let the dogs have a go at it

This was what I meant to respond to in my first post.

Mea culpa.

not for her child dying, even i am not that insensitive but for bringing about a lawsuit over something she was ultimately responsible for

I still very strongly disagree with you.

Child molesters and people of that ilk deserve something like that. Not a grieving mother because of a mistake and a stupid lawsuit.

liz111006

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.

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.

^^^ Thank you for posting this.

Yes.
Fundamental, factual and relevant.

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.