Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

Mustang_Susie

One final thought:

I have never had my child mauled to death by a pack of wild dogs.
To my knowledge, neither has any other poster on this thread.
And while we can debate the legitimacy of the lawsuit and the irresponsibility of her actions, until we walk in her shoes I think it is unfair to presume to know exactly what she was/is thinking or feeling.

Laces_0ut

maybe we should start suing the state every time a kid gets hit by a car since there aren't barriers on every mile of road.


any sane person is against this lawsuit.

AmericanExpat

ooppps didn't quote what i wanted to

AmericanExpat

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.

I am confused how you think the zoo did not do this by putting up the railings that the mother had to lift the child up on?

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.

crista_b

One final thought:

I have never had my child mauled to death by a pack of wild dogs.
To my knowledge, neither has any other poster on this thread.
And while we can debate the legitimacy of the lawsuit and the irresponsibility of her actions, until we walk in her shoes I think it is unfair to presume to know exactly what she was/is thinking or feeling.

Very true.

While I'm against the lawsuit, I cannot honestly say that I would or wouldn't do the same in that situation for the very reason you mentioned. It's very easy to get up on a high horse and say something like, "Well I think this is stupid. I wouldn't sue the zoo if I did something wrong!" but until this situation happens to you, you have no idea how you would truly react.

BeachIron

maybe we should start suing the state every time a kid gets hit by a car since there aren't barriers on every mile of road.


any sane person is against this lawsuit.

I think it's a pretty interesting case tbh, the zoo apparently knew people were putting their kids on the railing. We will see what happens but I wouldn't be cocky if I was the zoo's attorney.

WannaDizzolve

It's a soul crushing thing to lose a child. That said, the law did the right thing by not pursuing the mother on criminal negligence charges. The zoo has done everything they reasonably can to keep the animals and people apart and still allow viewing of the wild dogs. So i'm against the lawsuit. This comes under the heading of terrible tragedy...

Qarol

So...she lifted him up on the railing to get a better view? And let him fall, essentially. And didn't jump in after him. And now wants money.

moosegt35

One final thought:

I have never had my child mauled to death by a pack of wild dogs.
To my knowledge, neither has any other poster on this thread.
And while we can debate the legitimacy of the lawsuit and the irresponsibility of her actions, until we walk in her shoes I think it is unfair to presume to know exactly what she was/is thinking or feeling.

Very true.

While I'm against the lawsuit, I cannot honestly say that I would or wouldn't do the same in that situation for the very reason you mentioned. It's very easy to get up on a high horse and say something like, "Well I think this is stupid. I wouldn't sue the zoo if I did something wrong!" but until this situation happens to you, you have no idea how you would truly react.

But why does it make sense to sue someone because you screwed up?

moosegt35

It's a soul crushing thing to lose a child. That said, the law did the right thing by not pursuing the mother on criminal negligence charges. The zoo has done everything they reasonably can to keep the animals and people apart and still allow viewing of the wild dogs. So i'm against the lawsuit. This comes under the heading of terrible tragedy...

No, the law dropeed the ball by not charging the mother for killing her child.

crista_b

One final thought:

I have never had my child mauled to death by a pack of wild dogs.
To my knowledge, neither has any other poster on this thread.
And while we can debate the legitimacy of the lawsuit and the irresponsibility of her actions, until we walk in her shoes I think it is unfair to presume to know exactly what she was/is thinking or feeling.

Very true.

While I'm against the lawsuit, I cannot honestly say that I would or wouldn't do the same in that situation for the very reason you mentioned. It's very easy to get up on a high horse and say something like, "Well I think this is stupid. I wouldn't sue the zoo if I did something wrong!" but until this situation happens to you, you have no idea how you would truly react.

But why does it make sense to sue someone because you screwed up?

It doesn't. That's why I said I'm against the lawsuit.

However, without being in that situation, no one here can guarantee that they wouldn't do what this mother is doing. They would be an EXTREMELY high horse to say otherwise.

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."

glovepuppet

However, without being in that situation, no one here can guarantee that they wouldn't do what this mother is doing. They would be an EXTREMELY high horse to say otherwise.

i don't agree with that at all.

ironanimal

However, without being in that situation, no one here can guarantee that they wouldn't do what this mother is doing. They would be an EXTREMELY high horse to say otherwise.

Some of us are sure enough about our own judgement to know we wouldn't dangle a child over a pit full of wild animals, thanks.

16 hands, btw.

moosegt35

One final thought:

I have never had my child mauled to death by a pack of wild dogs.
To my knowledge, neither has any other poster on this thread.
And while we can debate the legitimacy of the lawsuit and the irresponsibility of her actions, until we walk in her shoes I think it is unfair to presume to know exactly what she was/is thinking or feeling.

Very true.

While I'm against the lawsuit, I cannot honestly say that I would or wouldn't do the same in that situation for the very reason you mentioned. It's very easy to get up on a high horse and say something like, "Well I think this is stupid. I wouldn't sue the zoo if I did something wrong!" but until this situation happens to you, you have no idea how you would truly react.

But why does it make sense to sue someone because you screwed up?

It doesn't. That's why I said I'm against the lawsuit.

However, without being in that situation, no one here can guarantee that they wouldn't do what this mother is doing. They would be an EXTREMELY high horse to say otherwise.

I can absolutely guarantee that I am not an idiot. The mother is. End of story. I don't see how anyone could even come up with a reason to sue the zoo when she clearly caused her son's death. She should be charged. What if she was holding him up over a bridge so he could see the water and dropped him in? She would almost certainly be charged. I don't see the difference.

BeachGingerOnTheRocks

I'm for the lawsuit and for a jury to make a determination as to liability following the rules of law that are set out in this country.

I don't know if the mother's actions is a complete defense to the zoo's negligence; I'd have to see all the evidence to make this determination.

Do I believe that any award a jury would give the mom should be cut based on her negligence? Yes. And if she is more than 50 percent negligent, then she should be awarded nothing.

I don't believe in restricting the ability to sue, just in the ability to collect money in a judgment. Lawsuits are usually the catalyst for safety laws.

Would I award the mom anything if I was sitting on the jury? Probably not. But if I was the judge, I don't think I would dismiss the case. The zoo did have some warning that the exhibit was potentially dangerous.

crista_b

However, without being in that situation, no one here can guarantee that they wouldn't do what this mother is doing. They would be an EXTREMELY high horse to say otherwise.

Some of us are sure enough about our own judgement to know we wouldn't dangle a child over a pit full of wild animals, thanks.

16 hands, btw.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :drinker:

What I was trying to say wasn't that everyone here would be stupid enough to dangle their child over the exhibit. I certainly wouldn't do that. I'm not trying to call anyone here stupid. However, I was trying to say that if you had a momentary lapse of judgement which caused harm to your child, it would be very difficult while grieving to sit back and say, "Yes, I'm at full fault because I was an idiot." When you're in that situation, I'm sure that the heartache would temporarily block rational thought.

ETA: the post below by mustang_susie is what I was getting at (she was just better at wording it). :ohwell:

Consider:

The five stages of grief as defined by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross in her 1969 book "On Death and Dying":
denial
anger
bargaining
depression
acceptance
The theory holds that the stages are not stops on a linear time line of grief, not everyone goes through all the stages, nor in a prescribed order.

MRI studies show changes in physiological and neurological processes.

Because of the intensity of the grief emotions (following the death of a child), irrational decisions are often made.

Mustang_Susie

Consider:

The five stages of grief as defined by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross in her 1969 book "On Death and Dying":
denial
anger
bargaining
depression
acceptance
The theory holds that the stages are not stops on a linear time line of grief, not everyone goes through all the stages, nor in a prescribed order.

MRI studies show changes in physiological and neurological processes.

Because of the intensity of the grief emotions (following the death of a child), irrational decisions are often made.

InnerConflict

Great post Susie about the stages of grief. Also don't know how much they were influenced by friends and family. Once the lawyer gets involved and says "you have a case," then it is understandable that someone grieving is going to believe it.