Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?
Replies
-
I have a 3 yr old and no matter how much he whines about it, I NEVER put him on the railings around an enclosure at the zoo.
It's a horrible thing to have happen, but I am against this lawsuit since the zoo was not at fault here...0 -
to me, this is a bit like the seatbelt laws.You might not, but a lot of people do.
You don't think that the zoo has any responsibility to do anything to protect children when they know that parents lift their kids above the railing on a daily basis?
everyone knows about them but you'll still get idiot parents who don't strap kids in.
yes, the police should stop & fine idiot parents. if they ignore it they need a boot up the butt.
no, if a parent crashes and kills their kid they can't sue the police for not enforcing the law hard enough.0 -
Against. Really sad but, This story reminds me of the kid that climbed a fence and got killed by a ride at an amusement park. Fences are there to protect people. Maybe if they replaced the fences with electric fences people would quit jumping them...... muahahaha.0
-
100% AGAINST.
I went to the zoo back in early April. I cannot tell you how many parents I saw lifting their child[ren] up on railings or letting them climb. My husband and I talked about it and it made us both sick. Yeah, we are not perfect parents, but COME ON people, it should be freakin common sense not do something like that. FFS...
Yes, it is an unfortunate accident, but the parents are freakin MORONS for doing something so freakin stupid. Not only do you usually have the fall risk, but most of the time these kids that fall into exhibits fall into ones with animals that can rip you to shreds. Honestly, it should have been the freakin mom that fell in. At least Darwinism would have worked then...
So if even someone who visits the zoo once sees tons of parents putting their kids in harm's way by doing this, someone who works at or runs the zoo should be fully aware that the parents are putting their kids in danger.
It would have cost very little to install a better net.
Shouldn't the zoo have installed a better net if they were fully aware that parents regularly put their kids up on the railing?0 -
This baffles me, Other than that one open section intended for photographs, it is covered! Below with plexi glass that small kids can view through and above by wire mesh, yet she deliberatly CHOSE to lift him up and set him on the rail where there is no mesh...
She would have my sympathy if a wild animal escaped and then mauled her child. Then Id be all for her to sue.
as it stands I am against
Yes I am a parent, yes I have been to zoos, never have I lifted my child over a rail to look at animals.
You might not, but a lot of people do.
You don't think that the zoo has any responsibility to do anything to protect children when they know that parents lift their kids above the railing on a daily basis?
Not other than tell them to stop doing it. I could climb the fence and jump into the cage with the lions at most zoos. That doesn't make them responsible.0 -
The parents will win through settlement. Anyone want to place a bet?
Three words: mauled, child, jury0 -
All for it. If the zoo is aware parents lift their kids up there, the zoo has a responsibility to keep that area safe. Was it dumb for the parent to do that? Absolutely! Idiotic! But the zoo has a responsibility too.
No, they don't. If Tylenol was aware that people open the bottle and take 27 of them and die they have 0 responsibility to stop them from doing that. The suggested dosage is right on the bottle.0 -
This baffles me, Other than that one open section intended for photographs, it is covered! Below with plexi glass that small kids can view through and above by wire mesh, yet she deliberatly CHOSE to lift him up and set him on the rail where there is no mesh...
She would have my sympathy if a wild animal escaped and then mauled her child. Then Id be all for her to sue.
as it stands I am against
Yes I am a parent, yes I have been to zoos, never have I lifted my child over a rail to look at animals.
You might not, but a lot of people do.
You don't think that the zoo has any responsibility to do anything to protect children when they know that parents lift their kids above the railing on a daily basis?
Not other than tell them to stop doing it. I could climb the fence and jump into the cage with the lions at most zoos. That doesn't make them responsible.
That's not a foreseeable accident. They don't have dozens of people leaping from the barrier every day.
They do, however, have dozens of parents putting their kids up on the railing every day. It doesn't take much foresight to see parent after parent putting their kid on the railing to realize that one will probably fall in one day.0 -
The parents will win through settlement. Anyone want to place a bet?
Three words: mauled, child, jury
Yup.
Not only will they have to pay a settlement, they'll also probably install the more effective barrier they should have put in when they realized it was only a matter of time before one of those stupid parents dropped their kid.0 -
This baffles me, Other than that one open section intended for photographs, it is covered! Below with plexi glass that small kids can view through and above by wire mesh, yet she deliberatly CHOSE to lift him up and set him on the rail where there is no mesh...
She would have my sympathy if a wild animal escaped and then mauled her child. Then Id be all for her to sue.
as it stands I am against
Yes I am a parent, yes I have been to zoos, never have I lifted my child over a rail to look at animals.
You might not, but a lot of people do.
You don't think that the zoo has any responsibility to do anything to protect children when they know that parents lift their kids above the railing on a daily basis?
Look at that enclosure. You'll clearly see that the zoo did plenty to protect children. There's a railing, plexiglass, netting and then one small area where adults, can look over and out.
Here is an example of why safety gone crazy should not always be used.
Notice no netting, no plexiglass, a long fall and lots of unrestrained, thousand pound animals.
Notice the common sense displayed by this man to not put the toddler on the railing, thus putting her in danger.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.
Me too that person restraining me would have a broken nose. Oh and you would have a pile of dead dogs and my dead body over my living child...best case scenario.
Lol, Ok rambo.
You wouldnt fight to get in there? Just on natural instinct?
I go up against dogs on the street when they come after my dogs when we are walking. I've beaten off dogs before. You can't help it when something you love is attacked you will do what you can to fight.
I didn't say I wouldn't but you wouldn't have beaten everyone up and then went in there and killed a pack of wild dogs with your bare hands either. These weren't house dogs you encounter on walks either.0 -
I am against this lawsuit...I think the zoo should have to make it safer, i.e. nest, glass, something however zoos around here have signs that say not to put your child on the railing, that it's a danger. If the parents decided to ignore the sings or common sense then it's the decision not the responsibility of the zoo. And as bad as I feel for the parents they should have known that it was there for a reason0
-
This baffles me, Other than that one open section intended for photographs, it is covered! Below with plexi glass that small kids can view through and above by wire mesh, yet she deliberatly CHOSE to lift him up and set him on the rail where there is no mesh...
She would have my sympathy if a wild animal escaped and then mauled her child. Then Id be all for her to sue.
as it stands I am against
Yes I am a parent, yes I have been to zoos, never have I lifted my child over a rail to look at animals.
You might not, but a lot of people do.
You don't think that the zoo has any responsibility to do anything to protect children when they know that parents lift their kids above the railing on a daily basis?
Not other than tell them to stop doing it. I could climb the fence and jump into the cage with the lions at most zoos. That doesn't make them responsible.
That's not a foreseeable accident. They don't have dozens of people leaping from the barrier every day.
They do, however, have dozens of parents putting their kids up on the railing every day. It doesn't take much foresight to see parent after parent putting their kid on the railing to realize that one will probably fall in one day.
they made it 116 years. The idiot mother broke the streak. 110% her fault, even though that % doesn't exist.0 -
The parents will win through settlement. Anyone want to place a bet?
Three words: mauled, child, jury
Yup.
Not only will they have to pay a settlement, they'll also probably install the more effective barrier they should have put in when they realized it was only a matter of time before one of those stupid parents dropped their kid.
Agreed. It's funny about law. The only votes that matter are the few that are picked for the jury, or at least the possible votes of the few that COULD be picked.0 -
Against. It was a rail, not a bench. I can't imagine how that mother feels, but displacing blame will not help the healing process.
This is what I'm thinking. I wouldn't necessarily blame the mother, it was an accident after all, but blaming the zoo won't help anything either.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.
Me too that person restraining me would have a broken nose. Oh and you would have a pile of dead dogs and my dead body over my living child...best case scenario.
Lol, Ok rambo.
You wouldnt fight to get in there? Just on natural instinct?
I go up against dogs on the street when they come after my dogs when we are walking. I've beaten off dogs before. You can't help it when something you love is attacked you will do what you can to fight.
I didn't say I wouldn't but you wouldn't have beaten everyone up and then went in there and killed a pack of wild dogs with your bare hands either. These weren't house dogs you encounter on walks either.
No I know that but on instinct I can guarantee i would be dead. Of course that goes without saying, I wouldn't sit my kid on a railing either though. Shoot I cringe when I see children allowed to run in a restaurant I'm just waiting for the waiter to trip over them and spill the hot food!0 -
Against. I had a tour of the Pittsburgh Zoo last year. They post everywhere about the importance of following the rules and no climbing on or over fences. The mother should have known better and although extremely sad, it was not the Zoo's fault.0
-
The parents will win through settlement. Anyone want to place a bet?
Three words: mauled, child, jury
Sadly, you are right.0 -
The parents will win through settlement. Anyone want to place a bet?
Three words: mauled, child, jury
Yup.
Not only will they have to pay a settlement, they'll also probably install the more effective barrier they should have put in when they realized it was only a matter of time before one of those stupid parents dropped their kid.
They won't have to put up anything because the dogs are gone due to the idiot dropping her child in. This is exactly what is wrong with America. We reward ignorance and failure and place the blame on anyone except the person responsible.0 -
She lifted the kid up over the railing and then dropped him. I'm sure the zoo was not expecting people to chuck toddlers into wild dog enclosures. Come the eff on.
To be fair, she didn't just pick him up and chuck him in there. :huh:
To be fair....she wasnt properly looking after him either. I would NEVER place my child in a situation like that! Failure to maintain a safe environment for your child, sad as the outcome was.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.
Me too that person restraining me would have a broken nose. Oh and you would have a pile of dead dogs and my dead body over my living child...best case scenario.
Lol, Ok rambo.
You wouldnt fight to get in there? Just on natural instinct?
I go up against dogs on the street when they come after my dogs when we are walking. I've beaten off dogs before. You can't help it when something you love is attacked you will do what you can to fight.
I didn't say I wouldn't but you wouldn't have beaten everyone up and then went in there and killed a pack of wild dogs with your bare hands either. These weren't house dogs you encounter on walks either.
No I know that but on instinct I can guarantee i would be dead. Of course that goes without saying, I wouldn't sit my kid on a railing either though. Shoot I cringe when I see children allowed to run in a restaurant I'm just waiting for the waiter to trip over them and spill the hot food!
and then some moron would sue the restaurant also.0 -
The parents will win through settlement. Anyone want to place a bet?
Three words: mauled, child, jury
Yup.
Not only will they have to pay a settlement, they'll also probably install the more effective barrier they should have put in when they realized it was only a matter of time before one of those stupid parents dropped their kid.
Agreed. It's funny about law. The only votes that matter are the few that are picked for the jury, or at least the possible votes of the few that COULD be picked.
Oh I completely agree it will go to settlement for a non disclosed amount. They'll shut the zoo down for a few months to revamp the whole park and reopen later with enclosures that make Fort Knox look like an outhouse.
Maybe one of the MFP'ers will be on the jury.0 -
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.
I agree!!!0 -
Not if I'm on that jury.The parents will win through settlement. Anyone want to place a bet?
Three words: mauled, child, jury
Sadly, you are right.0 -
SO far against this it isn't even funny. This to me is like the Hot coffee and McDonald's being sued for it burning a customer. The idiocy and the ill use of common sense is one of the biggest diseases in America now. The simple fact that they want to hold the Zoo responsible for something that they did is asinine. My heart goes out to them for their loss, but it was their stupidity that caused it. Your actions are your responsiblity... no one elses.0
-
Against.
I'm a parent and I would never put my daughter in danger like that...not EVER. Stupid mother.0 -
^^^ This. < / thread >The parents will win through settlement. Anyone want to place a bet?
Three words: mauled, child, jury
Yup.
Not only will they have to pay a settlement, they'll also probably install the more effective barrier they should have put in when they realized it was only a matter of time before one of those stupid parents dropped their kid.
They won't have to put up anything because the dogs are gone due to the idiot dropping her child in. This is exactly what is wrong with America. We reward ignorance and failure and place the blame on anyone except the person responsible.0 -
Wondering if this would fall under the attractive nuisance doctrine? If the zoo knew that kids of a certain size couldn't see the exhibit, and recognized that many parents circumvented the guards in place and didn't do enough to protect from that behavior they may be on the hook here.
I'm not a fan of this lawsuit, but I think there is a case there.
Bump0 -
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.
Me too that person restraining me would have a broken nose. Oh and you would have a pile of dead dogs and my dead body over my living child...best case scenario.
Lol, Ok rambo.
You wouldnt fight to get in there? Just on natural instinct?
I go up against dogs on the street when they come after my dogs when we are walking. I've beaten off dogs before. You can't help it when something you love is attacked you will do what you can to fight.
These dogs are not domesticated dogs that can be fought off.0 -
Not if I'm on that jury.The parents will win through settlement. Anyone want to place a bet?
Three words: mauled, child, jury
Sadly, you are right.
And since you've already made up your mind, you wouldn't be picked.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions