Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

Valera0466

Against

hellraisedfire

true that the zoo could have had better railings or whatever, but who's to say even if they did, that a child wouldn't have been placed on THAT railing? people aren't easily deterred, I think if that lady wanted her child to "see better", she would have made it happen.

NikiChicken

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.

This. I'm against the suit.

Jerrypeoples

Liable or not, wouldn't wisdom dictate that you go over and above all established protocols and safety measures even if it's just to protect yourself from negative publicity and costly lawsuits?

same wisdom that dictates you dont balance your kid above your head precariously on a rail so they can see wild animals that eat meat?

jonnythan

It would have been a trivial cost to install a net that was capable of catching a child.

The kid literally bounced off the net that they have installed.

The net is there because they know things can and will fall over.

The signs are there because they know it's dangerous to put your child on the railing.

The zoo officials knew that parents regularly put their children on the railing anyway.

It would have been trivial for the zoo to say "hey, you know, parents keep doing this really dangerous thing even though we tell them not to. Let's spend a couple of bucks and install a net that would actually catch a kid instead of just a camera." If they had done that, the kid would be alive.

JenAndSome

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. A lot of mothers also allow their children to climb up the slides on the playground. I don't because I don't want to be the mother taking her kid to the hospital for a broken nose. It is my responsibility as a parent to do the best I can to keep my children safe. If he had been leaning against the rail and it broke I could see cause for a lawsuit. She had hoisted him on top of the rail. That is not the zoo's fault.

Kpablo

Against.

It stated in the news the mother put the baby on the fence and lost his balance. NEWS FLASH: TWO YEAR OLDS are new walkers who aren't exactly pros. They've only been walking for about a year give or take. My two year loses her balance all the time, runs into things, falls over randomly.

I think they're doing the lawsuit because the mother is in denial that it is her fault of her son's death and she wants to place blame on someone else.

ldrosophila

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.

This. I'm against the suit.

Well it appears they do have a case and stand to win a very large sum of money if the courts agree the zoo was negligent.

Mustang_Susie

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.

These two contradictory statements stuck out to me.

The argument being that there wasn't adequate safety protocols in place. 116 years and not a single death? Sounds to me like they take safety pretty seriously.

There were protections put in place to safeguard children. The mother didn't like them, they blocked her son's view. So she deliberately circumvented them so he could get a better look.

Yes they could have been made even stricter. Had the dogs been encased in a concrete barrier I doubt anyone would have been hurt at all.

The fence was there specifically so the child would not fall in. The mother picked up her son and lifted him over the fence to get around that pesky little fact. To claim after the fact that the zoo did not do enough to safeguard her child, after she intentionally removed the safeguards that were in place to begin with, is insanity.

I work in health care and the claims people make about the care of their loved ones are pure insanity.
But we are in a constant state of changing and improving our policies and procedures to protect ourselves and ensure we really are providing the best care possilble.
When you are in any kind of business that deals with risk to human life, you need to redefine the idea of slight possibility into the idea of "it will happen".

moosegt35

Against.


Accidents happen.
This is not the fault of the zoo, or the parent.

wrong, this is clearly the fault of the parent and they should puch her in there. I am willing to bet there are signs that say not to stand on the rails.

jonnythan

Against.


Accidents happen.
This is not the fault of the zoo, or the parent.

wrong, this is clearly the fault of the parent and they should puch her in there. I am willing to bet there are signs that say not to stand on the rails.

And their responsibility ends if they put up a sign, even if they know people regularly ignore the sign and do it anyway?

moosegt35

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.

Yes, people are idiots, everyone knows that. Not everything can be made idiot proof though.

MudRunLvr

It would have been a trivial cost to install a net that was capable of catching a child.

The kid literally bounced off the net that they have installed.

The net is there because they know things can and will fall over.

The signs are there because they know it's dangerous to put your child on the railing.

The zoo officials knew that parents regularly put their children on the railing anyway.

It would have been trivial for the zoo to say "hey, you know, parents keep doing this really dangerous thing even though we tell them not to. Let's spend a couple of bucks and install a net that would actually catch a kid instead of just a camera." If they had done that, the kid would be alive.

If the mother of the child, the only one truly responsible for his safety and well being, had not lifted him over the fence the kid would still be alive.

Why is a zoo expected to better protect a child than their own parents?

There's a fence, there's a net, there are cages.. all in place to keep someone from doing a rather simple thing. Not to dangle their children over vicious dog cages. How far does the zoo have to go to protect children who's parents have such little regard for their own safety?

Accidents happen, it's a sad fact of life. The zoo did what it could to prevent that. The woman did what she could to prevent those safe guards from working. In the end, she won. The fence designed to keep her child from falling in was no match for her plan of lifting him over it.

brower47

Against.


Accidents happen.
This is not the fault of the zoo, or the parent.

wrong, this is clearly the fault of the parent and they should puch her in there. I am willing to bet there are signs that say not to stand on the rails.

And their responsibility ends if they put up a sign, even if they know people regularly ignore the sign and do it anyway?

Yes.

Brandilynnrose

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.

That's interesting about the signs.

The signs establish that the zoo is aware that lifting kids onto the rails is dangerous.

So if the zoo sees that parents regularly lift their kids onto the rails anyway, despite the warning signs, do you just wipe your hands and call it a day? Or do you feel obligated to do something a little more effective than putting up a sign?

How would you feel if you were in charge of the zoo? "Wow, despite these signs, parents keep doing this really dangerous thing with their kids anyway." Would your response really be "oh well, it's their problem if they drop their kid and he gets eaten" or would you pause for a moment and consider whether there was something more you could do?

How would you feel right now if you were the zoo administrator, and you knew parents regularly put their kids in harm's way by raising them above the railing, and you had decided not to do anything about it?

I guess I feel differently than you or even the parents of this child because I always use common sense. Walking with a child on an overpass, would I ever place the child on the railing? No. Going to a touristy scenic overlook would I ever place a child on top of the railing? No. Climbing up a lighthouse and looking out over the ocean would I ever place a child on the railing? No. Going to a zoo where there are actually signs posted saying don't climb on the railing or place children on them would I ever do just that? HELL no.

It's sad, I am not denying that. But it is NOT the zoo's fault. People need to take responsibilty for their own actions. This was an exhibit that sits way up, above the animals, so you cannot get close, had a HIGH railing (I have been there), and had signs posted. I am not sure what more people want. This zoo actually goes ABOVE standards for safety (making railing higher than they are obligated to.)

jonnythan

It would have been a trivial cost to install a net that was capable of catching a child.

The kid literally bounced off the net that they have installed.

The net is there because they know things can and will fall over.

The signs are there because they know it's dangerous to put your child on the railing.

The zoo officials knew that parents regularly put their children on the railing anyway.

It would have been trivial for the zoo to say "hey, you know, parents keep doing this really dangerous thing even though we tell them not to. Let's spend a couple of bucks and install a net that would actually catch a kid instead of just a camera." If they had done that, the kid would be alive.

If the mother of the child, the only one truly responsible for his safety and well being, had not lifted him over the fence the kid would still be alive.

Why is a zoo expected to better protect a child than their own parents?

There's a fence, there's a net, there are cages.. all in place to keep someone from doing a rather simple thing. Not to dangle their children over vicious dog cages. How far does the zoo have to go to protect children who's parents have such little regard for their own safety?

Accidents happen, it's a sad fact of life. The zoo did what it could to prevent that. The woman did what she could to prevent those safe guards from working. In the end, she won. The fence designed to keep her child from falling in was no match for her plan of lifting him over it.

The mother is still responsible, but the zoo bears responsibility too. They knew of the danger, so they put up signs. People ignore the signs. They knew people ignored the signs, but declined to do anything more.

InnerConflict

It would have been trivial for the zoo to say "hey, you know, parents keep doing this really dangerous thing even though we tell them not to. Let's spend a couple of bucks and install a net that would actually catch a kid instead of just a camera." If they had done that, the kid would be alive.

Times that by hundreds of exhibits with animals that can harm a child.

ldrosophila

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.

These two contradictory statements stuck out to me.

The argument being that there wasn't adequate safety protocols in place. 116 years and not a single death? Sounds to me like they take safety pretty seriously.

There were protections put in place to safeguard children. The mother didn't like them, they blocked her son's view. So she deliberately circumvented them so he could get a better look.

Yes they could have been made even stricter. Had the dogs been encased in a concrete barrier I doubt anyone would have been hurt at all.

The fence was there specifically so the child would not fall in. The mother picked up her son and lifted him over the fence to get around that pesky little fact. To claim after the fact that the zoo did not do enough to safeguard her child, after she intentionally removed the safeguards that were in place to begin with, is insanity.

I work in health care and the claims people make about the care of their loved ones are pure insanity.
But we are in a constant state of changing and improving our policies and procedures to protect ourselves and ensure we really are providing the best care possilble.
When you are in any kind of business that deals with risk to human life, you need to redefine the idea of slight possibility into the idea of "it will happen".

Of course those of us in the health care industry more than understand the concept of C.Y.A. However, I dont think those in the zoological industry quite have to deal with the regulations and the cost of losing a human life on a day to day basis. I bet they never had a lawyer or a regulatory agency looking at the safety of their exhibits or the adequacy of the signage until after this happened. Of course I dont know I have know idea what the regulations and audits are for zoos.

moosegt35

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.

They had that. It was the railing that the idiot put her child over.

ldrosophila

It would have been a trivial cost to install a net that was capable of catching a child.

The kid literally bounced off the net that they have installed.

The net is there because they know things can and will fall over.

The signs are there because they know it's dangerous to put your child on the railing.

The zoo officials knew that parents regularly put their children on the railing anyway.

It would have been trivial for the zoo to say "hey, you know, parents keep doing this really dangerous thing even though we tell them not to. Let's spend a couple of bucks and install a net that would actually catch a kid instead of just a camera." If they had done that, the kid would be alive.

If the mother of the child, the only one truly responsible for his safety and well being, had not lifted him over the fence the kid would still be alive.

Why is a zoo expected to better protect a child than their own parents?

There's a fence, there's a net, there are cages.. all in place to keep someone from doing a rather simple thing. Not to dangle their children over vicious dog cages. How far does the zoo have to go to protect children who's parents have such little regard for their own safety?

Accidents happen, it's a sad fact of life. The zoo did what it could to prevent that. The woman did what she could to prevent those safe guards from working. In the end, she won. The fence designed to keep her child from falling in was no match for her plan of lifting him over it.

The mother is still responsible, but the zoo bears responsibility too. They knew of the danger, so they put up signs. People ignore the signs. They knew people ignored the signs, but declined to do anything more.

So I'm still uncear was the child sitting on a rail or was he picked up and held over that net? I'm curious how he was positioned did she simply pick him up so he could look out what looks like plexi glass or did she take him out of that human enclosure thing over the pexi glass.