Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

jonnythan

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.

They knew the railing was ineffective because they knew people regularly put their children over the railing.

Mustang_Susie

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?

See my most recent post before this.
I'm not saying it's right or fair or just.
Or the mother shouldn't have been more responsible/wise.
But the facility needs to protect itself from the poor choices of it's patrons and therefore bears the onus of that responsibility.
When you open up a dangerous exhibit to the general public, someone WILL do something stupid.

brower47

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.

^^^ Yes this.

My favorite zoo has a Giraffe exhibit where you walk on platforms 20 feet in the air, with guardrails. You buy some crackers and feed them directly to the animals. There are anywhere from 10 - 20 animals present at any time, all vying for the treats. If some parent put their 2 year old on the railing, and it fell, it could die not only from the fall but also from being stepped on my animals that weigh thousands of pounds. There is an inherent danger there, there are posted signs and the exhibit would be safer if they kept the people far away with lots of plexiglass and netting and so on. If a child did die, it would be a shame that the exhibit could be closed just because someone made a fatally foolish choice to endanger their child by placing them on a railing that they could easily fall from. The most extreme form of safety is not always the best option.

It is not the zoos fault at all. It is entirely the fault of the poor parent that had a horrid lapse in judgement.

FrenchMob

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.

Where do you draw the line to protect people from themselves? Get a grip already. Parents responsible 100%, zoo 0%.

Against this frivolous suit and anyone that's for it needs to get their heads examined. Seriously.

moosegt35

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.

Yea, then the zoo would have 2 lawsuits for letting her jump in there.

sewerchick93

against

Mustang_Susie

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.

Neither do I.
As I said, it would be interesting to know.

jonnythan

Where do you draw the line to protect people from themselves? Get a grip already. Parents responsible 100%, zoo 0%.

Against this frivolous suit and anyone that's for it needs to get their heads examined. Seriously.

Then why even put up the warning sign?

Seriously. Why have the warning signs if it's 100% parents' responsibility?

Why have a guardrail?

ldrosophila

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.

Just a side not the woman in the suit, and the courts decided McDonalds was at fault, suffered a third degree burn. I was friends with the son of the prosecutor in this case. I dont know if you had a 3rd degree burn in your crotch to the bone would you sue? Sorry to high jack.

moosegt35

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.

brower47

Where do you draw the line to protect people from themselves? Get a grip already. Parents responsible 100%, zoo 0%.

Against this frivolous suit and anyone that's for it needs to get their heads examined. Seriously.

Then why even put up the warning sign?

Seriously. Why have the warning signs if it's 100% parents' responsibility?

Why have a guardrail?

Now you're not even trying.

jonnythan

Let's not bring the hot coffee case into this.

smiley245

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.

jonnythan

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?

JWat2020

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.

Jersey_Devil

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.

MudRunLvr

Where do you draw the line to protect people from themselves? Get a grip already. Parents responsible 100%, zoo 0%.

Against this frivolous suit and anyone that's for it needs to get their heads examined. Seriously.

Then why even put up the warning sign?

Seriously. Why have the warning signs if it's 100% parents' responsibility?

Why have a guardrail?

Because, unlike the mother, the zoo DID it's due diligence to protect the child.

They put up a fence to keep people from falling in. People chose to ignore that.

They put up signs to warn people not to lift their children over the fence. People chose to ignore that.

After ignoring every warning in place to save her child's life, she now wants to blame the zoo for not doing ENOUGH, when she did nothing to protect her child. Quite the opposite, she put him in harms way.

They could make sure the zoo is 100% safe as you're asking. They could spend money they don't have on extreme safety measures (won't happen), get rid of every animal who could potentially harm someone (making it a petting zoo) or they could just close down.

^None of these are preferable to the simpler, more logical option of parents exercising just the smallest amount of common sense with their own children.

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.

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

Yes. There shouldn't even need to be a sign. Does there need to be a sign not to let your children walk in the middle of the interstate? If a parent lets their child walk on the interstate should they be able to sue when someone runs over the child? It's common sense and Darwin at work here and unfortunately for the poor kid his mother is an idiot.

Ashwee87

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...

ldrosophila

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.