Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?
Replies
-
Against, it's a sad world where everything seems to lead to a lawsuit????0
-
I think the net that's there luls parents into a false sense of security, because it looks like it could catch a child (at least to people who are not all that familiar with physics, which would be most people). The news report said the kid just bounced straight out of the net and into the enclosure below, but I'm pretty sure when his mother raised him onto the ledge, that she believed the net would catch him if he fell.
The opposite of this effect is on top of Blackpool Tower, there's a section of the floor that is clear perspex, you can see all the way down to the street below, and it's so high the cars look like insects. It's over a metre thick so just as safe to walk on as any other part of the floor... It's part of the attraction... are you brave enough to walk across it? It's hard, because your natural instinct tells you NO F***ING WAY!!! because millions of years of evolution have programmed you to not step where you can see a huge drop to ground far below. So you have to engage your frontal lobes to override that deep-seated instinct, and many people cannot actually walk across that perspex. (me, I not only walked across it I jumped in the middle of it) --- so going back to the zoo.... if there was nothing but a sheer drop beyond that ledge, I don't think parents would have put their kid to sit on it, but the safety net took that natural fear instinct away, making it look much safer than it really was.
I still don't think that it's the zoo's fault (but I'm not a lawyer so I don't really know)... I'm just saying that things can appear safer than they actually are, and i think people who assess things for health and safety should take things like that into account (if they don't already), i.e. whether something like a net to catch cameras could result in parents putting their kids on a ledge thinking that the net would catch their child if the child fell, or even thinking that the net was there to catch children rather than cameras.
That's a pretty good point.0 -
Based strictly on what I'm reading here, I'm against the lawsuit in general only because the standard civil lawsuit process is costly, wasteful, and time-consuming. If, on the other hand, there was an abridged forum (think "The People Court") that could examine both sides of the story and render a judgment in a short period of time, then I would be ALL for that!Just saw the headline that the local zoo is being sued by the parents of a boy that was mauled to death in an exhibit of wild African dogs. The boy fell into the exhibit after his mother lifted him on to a railing so he could get a better look. The mother was not charged with negligence.
...
ETA: 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. The lawsuit states that zoos across the country have more and better safeguards in place to keep children safe.
...
For or Against the lawsuit?0 -
I am personally against the lawsuit, the mother made the dangerous choice and now should live with the consequences of that choice and not blame the zoo for her own mistakes.
I am a mother myself, and I lift my daughter onto my shoulders or seat her on my chest shortly to see the animals in the exhibit better or just take a picture that she can look at later if there is no safe way for her to view the animals. The mother should be charged with negligence as she knowingly put her child in danger.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.
I do not disagree there!0 -
I would fake my way in just so I can hear the judge declare a mistrial due to hung jury.
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.
In other news, we have the real world where the potential for large awards brings out the rather well-paid jury experts with PhDs in psychology and experienced litigators who know a thing or two about picking a jury. And then there's the fact that it probably won't even get to the point of picking a jury because the insurance company (assuming the zoo is insured) that wrote the policy on the zoo will insist it be settled as soon as it gets past summary judgment. That and the whole bad press thing.
Oh, and there's this: "In an interview with KDKA-TV, a zoo employee, Lou Nene, said he told his boss he saw mothers place children on or above the viewing window's railing "at least ten" times a day and feared for their safety. The lawsuit claims his boss, the zoo's curator of horticulture, Frank Pizzi, didn't act on his employee's concern.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/parents-sue-pittsburgh-zoo-in-boys-mauling-death-688841/#ixzz2U9CoIouy"
My point is not whether the suit is right or wrong, or whether it should be successful or not. It's simply a dose of reality. At some point the risk of flipping the coin and seeing what a jury comes back with, combined with tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, tends to push litigants towards settlement.
But of course good luck to you, because you know and care so much.0 -
It sounds like the zoo had several options for viewing these animals, they had a railing and a netting and signs stating not to lift your child onto railings. We cannot protect the world against stupidity. I feel horrible for the family and friends of this boy, but it was a decision that the mother made to disregard the safety signs. Unfrotunately, a decision she will have to regret for the rest of her life. Blaming others won't change that.
A sign I recently saw. EVERYTHING HAPPENS FOR A REASON, BUT SOMETIMES THE REASON IS THAT YOU'RE STUPID AND MAKE BAD DECISION.
***Please note I'm not saying this mother is stupid...just that she made a bad decision.
The netting was for people dropping cell phones and cameras, not kids.
It would have been a trivial upgrade to make the netting strong enough to catch a child, but the zoo chose not to do that, despite the fact that they knew parents put their kids up on the railing multiple times a day.
I know this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but please answer this honestly. you are a liberal, aren't you?
I think that dividing the political spectrum into an either/or single-dimension line is horribly stupid, and find that only people with primitive political positions and opinions have much use for the terms "liberal" or "conservative."
It was just your take on rewarding failure/ignorance and ignoring that people have a responsibility to themselves and their children that had me wondering. sorry to get off topic.
In the mean time I am going to borrow someone's kid, put it in a child's seat and then disconnect all of the restraints. Then when I have a wreck and the child dies I will sue the maker of said seat for not having 14 other safety devices that would prevent me from doing this.0 -
AGAINST!0
-
against0
-
Against...people need to take responsibility for their own actions!!! Very very sad they lost their child, but they were the ones that chose to put their child up there0
-
Against.
The mom made a very poor call in judgement and the child paid with his life.0 -
I live in the city in which this took place and have personally taken my kids to the exhibit. There were signs posted and the railing was pretty high - over a child's head, but was fencing material so you could see through it.
This is a tragedy and should have never happened, but I would like to know if the Zoo is being charged criminally or civilly. If criminally, I am for it - if civilly, against.
The zoo was up on all of its regulations and inspections. I grieve for those parents, but rules are there to keep your children safe. If the rules are broken, why is the zoo responsible?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.
I suspect you know little about the McDonald's case. Like, for instance, they were fully aware that the coffee as served was unfit for consumption.
But again, let's not bring the coffee case into it.
3rd degree burn to the bone in your crotch...that's all I'm going to say0 -
It sounds like the zoo had several options for viewing these animals, they had a railing and a netting and signs stating not to lift your child onto railings. We cannot protect the world against stupidity. I feel horrible for the family and friends of this boy, but it was a decision that the mother made to disregard the safety signs. Unfrotunately, a decision she will have to regret for the rest of her life. Blaming others won't change that.
A sign I recently saw. EVERYTHING HAPPENS FOR A REASON, BUT SOMETIMES THE REASON IS THAT YOU'RE STUPID AND MAKE BAD DECISION.
***Please note I'm not saying this mother is stupid...just that she made a bad decision.
The netting was for people dropping cell phones and cameras, not kids.
It would have been a trivial upgrade to make the netting strong enough to catch a child, but the zoo chose not to do that, despite the fact that they knew parents put their kids up on the railing multiple times a day.
If a parent is willing to risk injury and death to their own child by lifting that child around or above safety railings, then it seems like a net that appears strong enough to hold a child would just give parents like an even bigger false sense of security, as in, "Well, why not? The net will catch him." I really don't think any safety measures could possibly be put into place to protect a child against a parent who is hell bent on ignoring or circumventing them, short of banning children from the zoo altogether.0 -
As I said earlier, I'm against. Even after reading through this thread again.
Here's why:
I'm from South Dakota. I grew up near Custer State Park, home to a very LARGE buffalo herd.
EVERYWHERE are signs saying "Buffalo are dangerous. Do not approach." You cannot enter the Park without driving past these signs and they are posted all along the roads. Game Fish and Parks will not stop for every person that is dumb enough to get out & approach the buffalo. They have a job to do and that is to take care of the park and animals, not the tourists.
In the winter, we have a snow law. In effect, it says if the Interstates are closed because of a blizzard and you go out anyway -- we are not going to come out looking until after it is safe. Yes, you could die but we are not going to risk our lives to search for you after you went past the road barriers on to the interstate.
Common sense. If the warnings are there and I ignore them? That's my stupidity, plain and simple.0 -
Against.
I believe in Darwinism. I also believe in "**** happens" AND Instincts. As dumbed-down and protected as civilized society is, we ALL have the instinct to protect children and to stay away from large animals with sharp teeth.
I feel for the Mom, but she has no one to blame but herself. Had there been NO fence, how many of you would be willing to walk up to a pack of wild dogs with your small, half-blind child? Probably not many.....but SOMEONE would. Well, that someone would get eaten and we'd all be sitting here thinking they were a moron for not listening to their instincts. This situation is no different. If there were "10 moms a day" lifting their kids over the railing then, in my opinion, there are 10 moms a day that are too stupid to be raising children and child services should be called......
Take responsibility people!!
(<----former zoo employee / small animal caretaker / wildlife rehabilitator / vet tech)0 -
As I said earlier, I'm against. Even after reading through this thread again.
Here's why:
I'm from South Dakota. I grew up near Custer State Park, home to a very LARGE buffalo herd.
EVERYWHERE are signs saying "Buffalo are dangerous. Do not approach." You cannot enter the Park without driving past these signs and they are posted all along the roads. Game Fish and Parks will not stop for every person that is dumb enough to get out & approach the buffalo. They have a job to do and that is to take care of the park and animals, not the tourists.
In the winter, we have a snow law. In effect, it says if the Interstates are closed because of a blizzard and you go out anyway -- we are not going to come out looking until after it is safe. Yes, you could die but we are not going to risk our lives to search for you after you went past the road barriers on to the interstate.
Common sense. If the warnings are there and I ignore them? That's my stupidity, plain and simple.
Yup! Against...0 -
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 weren'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'm not sure those are contradictory statements. They appear to both be true. Possibly because people seem to be changing. I believe there was a time when people used to pay attention to signs and take them more seriously.
Lately, not as much. Which might explain why the employee kept bringing it to the zookeepers attention. Something seemed likely to happen in his/her opinion. Something very very bad. And the public were apparently not listening to him/her or the signs. I've been to many locations where people walk right past signs and completely ignore what's on them. People didn't used to do that as I recall. Now where's my cane! Somebody get me my ensure, and depends!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.
Yep.0 -
A lot of people are saying how stupid the Mom was, but if she was so stupid then how come millions of parents have no problem lifting their children up on railings. How many of us are really guilty of doing that? Did any of you ever take a kid to the zoo, and you know those exhibits are not easy for short kids to see, and pick them up even to peak over the railing. I see kids on top of shoulders in crowds sometimes and they almost get their head cracked on a wall because Dad is too tall. Most of us are just lucky we survived childhood.
Maybe in some sense you do have to protect people from stupidity. Why is it a requirement to have seat belts in a car? Because dumb people get in a car and cause accidents and death.
I'm actually for and against. I can see both sides of the argument. Ultimately it's not up to us to decided, but I can bet we've all been stupid with our lives or the lives of others at one point or another.
PS-zoos are terrible places to take a young child. They are hot, crowded, the animals are always hiding, and kids cant see into the exhibits most of the time.0 -
Maybe in some sense you do have to protect people from stupidity. Why is it a requirement to have seat belts in a car? Because dumb people get in a car and cause accidents and death.
Yeah, but we don't sue the automobile company for deaths that result from not using their seat belts just like the zoo should not be responsible for the parent sadly ignoring the fact that the railing was not meant to rest your 2 year old on.0 -
The fence the mother lifted the child over is see through by the way. There was also a deck below she could have taken her kid to see through a plexiglass window. Do you let your kid take off their seat belt while driving to get a better view of the road? Would you lift your child onto a balcony rail? Like Micheal Jackson? Common sense0
-
A lot of people are saying how stupid the Mom was, but if she was so stupid then how come millions of parents have no problem lifting their children up on railings. How many of us are really guilty of doing that? Did any of you ever take a kid to the zoo, and you know those exhibits are not easy for short kids to see, and pick them up even to peak over the railing. I see kids on top of shoulders in crowds sometimes and they almost get their head cracked on a wall because Dad is too tall. Most of us are just lucky we survived childhood.
Maybe in some sense you do have to protect people from stupidity. Why is it a requirement to have seat belts in a car? Because dumb people get in a car and cause accidents and death.
I'm actually for and against. I can see both sides of the argument. Ultimately it's not up to us to decided, but I can bet we've all been stupid with our lives or the lives of others at one point or another.
PS-zoos are terrible places to take a young child. They are hot, crowded, the animals are always hiding, and kids cant see into the exhibits most of the time.
You said that before and now I'm gonna have to ditto you. I'm not mad at anyone who chooses to take their child there, but me personally no. I even opted my kid out of the school field trip cause 1) this thing had JUST happened, 2) last time my nephew went to the zoo one of the monkeys got out and everyone had to evacuate 3) everything you said in bold, and 4) when I see what the economy has done to the condition and quality of the stores and restaurants I used to frequent what makes me think places like zoo's and etc. may not be succumbing to similar laxity due to a bad economy. I think Johnnythan hit the nail right on the head when he said, they were hedging their bets and lost. Only a little boy lost. His. Life.0 -
It's really sad but the animals just doing what it was born to do like me and dancing when drunk0
-
I am personally against the lawsuit, the mother made the dangerous choice and now should live with the consequences of that choice and not blame the zoo for her own mistakes.
I am a mother myself, and I lift my daughter onto my shoulders or seat her on my chest shortly to see the animals in the exhibit better or just take a picture that she can look at later if there is no safe way for her to view the animals. The mother should be charged with negligence as she knowingly put her child in danger.
Even on your shoulders is dangerous someone could bump into you and you could lose your grip on her or she could do that weird jerk thing kids do when she was on your chest and fall off that way. I think it was a stupid mistake on the mother's part and she wasnt thinking but I think it was a common occurrence and other's dont think about the danger.0 -
Against.
Parent lifted kid onto raining where i am sure it clearly states all over the zoo not to do that.
Some people.0 -
Against. That mother should be thrown in jail, its her fault that her child died. Sad as it is to say that, it's also true.0
-
A lot of people are saying how stupid the Mom was, but if she was so stupid then how come millions of parents have no problem lifting their children up on railings.
Just because a lot of people do it doesn't it make not stupid.0 -
Against. While I feel awful that a child has died I feel that the zoo took reasonable precautions. While people may lift their children on the fence, I believe that the a reasonable adult is aware dangers of teetering on a fence over a large pit filled with wild carnivores.
Can the zoo take more precautions? I suppose they could put netting up or make the wall solid concrete with viewing glass for the public, but I don't think they were negligent. The precautions they had were very reasonable.0 -
Against. And I'm keeping the rest of my thoughts/comments to myself.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