Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

Options
1…5681011…22

Replies

  • moosegt35
    moosegt35 Posts: 1,296 Member
    Options
    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.
  • ldrosophila
    ldrosophila Posts: 7,512 Member
    Options
    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.
  • skparker2
    skparker2 Posts: 132
    Options
    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!!!
  • FrenchMob
    FrenchMob Posts: 1,167 Member
    Options
    The parents will win through settlement. Anyone want to place a bet?

    Three words: mauled, child, jury

    Sadly, you are right.
    Not if I'm on that jury.
  • Curleycue0314
    Curleycue0314 Posts: 245 Member
    Options
    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.
  • skinnyforcruise2013
    skinnyforcruise2013 Posts: 74
    Options
    Against.

    I'm a parent and I would never put my daughter in danger like that...not EVER. Stupid mother.
  • FrenchMob
    FrenchMob Posts: 1,167 Member
    Options
    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.
    ^^^ This. < / thread >
  • JWat2020
    JWat2020 Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    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.

    Bump
  • BflSaberfan
    BflSaberfan Posts: 1,272
    Options
    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.
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Options
    The parents will win through settlement. Anyone want to place a bet?

    Three words: mauled, child, jury

    Sadly, you are right.
    Not if I'm on that jury.

    And since you've already made up your mind, you wouldn't be picked.
  • akrnrunner
    akrnrunner Posts: 117 Member
    Options
    I didn't read through all the comments but I do think the zoo bears some responsibility considering this was an ongoing issue where other people had complained that children were routinely being picked up and placed on the railing. I don't think anyone can put enough faith in people's common sense these days, including parents. If this had been an isolated incident without record of previous complaints, then that would be one thing... however... there has to be have been something lacking in the exhibit that it would, on multiple occasions invite parents to put children up there in the first place. Very sad.
  • Alex_is_Hawks
    Alex_is_Hawks Posts: 3,499 Member
    Options

    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?

    now you are really reaching.... the zoo has responsibility, they exercised it. you're "don't think the zoo has any responsibility to do anything" comment implies they did nothing.

    which is wrong, they did lots of things. the mother circumvented all of those things.

    basically if the zoo did what you said and thus did EVERYTHING to ensure there was NO risk, they would put everyone in a room to watch the lovely creatures outside via TV. that negates the experience of the zoo.

    it would be like your gym insisting you watch someone squat in a squat rack rather than actually squatting yourself, because there's risk and you MAY get hurt.

    people have to assume the responsibility of their risk.

    she took a risk, and her son paid for it.
  • irjeffb
    irjeffb Posts: 274 Member
    Options
    I don't think the zoo is at fault, but I'm FOR the parents' right to take it to court and have their case heard.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    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.
  • pattyfitzroy
    pattyfitzroy Posts: 15
    Options
    Against it won't bring your baby back :frown:
  • grumpy2day
    grumpy2day Posts: 212
    Options
    Against! Why should they be able to sue for their own irresponsible behavior? I feel awful for the family, but her actions and hers alone caused this tragedy, common sense alone would dictate not setting your child on the ledge. Had she done this at home on a railing overlooking her livingroom and the child fell and died, or was crippled for life, who would she sue? In that scenario dyfus would have been all over her.
  • Tiff050709
    Tiff050709 Posts: 497 Member
    Options
    While it is very sad, I don't think they have the right to sue. She put him up there. There are reasons why there are fences and walls, to protect us.
  • dawningr
    dawningr Posts: 387 Member
    Options
    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 did have a safeguard..the railing. The boy wouldn't fall in without his parent lifting him over it or on top of it.
    The same with people who sue after taking the seatbelt off on a roller coaster. If you try to go outside the safety precautions, YOU assume liability for damages.

    Against the lawsuit.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    basically if the zoo did what you said and thus did EVERYTHING to ensure there was NO risk, they would put everyone in a room to watch the lovely creatures outside via TV. that negates the experience of the zoo.

    it would be like your gym insisting you watch someone squat in a squat rack rather than actually squatting yourself, because there's risk and you MAY get hurt.

    people have to assume the responsibility of their risk.

    she took a risk, and her son paid for it.

    I never even remotely said they should do EVERYTHING to ensure there was NO risk.

    I'm saying they have a responsibility to take appropriate precautions to prevent accidents that are obviously foreseeable.

    It's obvious to all of us, and to the zoo employees and management, that parents are putting their kids in danger by putting them on the railing. Everyone here knows it and everyone at the zoo knows it. It's plainly obvious that there would be a tragedy if a parent dropped their child off that railing. It would have been trivial to install a better net.

    That's what I'm saying. A trivial net upgrade would have prevented this tragedy that everyone saw coming. Zoo employees even commented on it. The zoo put up signs. Everyone saw it coming.
  • Capt_Inzane
    Capt_Inzane Posts: 733 Member
    Options
    Against, It's upsetting when things like this happen but unfortunately we (society) can't safe proof everything. Unfortunately some common sense and taking responsibility for one's actions is what this country needs more than anything.

    RIP to the child and condolences to the victim's family. I don't know what I'd do if it were me I don't even want to think about that.

Categories