Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

Curleycue0314

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 say

But again, who would put hot coffee in your crotch! I don't even try and drink the stuff if my Hubs is driving because he is crazy!

ldrosophila

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.

So maybe I think the zoo should assume some culpability. Do they need to protect the idiots from themselves? Doesnt seem like a bet I would want to take. That would be like saying well we know we have this dangerous road that overlooks a 1000 foot drop, but so far we havent had an accident so lets not change the road.

IDK scary horrible tradgedy. Whatever they do, youre right, that child is dead. Even if they win the case no amount of money will bring him back.

crimsoncat

Just because a lot of people do it doesn't it make not stupid.

I want to second this. Lots of people text while driving and look how many people get killed. We know this is bad and yet we do it anyways because we think "not me, I'm only do this one short message. I'm not like the others".

I'm sure the mother thought she had an excellent grip on her child and that he would only be up there fore a second.

I feel she was probably a smart person in other aspects of her life (we all have a talent or two) which is why she felt that she was doing something dangerous as safely as she could. I would imagine she knew she was doing something dangerous, but she felt she would be the exception to that danger.

Should she have done it? Absolutely not.

Have we all done something stupid and reckless? Absolutely.

I just feel awful a child had to die from this scenario. That should never have happened.

All that said, I have some other thoughts on the mother which I will keep to myself. I still side with the zoo on this one.

ldrosophila

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 say

But again, who would put hot coffee in your crotch! I don't even try and drink the stuff if my Hubs is driving because he is crazy!

She was actually parked putting the cream and sugar in when it spilled. I for one know I've spilled plenty of things in my car. I'm just lucky none of it was hot enough for me to have to spend a week in the hospital and get skin grafts.

moosegt35

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.

Because millions of people are stupid. It's dumb to do what she did and that is backed up with evidence of a dead child.

red_road

For it, sue them for millions!!!! Its the corporations responsibility to protect us from our own stupidity. That's why we have cigarette warning labels, caution this coffee is hot, oh and the best little packets that come in shoes they say do not eat. If I didn't have Corporations and Government looking out for me I might fall into a pit of wild dogs myself.

PS for those that don't get sarcasm this is it ^^^^

:flowerforyou:

JingleMuffin

Agianst, another reason to oppose zoos. Its allways so sad to go there.

moosegt35

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 say

But again, who would put hot coffee in your crotch! I don't even try and drink the stuff if my Hubs is driving because he is crazy!

Why do people keep bringing this up? These aren't even in the same category at all. BTW, it had nothing to do with warnings on the coffee, the coffee was entirely too hot to be served and has sense been reduced in temp.

moosegt35

Just because a lot of people do it doesn't it make not stupid.

I want to second this. Lots of people text while driving and look how many people get killed. We know this is bad and yet we do it anyways because we think "not me, I'm only do this one short message. I'm not like the others".

I'm sure the mother thought she had an excellent grip on her child and that he would only be up there fore a second.

I feel she was probably a smart person in other aspects of her life (we all have a talent or two) which is why she felt that she was doing something dangerous as safely as she could. I would imagine she knew she was doing something dangerous, but she felt she would be the exception to that danger.

Should she have done it? Absolutely not.

Have we all done something stupid and reckless? Absolutely.

I just feel awful a child had to die from this scenario. That should never have happened.

All that said, I have some other thoughts on the mother which I will keep to myself. I still side with the zoo on this one.

Great example. I think I will sue apple for not making it so that my phone can't text while it's moving. I mean people do it all the time and the signs aren't doing anything so obviously Apple is responsible.

ldrosophila

For it, sue them for millions!!!! Its the corporations responsibility to protect us from our own stupidity. That's why we have cigarette warning labels, caution this coffee is hot, oh and the best little packets that come in shoes they say do not eat. If I didn't have Corporations and Government looking out for me I might fall into a pit of wild dogs myself.

PS for those that don't get sarcasm this is it ^^^^

:flowerforyou:

think about it though all those warnings happen for a reason. It's not PC but I laugh when I see the picture of a baby and a big X circle on the side of a bucket, but I shouldnt because that means at some point a child drowned in a bucket. We have signs all over our cars to remind us to turn off the airbags if we have a kid up front because at some point a child was killed when the parents ignored all safety precautions and put their child up in the front seat. Corporations arent stupid they dont want to be sued for million, but these signs we all see usually go up after something has happened. There were no warnings on cigarettes until they got sued for billions for the deaths of idiots who decided smoking was cool. It makes me laugh too about the silica packets, but once again that means at some point someone, probably a child, ate them.

Danny_Boy13

No, it doesn't change my opinion. Bringing in an emotional element by telling us how horrible it was (to vivid detail) doesn't change my mind.

The fact that the zoo's own employees pointed out to management how unsafe the attraction was, and were told to shut up, doesn't change your mind?

Clearly the zoo knew that the attraction was unsafe. The zoo should have done something long before this actually happened.

Ask yourself this: do you think the zoo will install more effective barriers now? Of course they will. Why did it take a child actually dying for them to install more effective barriers? It shouldn't have. The zoo knew that parents put their kids up on the railings and knew that if the kids fell in they may die. They could, and should, have done something to prevent before a parent actually dropped their child.

all zoos and amusement parks should shut down immediately because that is the only 100% sure fire way to insure that no one gets hurt.

at what point to we push the responsibility on people instead of giving people a free pass for not knowing that if i lift my child above my head and let them try to balance on a metal beam and lose my grip till they fall to the ground only to be eaten by ravenous dogs who by nature eat small prey?

Zoos and amusement parks take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable accidents. That's why there are so many height restrictions, why ride attendants double check restraints, why there are so many fences, etc etc.

This was a foreseeable accident. The zoo officials were warned about it. They chose not to do anything, and a child eventually died as a result. If they had done something earlier this child would be alive. They will no doubt do something now, but now is too late. They should have done it before teh child died.

This is a very sad story but parents need to take responsibility for their own actions. There was railing there and the mother lifted the child onto the ledge of the enclosure. This was a rick that she took that she should have taken into consideration knowingly that there would be a possibility that her child could have fallen in. At what point does it need to be made known that people are too stupid to make sound decisions?

Danny_Boy13

Just because a lot of people do it doesn't it make not stupid.

I want to second this. Lots of people text while driving and look how many people get killed. We know this is bad and yet we do it anyways because we think "not me, I'm only do this one short message. I'm not like the others".

I'm sure the mother thought she had an excellent grip on her child and that he would only be up there fore a second.

I feel she was probably a smart person in other aspects of her life (we all have a talent or two) which is why she felt that she was doing something dangerous as safely as she could. I would imagine she knew she was doing something dangerous, but she felt she would be the exception to that danger.

Should she have done it? Absolutely not.

Have we all done something stupid and reckless? Absolutely.

I just feel awful a child had to die from this scenario. That should never have happened.

All that said, I have some other thoughts on the mother which I will keep to myself. I still side with the zoo on this one.

Great example. I think I will sue apple for not making it so that my phone can't text while it's moving. I mean people do it all the time and the signs aren't doing anything so obviously Apple is responsible.

*Applaud*

NewCaddy

For it, sue them for millions!!!! Its the corporations responsibility to protect us from our own stupidity. That's why we have cigarette warning labels, caution this coffee is hot, oh and the best little packets that come in shoes they say do not eat. If I didn't have Corporations and Government looking out for me I might fall into a pit of wild dogs myself.

PS for those that don't get sarcasm this is it ^^^^

:flowerforyou:

think about it though all those warnings happen for a reason. It's not PC but I laugh when I see the picture of a baby and a big X circle on the side of a bucket, but I shouldnt because that means at some point a child drowned in a bucket. We have signs all over our cars to remind us to turn off the airbags if we have a kid up front because at some point a child was killed when the parents ignored all safety precautions and put their child up in the front seat. Corporations arent stupid they dont want to be sued for million, but these signs we all see usually go up after something has happened. There were no warnings on cigarettes until they got sued for billions for the deaths of idiots who decided smoking was cool. It makes me laugh too about the silica packets, but once again that means at some point someone, probably a child, ate them.

Yes, all those warnings are because something bad happened --- thus the signs at a zoo.

calibriintx

i remember when this happened. it was an awful thing to hear about. I know of someone who worked at the zoo, but she had nothing to do with the exhibit or anything. she was just in the park when it happened.

i know a few more details, they showed diagrams and such on the news.

I am against the lawsuit. The dogs were down in a pit. The fence was high enough that the child would not have fallen had it not been lifted. I believer there were also signs posted.

^This right here. I saw the pictures and diagrams. There were signs posted. They're not responsible for poor parenting choices. I don't think the mother intended for anything bad to happen to her kid....but everywhere I go I see people allowing and even assisting their kids in doing things that "aren't allowed". Just yesterday a friend of mine posted a pic of her baby on this sculpture at a park. Right next to the kid, attached to the sculpture, was a sign advising to stay off of the sculptures. Maybe the zoo will decide to increase security on the exhibit since people can't be trusted to follow the rules that are in place for their safety and the safety of their kids.

I'm trying super hard to be respectful, but honestly, the thought that the zoo could be sued really disgusts me.

Mustang_Susie

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.

I would fake my way in just so I can hear the judge declare a mistrial due to hung jury.

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.

Kill joy.
Stop boring them with reality.
Speculation is far more appropriate fodder on forums...

My0WNinspiration

Against. There were signs and a fence in place. The mother didn't use her brain and lifted the child PASSED the safety fence. It was her fault her child was killed. Sad but true.

chunkydunk714

I remember this story

Against- Neither the parents or zoo's fault. Pure accident is all it was.

calibriintx

Read this does it change your mind?

No. Does it make you think that the zoo should sue the parents for negligence since one of the dogs died? They were warned by numerous signs but they still put the boy up there.

^I don't think the parents should be sued. Just trying to offer what I think is an equally absurd comparison.

This was a horrible, horrible accident caused by the mother not following the safety guidelines set out by the zoo. The whole thing should just be laid to rest. Zoos will probably up their rates and spend more money trying to keep people out of exhibits, and hopefully parents will start following the rules. It's a team effort.

crista_b

i remember when this happened. it was an awful thing to hear about. I know of someone who worked at the zoo, but she had nothing to do with the exhibit or anything. she was just in the park when it happened.

i know a few more details, they showed diagrams and such on the news.

I am against the lawsuit. The dogs were down in a pit. The fence was high enough that the child would not have fallen had it not been lifted. I believer there were also signs posted.

^This right here. I saw the pictures and diagrams. There were signs posted. They're not responsible for poor parenting choices. I don't think the mother intended for anything bad to happen to her kid....but everywhere I go I see people allowing and even assisting their kids in doing things that "aren't allowed". Just yesterday a friend of mine posted a pic of her baby on this sculpture at a park. Right next to the kid, attached to the sculpture, was a sign advising to stay off of the sculptures. Maybe the zoo will decide to increase security on the exhibit since people can't be trusted to follow the rules that are in place for their safety and the safety of their kids.

I'm trying super hard to be respectful, but honestly, the thought that the zoo could be sued really disgusts me.

QFT

amyx593

Against. You are responsible for your children. ...and is it really a good idea to lift your child onto the railing? I would be too embarrassed and ashamed to even think about a lawsuit.

jonnythan

I'm not comfortable letting the zoo throw its hands up in the air and say "OH WELL! THERE WERE SIGNS!" when they knew full well that parents ignored the signs all day long and a trivial amount of work and money could have prevented the death.

moosegt35

I'm not comfortable letting the zoo throw its hands up in the air and say "OH WELL! THERE WERE SIGNS!" when they knew full well that parents ignored the signs all day long and a trivial amount of work and money could have prevented the death.

We should sue apple because phones are capable of texting while driving even though its illegal and they say not to do it.

Fr3shStrt

No. Does it make you think that the zoo should sue the parents for negligence since one of the dogs died? They were warned by numerous signs but they still put the boy up there.

^I don't think the parents should be sued. Just trying to offer what I think is an equally absurd comparison.

This was a horrible, horrible accident caused by the mother not following the safety guidelines set out by the zoo. The whole thing should just be laid to rest. Zoos will probably up their rates and spend more money trying to keep people out of exhibits, and hopefully parents will start following the rules. It's a team effort.

I had the same thought. The whole thing is horrible, but if you are going to start pointing fingers and placing blame then yea - the zoo could sue the parents for the loss of the dog killed while attempting to rescue the boy.

ETA - I, in no way, am saying the loss of the animal was more awful than the loss of the boy.

gr8pillock

I ave to wonder 1) how quickly the dogs went after the kid and (more importantly) 2) why the mother wasn't in there with him. I know I'm often accused of being a little overly Irish when it comes to my reactions to things, but if I lifted my baby on a railing (which I realize I would never do), I'd have a serious hold on him, and if even still, I lost hold - if my baby can survive the fall, so can I. I'm going the hell in after him and those dogs would have to kill me first before they'd get anywhere near my baby, and I can be one scary ***** when I want to be...

So yeah, long story short, I'd say I'm against.

craigmandu

I'm not comfortable letting the zoo throw its hands up in the air and say "OH WELL! THERE WERE SIGNS!" when they knew full well that parents ignored the signs all day long and a trivial amount of work and money could have prevented the death.

I went to a "bear park" while on a trip to Mount Rushmore last year. One of those places where you drive through, and the bears roam freely. There are signs everywhere that say "Keep your windows rolled up, and do not get out of your car"....but I saw many people with rolled down windows, waiving to the bears and taking pictures.

They can come right up to your car mind you. If one of those bears got pissed and rushed an open window and killed/maimed someone, is it the parks fault for that? Since they know people roll down their windows to take pictures all the time....?

crista_b

I'm not comfortable letting the zoo throw its hands up in the air and say "OH WELL! THERE WERE SIGNS!" when they knew full well that parents ignored the signs all day long and a trivial amount of work and money could have prevented the death.

I understand this, but at the same time, no one is downplaying how sad it is that this happened.

Going back to an analogy that was mentioned before, people know that texting and driving causes deaths and will be in trouble if caught doing so, but that doesn't mean the family of anyone who dies while texting and driving automatically gets the right to sue the phone company.

Main point in both situations: Yes, it's sad. No, it shouldn't have happened. Could it have been avoided if the person would just follow simple instructions that are there for their safety? Yes.


ETA: If you read the article, it says, "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."
It's not that the net wasn't strong enough. He bounced out of it after falling because he "lunged out of his mother's grasp".
So since you say that the zoo needs to do more (specifically with the nets), you're basically saying that the zoo needs to put up giant nets that would cover most, if not the entire exhibit, which would then make it impossible for anyone to see. So what would be the point of even having a zoo, then?

Danny_Boy13

I'm not comfortable letting the zoo throw its hands up in the air and say "OH WELL! THERE WERE SIGNS!" when they knew full well that parents ignored the signs all day long and a trivial amount of work and money could have prevented the death.

Seeing this would not fully prevent anyone from entering into the water.... so if said person is to enter the water, "ignoring the signs sings" as it was put, and a shark kills can one sue the city for not providing enough barriers to prevent people from entering in the water? Common sense bro.... common sense.

jonnythan

I'm not comfortable letting the zoo throw its hands up in the air and say "OH WELL! THERE WERE SIGNS!" when they knew full well that parents ignored the signs all day long and a trivial amount of work and money could have prevented the death.

Seeing this would not fully prevent anyone from entering into the water.... so if said person is to enter the water, "ignoring the signs sings" as it was put, and a shark kills can one sue the city for not providing enough barriers to prevent people from entering in the water? Common sense bro.... common sense.

That's not at all comparable. If the area with that sign could spend $1000 on a small device that would actually prevent anyone from getting eaten by a shark, that would be more similar.

jonnythan

I'm not comfortable letting the zoo throw its hands up in the air and say "OH WELL! THERE WERE SIGNS!" when they knew full well that parents ignored the signs all day long and a trivial amount of work and money could have prevented the death.

We should sue apple because phones are capable of texting while driving even though its illegal and they say not to do it.

Again, totally different situation. There's no easy, cheap, simple, feasible way for Apple to actually prevent people from doing that.

The zoo could easily and simply have prevented this utterly foreseeable death. Apple can't easily and simply prevent people from texting while driving.

kellijauch

Against.

I'm sure the zoo posted signs. If someone chooses to ignore a warning about a known vicious animal and endanger their child, that's on them. The zoo can't be responsible for people's ignorance and negligence.