Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

5n0wbal1

Against. It's really sad what happened, but the railing was there for a reason. It was bad judgment on the part of the mother for lifting her son onto that railing. Her bad judgment is not the zoo's fault.

InnerConflict

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.

The televisions would have to be wireless. Otherwise a parent would sue if their child got the cord wrapped around their neck and died.

HypersonicFitNess

Very Much Against!

I'm sorry for their loss but ultimately it is the parent's responsibility to keep their children safe and not put them in unsafe situation. It's time for people to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming others.

What316

I ****in hate zoos so many of the animals have that same look in their eyes ,you know that look my da had when my wee brother told him he wasn't planning on ever moving out .... That look that says kill me

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.

No i'm aware of the case, but my point is that While yes the Zoo has a responsiblity to keep the animals in a safe enclosure that is well cared for, they are not responsible for the stupidity of the patrons. As a parent I have not and WILL NEVER put my child on or lift them onto an enclosure wall where my child could be in danger.

ConleighS

Against! I think the parent should have been charged for putting him up there in the first place.

FrenchMob

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.

Mustang_Susie

I ****in hate zoos so many of the animals have that same look in their eyes ,you know that look my da had when my wee brother told him he wasn't planning on ever moving out .... That look that says kill me

My father-in-law is a wildlife biologist and has said the same thing.
They literally are stir crazy (funny movie by the way).
But OP was not asking about animal rights, were you?

lina1131

I just cannot imagine. I would die. :sad: :sad: :sad: :frown:

NewCaddy

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.

MercenaryNoetic26

I would like to think I'd jump in with the child, wrap my body around my child and let them chew through me first. I also would like to believe I wouldn't be that stupid to put my child in remotely any such danger. It sounds like Michael Jackson dangling his kid over the balcony incident. That was just cray.

Anyway, if my baby was mauled, and it was my fault, I'd probably still sue. Shifting the blame isn't right, but it helps you feel better.

**ETA: Agree with previous poster. It was a stupid decision. Unfortunately, it took the life of her child.

jonnythan

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.

Capt_Inzane

I would like to think I'd jump in with the child, wrap my body around my child and let them chew through me first. I also would like to believe I wouldn't be that stupid to put my child in remotely any such danger. It sounds like Michael Jackson dangling his kid over the balcony incident. That was just cray.

Anyway, if my baby was mauled, and it was my fault, I'd probably still sue. Shifting the blame isn't right, but it helps you feel better.

**ETA: Agree with previous poster. It was a stupid decision. Unfortunately, it took the life of her child.

I actually came back to post that I think no I know I would have jumped, flew, superman'd my way into that area and taken a few out with me. I'm watching my son now and thinking what wouldn't I do?

moosegt35

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?

Capt_Inzane

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.

Then what happens if a kid fell into the netting and somehow was strangled by it? Or if a fatter kid/adult fell and the net wasn't rated for the weight and they died? According to other's in this thread (I haven't confirmed) but it appears there were signs stating not to do exactly what she did. Shouldn't that be enough? For example a poisonous bottle of cleaner has "do not drink if accidental ..." but if someone were to drink the entire bottle and die can they sue?

Again common sense and self-responsibility are things that the majority of our country lacks.

jonnythan

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."

neandermagnon

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.

Mustang_Susie

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?

Oh dear...

MexicanOsmosis

It all depends on whether the zoo's safety precautions are up to code. If they were up to code and met the requirements, then the zoo should have no fault at all. If this death means that the code will have to change, so be it, but the zoo should bear no responsibility.

Now, if it was NOT up to code, then yes, the zoo should bear responsibility...as should the mother.

Regardless, I can't imagine the pain the mother is going through.

jonnythan

Then what happens if a kid fell into the netting and somehow was strangled by it? Or if a fatter kid/adult fell and the net wasn't rated for the weight and they died? According to other's in this thread (I haven't confirmed) but it appears there were signs stating not to do exactly what she did. Shouldn't that be enough? For example a poisonous bottle of cleaner has "do not drink if accidental ..." but if someone were to drink the entire bottle and die can they sue?

Again common sense and self-responsibility are things that the majority of our country lacks.

Those situations are not nearly as foreseeable or obvious as one of those parents dropping their kid off the railing.

There were signs, which means the zoo knows it's dangerous to have your kid up there. Combined with the fact that the zoo knew that parents put there kids up there all day long, it seems to me they'd be obligated to do something slightly more effective than signs.