Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

Totally against -- parents need to be responsible. This parent was not as responsible as she should have been.

Sad it happened. and I feel the parent is looking for someone to blame since I am sure she blames herself the most. ( I am just speaking from if it had happened to me...I know I would feel like number one worst parent in the world)

with that said..

I would not sue the zoo...its not the zoo's fault.

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 ^^^^

It would be intersting to know who determines safety protocols for zoos and if the zoo was in violation or not.

i.e.- was there a sign "keep children off railing" or "danger" etc.

.and that is why we pay ridiculous amounts for insurance.

How much zoo insurance do you have, and what do you pay for it?

I was thinking the same thing :laugh:

What are the parents claiming was the zoo's liability?

Good question

.and that is why we pay ridiculous amounts for insurance.

How much zoo insurance do you have, and what do you pay for it?

Obviously I mean in general, lawsuits are the reason insurance cost so much.

I could get political but IC doesn't want his thread locked too.

.and that is why we pay ridiculous amounts for insurance.

How much zoo insurance do you have, and what do you pay for it?

Obviously I mean in general, lawsuits are the reason insurance cost so much.

No, spreading the costs of claims over a pool of insureds is the reason isurance costS so much. Because: Math. When we have claims to pay out, they come from the pool of money collected from all the insureds. That's how insurance works.

Against the lawsuit. It was a horrible mistake, but I see nothing that shows the zoo was negligent.

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.

.and that is why we pay ridiculous amounts for insurance.

How much zoo insurance do you have, and what do you pay for it?

Obviously I mean in general, lawsuits are the reason insurance cost so much.

I could get political but IC doesn't want his thread locked too.

I wasn't attempting to make it a political discussion at all just point out that frivolous lawsuits are not beneficial to anyone. Especially when the person suing used their own poor judgement in the situation.

Didn't say you were.
I just have other thoughts about why health insurance is so costly.