Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?
Replies
-
Against. The child didn't fall into the pit because of a lack of safeguards, he fell in because he was lifted onto the railing by someone who did not have full control over him. The safeguards were over-ridden.0
-
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?0 -
This is a sad story...very sad indeed.
I would have been in that pit, no one or two people could have kept me out.
As far as the lawsuit is concerned, I believe in a right to litigation especially if negligence is proven. That decision resides in the courts.
My opinion based off what has been presented is that due warning was most likely "available" (in the form of signs etc..), I would be interested to know if the park keepers routinely stopped this activity when they saw it, or ignored it. I have told multiple people, that I didn't know to "take their kid away from" this or that if I perceived a danger..sometimes I get a "*kitten* off and mind your business", sometimes I don't.0 -
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.0 -
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.
First response FOR the lawsuit. Perhaps the other zoos generate more revenue and could afford to better protect patrons from their own negligence.
Do you think the zoo simply couldn't afford to install a more effective barrier or trap? That's unlikely, especially considering they will almost certainly do so now.
They were hedging their bets that a parent wouldn't drop their child. They lost that bet.0 -
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.0 -
This is a sad story...very sad indeed.
I would have been in that pit, no one or two people could have kept me out.
As far as the lawsuit is concerned, I believe in a right to litigation especially if negligence is proven. That decision resides in the courts.
My opinion based off what has been presented is that due warning was most likely "available" (in the form of signs etc..), I would be interested to know if the park keepers routinely stopped this activity when they saw it, or ignored it. I have told multiple people, that I didn't know to "take their kid away from" this or that if I perceived a danger..sometimes I get a "*kitten* off and mind your business", sometimes I don't.
Good for you for telling them to get the kids down. Guess people dont understand the concept of gravity and wild predators. I've seen people dangle their kids on the overpass over the hoover damn! Nevermind it's 900 feet to the bottom.0 -
I have been to that exhibit many times and there was plexiglass on both sides of the rail as well as under it. In addition there was another viewing area giving a long view of the exhibit instead of looking down into it.
Was it a horrible accident --- yes. AGAINST lawsuit
And it really ticks me off that the exhibit was closed and the pack (litter mates) separated and sent to other zoos.
I know the parents have to be devastated but if you are going to put your child up on a rail would you not have a very firm grip on them.0 -
Liable or not, wouldn't wisdom dictate that you go over and above all established protocols and safety measures even if it's just to protect yourself from negative publicity and costly lawsuits?0
-
Against. As someone who has been to that zoo many times, I can assure you that there are plenty of signs posted everywhere warning people not to lift their kids on the rails. I have a 2 year old nephew and would never dream of sitting him on a railing at that zoo. As sad as this is, the fault lies with the mother.
I appreciate feedback from someone that has been to this zoo and has seen warning signs. Although this is my local zoo, I have not been there in many years. Hot, humid and the smell of poop are not a good mix0 -
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.
Everything can be made safer. The zoo operated for 116 years without a fatality. More people have probably died in car accidents while traveling to that zoo because they weren't wearing seat belts. Just as it's not the car manufacturers fault for people not properly using their safety measures, so to is it not the zoo's fault. It's a terrible tragedy but crying foul over something that was safely used by millions of visitors before this took place isn't a rational way of approaching it. Accidents happen. This was one that unfortunately led to an awful end.
In the end, nothing changes the fact that if the boy hadn't been lift up and placed in danger by the parent (I hate even typing that considering the emotional turmoil she must be going through), he'd still be alive. Circumnavigating safety constraints can lead to those safety measures no longer working and this is a sad example of that happening.0 -
I'm against zoos........... :frown:0
-
it's a sad fact that you cannot make the world idiot proof.
it's tragic that the child paid for his mother's mistake with his life.
in the uk there was a mother who tried to blame the makers of child car seats after she left her baby locked in the car while she went into a house to do a cleaning job on a warm day and he cooked to death.
there was the lady who tried to dry her dog in the microwave.
in the case of this zoo, there were even signs telling people the blindingly obvious.0 -
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.
^^^^ This0 -
Against. As someone who has been to that zoo many times, I can assure you that there are plenty of signs posted everywhere warning people not to lift their kids on the rails. I have a 2 year old nephew and would never dream of sitting him on a railing at that zoo. As sad as this is, the fault lies with the mother.
That's interesting about the signs.
The signs establish that the zoo is aware that lifting kids onto the rails is dangerous.
So if the zoo sees that parents regularly lift their kids onto the rails anyway, despite the warning signs, do you just wipe your hands and call it a day? Or do you feel obligated to do something a little more effective than putting up a sign?
How would you feel if you were in charge of the zoo? "Wow, despite these signs, parents keep doing this really dangerous thing with their kids anyway." Would your response really be "oh well, it's their problem if they drop their kid and he gets eaten" or would you pause for a moment and consider whether there was something more you could do?
How would you feel right now if you were the zoo administrator, and you knew parents regularly put their kids in harm's way by raising them above the railing, and you had decided not to do anything about it?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.0 -
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.
First response FOR the lawsuit. Perhaps the other zoos generate more revenue and could afford to better protect patrons from their own negligence.
Do you think the zoo simply couldn't afford to install a more effective barrier or trap? That's unlikely, especially considering they will almost certainly do so now.
They were hedging their bets that a parent wouldn't drop their child. They lost that bet.
Actually, they got rid of the dogs. There is not enough money in the world to fully protect people from their own stupidity.0 -
Against. As someone who has been to that zoo many times, I can assure you that there are plenty of signs posted everywhere warning people not to lift their kids on the rails. I have a 2 year old nephew and would never dream of sitting him on a railing at that zoo. As sad as this is, the fault lies with the mother.
That's interesting about the signs.
The signs establish that the zoo is aware that lifting kids onto the rails is dangerous.
So if the zoo sees that parents regularly lift their kids onto the rails anyway, despite the warning signs, do you just wipe your hands and call it a day? Or do you feel obligated to do something a little more effective than putting up a sign?
How would you feel if you were in charge of the zoo? "Wow, despite these signs, parents keep doing this really dangerous thing with their kids anyway." Would your response really be "oh well, it's their problem if they drop their kid and he gets eaten" or would you pause for a moment and consider whether there was something more you could do?
How would you feel right now if you were the zoo administrator, and you knew parents regularly put their kids in harm's way by raising them above the railing, and you had decided not to do anything about it?
How far should a zoo have to go to protect children from their parents?0 -
.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.
Yes and when people sue for millions over their own mistakes that cost goes up.
Only if she were to win. But she won't.0 -
I've dont know how to post images and I guess the daily mail isnt a good source, but if you scroll down about 1/4 of the way you can see how the observation is set up. Now I can't see where she would have set him.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227757/Pittsburgh-zoo-death-Maddox-Derkosh-mauled-death-African-wild-dogs-mother-dangles-railings.html
ONE MORE THING DO NOT PUT YOUR CHILD ON A RAILING OVERLOOKING ANYTHING! ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN GRAVITY IS MUCH FASTER THAN YOUR REFLEXES!0 -
Against0
-
true that the zoo could have had better railings or whatever, but who's to say even if they did, that a child wouldn't have been placed on THAT railing? people aren't easily deterred, I think if that lady wanted her child to "see better", she would have made it happen.0
-
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.
This. I'm against the suit.0 -
Liable or not, wouldn't wisdom dictate that you go over and above all established protocols and safety measures even if it's just to protect yourself from negative publicity and costly lawsuits?
same wisdom that dictates you dont balance your kid above your head precariously on a rail so they can see wild animals that eat meat?0 -
It would have been a trivial cost to install a net that was capable of catching a child.
The kid literally bounced off the net that they have installed.
The net is there because they know things can and will fall over.
The signs are there because they know it's dangerous to put your child on the railing.
The zoo officials knew that parents regularly put their children on the railing anyway.
It would have been trivial for the zoo to say "hey, you know, parents keep doing this really dangerous thing even though we tell them not to. Let's spend a couple of bucks and install a net that would actually catch a kid instead of just a camera." If they had done that, the kid would be alive.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.
No, it doesn't. A lot of mothers also allow their children to climb up the slides on the playground. I don't because I don't want to be the mother taking her kid to the hospital for a broken nose. It is my responsibility as a parent to do the best I can to keep my children safe. If he had been leaning against the rail and it broke I could see cause for a lawsuit. She had hoisted him on top of the rail. That is not the zoo's fault.0 -
Against.
It stated in the news the mother put the baby on the fence and lost his balance. NEWS FLASH: TWO YEAR OLDS are new walkers who aren't exactly pros. They've only been walking for about a year give or take. My two year loses her balance all the time, runs into things, falls over randomly.
I think they're doing the lawsuit because the mother is in denial that it is her fault of her son's death and she wants to place blame on someone else.0 -
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.
This. I'm against the suit.
Well it appears they do have a case and stand to win a very large sum of money if the courts agree the zoo was negligent.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 wasn'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 work in health care and the claims people make about the care of their loved ones are pure insanity.
But we are in a constant state of changing and improving our policies and procedures to protect ourselves and ensure we really are providing the best care possilble.
When you are in any kind of business that deals with risk to human life, you need to redefine the idea of slight possibility into the idea of "it will happen".0 -
Against.
Accidents happen.
This is not the fault of the zoo, or the parent.
wrong, this is clearly the fault of the parent and they should puch her in there. I am willing to bet there are signs that say not to stand on the rails.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions