Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?
Replies
-
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.
And their responsibility ends if they put up a sign, even if they know people regularly ignore the sign and do it anyway?0 -
The lawsuit claims that zoo officials had ample warning that parents routinely lift their children onto a rail overlooking the exhibit so that the children can see the dogs better, according to the report.
Yes, people are idiots, everyone knows that. Not everything can be made idiot proof though.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.
If the mother of the child, the only one truly responsible for his safety and well being, had not lifted him over the fence the kid would still be alive.
Why is a zoo expected to better protect a child than their own parents?
There's a fence, there's a net, there are cages.. all in place to keep someone from doing a rather simple thing. Not to dangle their children over vicious dog cages. How far does the zoo have to go to protect children who's parents have such little regard for their own safety?
Accidents happen, it's a sad fact of life. The zoo did what it could to prevent that. The woman did what she could to prevent those safe guards from working. In the end, she won. The fence designed to keep her child from falling in was no match for her plan of lifting him over it.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.
And their responsibility ends if they put up a sign, even if they know people regularly ignore the sign and do it anyway?
Yes.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?
I guess I feel differently than you or even the parents of this child because I always use common sense. Walking with a child on an overpass, would I ever place the child on the railing? No. Going to a touristy scenic overlook would I ever place a child on top of the railing? No. Climbing up a lighthouse and looking out over the ocean would I ever place a child on the railing? No. Going to a zoo where there are actually signs posted saying don't climb on the railing or place children on them would I ever do just that? HELL no.
It's sad, I am not denying that. But it is NOT the zoo's fault. People need to take responsibilty for their own actions. This was an exhibit that sits way up, above the animals, so you cannot get close, had a HIGH railing (I have been there), and had signs posted. I am not sure what more people want. This zoo actually goes ABOVE standards for safety (making railing higher than they are obligated to.)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.
If the mother of the child, the only one truly responsible for his safety and well being, had not lifted him over the fence the kid would still be alive.
Why is a zoo expected to better protect a child than their own parents?
There's a fence, there's a net, there are cages.. all in place to keep someone from doing a rather simple thing. Not to dangle their children over vicious dog cages. How far does the zoo have to go to protect children who's parents have such little regard for their own safety?
Accidents happen, it's a sad fact of life. The zoo did what it could to prevent that. The woman did what she could to prevent those safe guards from working. In the end, she won. The fence designed to keep her child from falling in was no match for her plan of lifting him over it.
The mother is still responsible, but the zoo bears responsibility too. They knew of the danger, so they put up signs. People ignore the signs. They knew people ignored the signs, but declined to do anything more.0 -
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.
Times that by hundreds of exhibits with animals that can harm a child.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".
Of course those of us in the health care industry more than understand the concept of C.Y.A. However, I dont think those in the zoological industry quite have to deal with the regulations and the cost of losing a human life on a day to day basis. I bet they never had a lawyer or a regulatory agency looking at the safety of their exhibits or the adequacy of the signage until after this happened. Of course I dont know I have know idea what the regulations and audits are for zoos.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.
They had that. It was the railing that the idiot put her child over.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.
If the mother of the child, the only one truly responsible for his safety and well being, had not lifted him over the fence the kid would still be alive.
Why is a zoo expected to better protect a child than their own parents?
There's a fence, there's a net, there are cages.. all in place to keep someone from doing a rather simple thing. Not to dangle their children over vicious dog cages. How far does the zoo have to go to protect children who's parents have such little regard for their own safety?
Accidents happen, it's a sad fact of life. The zoo did what it could to prevent that. The woman did what she could to prevent those safe guards from working. In the end, she won. The fence designed to keep her child from falling in was no match for her plan of lifting him over it.
The mother is still responsible, but the zoo bears responsibility too. They knew of the danger, so they put up signs. People ignore the signs. They knew people ignored the signs, but declined to do anything more.
So I'm still uncear was the child sitting on a rail or was he picked up and held over that net? I'm curious how he was positioned did she simply pick him up so he could look out what looks like plexi glass or did she take him out of that human enclosure thing over the pexi glass.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.
They had that. It was the railing that the idiot put her child over.
They knew the railing was ineffective because they knew people regularly put their children over the railing.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?
See my most recent post before this.
I'm not saying it's right or fair or just.
Or the mother shouldn't have been more responsible/wise.
But the facility needs to protect itself from the poor choices of it's patrons and therefore bears the onus of that responsibility.
When you open up a dangerous exhibit to the general public, someone WILL do something stupid.0 -
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.
Times that by hundreds of exhibits with animals that can harm a child.
^^^ Yes this.
My favorite zoo has a Giraffe exhibit where you walk on platforms 20 feet in the air, with guardrails. You buy some crackers and feed them directly to the animals. There are anywhere from 10 - 20 animals present at any time, all vying for the treats. If some parent put their 2 year old on the railing, and it fell, it could die not only from the fall but also from being stepped on my animals that weigh thousands of pounds. There is an inherent danger there, there are posted signs and the exhibit would be safer if they kept the people far away with lots of plexiglass and netting and so on. If a child did die, it would be a shame that the exhibit could be closed just because someone made a fatally foolish choice to endanger their child by placing them on a railing that they could easily fall from. The most extreme form of safety is not always the best option.
It is not the zoos fault at all. It is entirely the fault of the poor parent that had a horrid lapse in judgement.0 -
Where do you draw the line to protect people from themselves? Get a grip already. Parents responsible 100%, zoo 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.
If the mother of the child, the only one truly responsible for his safety and well being, had not lifted him over the fence the kid would still be alive.
Why is a zoo expected to better protect a child than their own parents?
There's a fence, there's a net, there are cages.. all in place to keep someone from doing a rather simple thing. Not to dangle their children over vicious dog cages. How far does the zoo have to go to protect children who's parents have such little regard for their own safety?
Accidents happen, it's a sad fact of life. The zoo did what it could to prevent that. The woman did what she could to prevent those safe guards from working. In the end, she won. The fence designed to keep her child from falling in was no match for her plan of lifting him over it.
The mother is still responsible, but the zoo bears responsibility too. They knew of the danger, so they put up signs. People ignore the signs. They knew people ignored the signs, but declined to do anything more.
Against this frivolous suit and anyone that's for it needs to get their heads examined. Seriously.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.
Yea, then the zoo would have 2 lawsuits for letting her jump in there.0 -
against0
-
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".
Of course those of us in the health care industry more than understand the concept of C.Y.A. However, I dont think those in the zoological industry quite have to deal with the regulations and the cost of losing a human life on a day to day basis. I bet they never had a lawyer or a regulatory agency looking at the safety of their exhibits or the adequacy of the signage until after this happened. Of course I dont know I have know idea what the regulations and audits are for zoos.
Neither do I.
As I said, it would be interesting to know.0 -
Where do you draw the line to protect people from themselves? Get a grip already. Parents responsible 100%, zoo 0%.
Against this frivolous suit and anyone that's for it needs to get their heads examined. Seriously.
Then why even put up the warning sign?
Seriously. Why have the warning signs if it's 100% parents' responsibility?
Why have a guardrail?0 -
AGAINST the suit.
FOR personal accountability-parents are responsible for the safety of their children. A reasonable person would not lift a child onto the railing IMHO.
DUH! Give the mother a cuppa from McDonald's. If it's too hot and she gets burned, then it is the restaurant's fault. If they say "hot coffee" on the menu and it isn't hot enough, then it's false advertising, so she can sue them for that. Some things should be apparent without a disclaimer to cover every eventuality by a STUPID person.
Just a side not the woman in the suit, and the courts decided McDonalds was at fault, suffered a third degree burn. I was friends with the son of the prosecutor in this case. I dont know if you had a 3rd degree burn in your crotch to the bone would you sue? Sorry to high jack.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.
Lol, Ok rambo.0 -
Where do you draw the line to protect people from themselves? Get a grip already. Parents responsible 100%, zoo 0%.
Against this frivolous suit and anyone that's for it needs to get their heads examined. Seriously.
Then why even put up the warning sign?
Seriously. Why have the warning signs if it's 100% parents' responsibility?
Why have a guardrail?
Now you're not even trying.0 -
Let's not bring the hot coffee case into this.0
-
This baffles me, Other than that one open section intended for photographs, it is covered! Below with plexi glass that small kids can view through and above by wire mesh, yet she deliberatly CHOSE to lift him up and set him on the rail where there is no mesh...
She would have my sympathy if a wild animal escaped and then mauled her child. Then Id be all for her to sue.
as it stands I am against
Yes I am a parent, yes I have been to zoos, never have I lifted my child over a rail to look at animals.0 -
This baffles me, Other than that one open section intended for photographs, it is covered! Below with plexi glass that small kids can view through and above by wire mesh, yet she deliberatly CHOSE to lift him up and set him on the rail where there is no mesh...
She would have my sympathy if a wild animal escaped and then mauled her child. Then Id be all for her to sue.
as it stands I am against
Yes I am a parent, yes I have been to zoos, never have I lifted my child over a rail to look at animals.
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?0 -
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.0 -
All for it. If the zoo is aware parents lift their kids up there, the zoo has a responsibility to keep that area safe. Was it dumb for the parent to do that? Absolutely! Idiotic! But the zoo has a responsibility too.0
-
Where do you draw the line to protect people from themselves? Get a grip already. Parents responsible 100%, zoo 0%.
Against this frivolous suit and anyone that's for it needs to get their heads examined. Seriously.
Then why even put up the warning sign?
Seriously. Why have the warning signs if it's 100% parents' responsibility?
Why have a guardrail?
Because, unlike the mother, the zoo DID it's due diligence to protect the child.
They put up a fence to keep people from falling in. People chose to ignore that.
They put up signs to warn people not to lift their children over the fence. People chose to ignore that.
After ignoring every warning in place to save her child's life, she now wants to blame the zoo for not doing ENOUGH, when she did nothing to protect her child. Quite the opposite, she put him in harms way.
They could make sure the zoo is 100% safe as you're asking. They could spend money they don't have on extreme safety measures (won't happen), get rid of every animal who could potentially harm someone (making it a petting zoo) or they could just close down.
^None of these are preferable to the simpler, more logical option of parents exercising just the smallest amount of common sense with their own children.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.
And their responsibility ends if they put up a sign, even if they know people regularly ignore the sign and do it anyway?
Yes. There shouldn't even need to be a sign. Does there need to be a sign not to let your children walk in the middle of the interstate? If a parent lets their child walk on the interstate should they be able to sue when someone runs over the child? It's common sense and Darwin at work here and unfortunately for the poor kid his mother is an idiot.0 -
100% AGAINST.
I went to the zoo back in early April. I cannot tell you how many parents I saw lifting their child[ren] up on railings or letting them climb. My husband and I talked about it and it made us both sick. Yeah, we are not perfect parents, but COME ON people, it should be freakin common sense not do something like that. FFS...
Yes, it is an unfortunate accident, but the parents are freakin MORONS for doing something so freakin stupid. Not only do you usually have the fall risk, but most of the time these kids that fall into exhibits fall into ones with animals that can rip you to shreds. Honestly, it should have been the freakin mom that fell in. At least Darwinism would have worked then...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.
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.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
- 427 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