Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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'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.