Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?

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.

For those of you wondering about safety standards for zoos, this is from one of the articles already linked:

"Feldman said the Pittsburgh Zoo successfully completed its five-year review in September, which means it meets or exceeds all safety standards."

So the zoo was meeting (or exceeding) all safety standards. If you think those standards should be higher, that's an entirely different conversation, and an entirely different legal process.

^^^ Thank you for posting this.

Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.

You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.

Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.

Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.

You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.

Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.

I gotta agree with this...horrific punishment is an understatement.

While I don't hold the zoo responsible. I wouldn't want to see the mother "punished" any more than she already has been.

So what about parents that leave their children in hot cars and cook them, or don't buckle them in and the die in a crash, etc. Can no blame be placed on the person responsible because they were already "punished" emotionally?

Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.

You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.

Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.

I gotta agree with this...horrific punishment is an understatement.

While I don't hold the zoo responsible. I wouldn't want to see the mother "punished" any more than she already has been.

So what about parents that leave their children in hot cars and cook them, or don't buckle them in and the die in a crash, etc. Can no blame be placed on the person responsible because they were already "punished" emotionally?

Fair point. If charges were to be pressed against the mother, I would go with Child Endangerment rather than Manslaughter. If it were to be charged as Manslaughter, it would most likely be considered Criminally Negligent Manslaughter, but based on the situation, I don't think the court could find reasonable cause to convict her on that count. "Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability." It wasn't an "omission to act when there is a duty to do so" on the mother's part. I think that's where it differs and would be considered Child Endangerment.

However, I personally wouldn't want to press charges.

christ, if they start charging you crimes for lack of common sense i want it to be known my last meal will be

a double whopper with cheese, no tomato
large fries
large coke
large Pepperoni Pizza from Anthonys
Peanutbuster parfait from dairy queen

Againts. Also the mother should be punished in my opinion because she fed her child to the dogs. I'm sure the poor woman is devastated, but that doesn't excuse her lack of basic judgement.

You act as if she threw the child in the pit. Come on.

Pretty sure she already WAS punished. Having to watch her child get torn to shred in front of her eyes is punishment enough.

I gotta agree with this...horrific punishment is an understatement.

While I don't hold the zoo responsible. I wouldn't want to see the mother "punished" any more than she already has been.

So what about parents that leave their children in hot cars and cook them, or don't buckle them in and the die in a crash, etc. Can no blame be placed on the person responsible because they were already "punished" emotionally?

A mother walks her kid down the street, kid is on the street side, they momentarily go into the street around a parked car as there is a large crowd in front of them, kid pulls away from mom and darts into street....

Is mom negligent because kid was on the "street side"? Because she moved into the street simply trying to get around a "bunch up" ? Thus neglecting the warnings of "don't walk in the street, except at a crosswalk". Come on, this is apples and oranges...

Mom made a terrible judgement call, bypassed warning signs...and then failed to control the motions of her child. That is all true, is she criminally negligent for her childs death as a result? I think it was a grave error on her part, and a horrific accident, and I attribute the "blame" to the mother, but I still consider it an accident.