Tragedy today at Pittsburgh Zoo

[Shyster]

The zoo is going to get its pants sued off. I was reading in other article that these types of exhibits in other zoos have a 45 degree angle so that even if someone was leaning over the railing they would fall backward and not over. If other zoos have this feature, then a lawyer doesn't even have to work to win this.

I have heard repeatedly that the railing on the top of the fence in question was tilted away from the enclosure at a 45 degree angle.

[newarenanow]

The zoo is going to get its pants sued off. I was reading in other article that these types of exhibits in other zoos have a 45 degree angle so that even if someone was leaning over the railing they would fall backward and not over. If other zoos have this feature, then a lawyer doesn't even have to work to win this.

I have heard repeatedly that the railing on the top of the fence in question was tilted away from the enclosure at a 45 degree angle.

This. They even have a picture of it and it is tilted backwards 45 degrees. The Pgh zoo has the same railings as the other zoos.

[MRandall25]

There's literally nothing the zoo could've done to prevent the mother from putting the child in that position in the first place. Everything else is secondary. If the mother doesn't put the child up in that position, we aren't having this conversation.

The zoo did nothing wrong, in terms of the exhibit's safety.

[Kraftster]

There's literally nothing the zoo could've done to prevent the mother from putting the child in that position in the first place. Everything else is secondary. If the mother doesn't put the child up in that position, we aren't having this conversation.

The zoo did nothing wrong, in terms of the exhibit's safety.

If there's no opening for him to fall through there's no where to put the child such that he is in danger of falling into an area containing deadly animals?

[Shyster]

I’m curious; let’s try a poll. How would you apportion liability in this case? Take total liability as 100% and apportion that between the mother and the Zoo. For example, if you think the Zoo was mostly at fault and the mother minimally at fault, let’s say you would assign 90% liability to the Zoo and 10% liability to the mother.

[Kraftster]

The slope of the railing is all the more damning because it is an acknowledgement that the zoo foresaw children sitting or standing on the railing.

[Shyster]

I'll start:

Mother = 95%
Zoo = 5%

[Rylan]

The slope of the railing is all the more damning because it is an acknowledgement that the zoo foresaw children sitting or standing on the railing.

I was wondering if this thought process would work.

[blackjack68]

99% mother
1% zoo

[shafnutz05]

Mother = 92% Zoo = 8%

[meow]

100% mother

[Rylan]

75% Mother 25% zoo.

[Kraftster]

75-90% zoo
10-25% mother

[MRandall25]

There's literally nothing the zoo could've done to prevent the mother from putting the child in that position in the first place. Everything else is secondary. If the mother doesn't put the child up in that position, we aren't having this conversation.

The zoo did nothing wrong, in terms of the exhibit's safety.

If there's no opening for him to fall through there's no where to put the child such that he is in danger of falling into an area containing deadly animals?

If the mother doesn't put him into a position to fall, what does it matter if there's an opening?

Compare this to the San Diego Zoo: pretty much everything (bears, tigers, etc) is open. Yet, you don't hear about mothers dropping their kids into the bear exhibits or the tiger area.

[Rylan]

The opening allows for opportunity for this to occur.

[MRandall25]

99% mother
1% everyone else

[MRandall25]

The opening allows for opportunity for this to occur.

But the incident doesn't occur at other zoos that also have open exhibits.

[SoupOrSam]

Placing a child --- a TWO year old child -- onto a railing is just stupid. No other way to say it. 100% mother.

I have a 26 month old daughter. The thought in my head of something like that is scary. How you could willingly do it, I don't know... like I said yesterday. People make stupid choices.

[newarenanow]

I think ever exhibit needs to be in a bullet proof glass bubble surrounding the entire exhibit. Kind of like what happened to Springfield in the Simpsons movie.

[Godric]

75-90% zoo
10-25% mother

lol?

Okay Kraftster.


The Zoo probably had that same railing installed everywhere, I'm sure they didn't analyze every inch of the zoo for possible scenarios that have never happened before....

So they are at fault for not being creative enough?

I'm sure I could go to a Gymboree for toddlers right now and find a way for me to kill myself in a way that you would think is negligence on the side of Gymboree

[Kraftster]

Here's the thing, though. People do stupid things. That's pretty much a given. Should attractions, which invite people (including stupid people) to frequent, pose a risk of death because someone does something foreseeable, even if it's stupid? I don't think so.

[meow]

I think ever exhibit needs to be in a bullet proof glass bubble surrounding the entire exhibit. Kind of like what happened to Springfield in the Simpsons movie.

How are you supposed to shoot the animals when someone falls into the exhibit? Your logic is failed my good sir.

[Godric]

I think ever exhibit needs to be in a bullet proof glass bubble surrounding the entire exhibit. Kind of like what happened to Springfield in the Simpsons movie.

[pittsoccer33]

how can anything be the zoo's fault? your'e not supposed to be on the railing. that's why its the railing. you aren't supposed to climb on it, over it, around it, or through it.

is it penndot's fault if someone sticks their kid on the clemente bridge to better see the fireworks and they tumble into the allegheny? or if a kid is swept over niagara falls trying to get a better peak?

and a serious question, were the Texas Rangers held liable when the fan dove over a railing to try catching that ball?

[llipgh2]

Could the zoo place a bigger safety net around the observation deck? Sure.

But common sense should tell anyone not to put a child in a precarious position over wild animals.