Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
shafnutz05 wrote:I criticized putting the kid on the railing at the time, but figured that the poor woman would punish herself enough for what happened.
With this news, good for the mom going for a nice, large sum of money to soothe the fact that her stupid decision directly led to her son's death.
Liability-wise, she will easily win or command a settlement.
GaryRissling wrote:Surprised they're only suing for $300k. Seems a low figure for such a high profile incident.
Kraftster wrote:I wish I could remember if I ever thought like all of you on this kind of stuff. I can't really remember what I thought before I became a plaintiff's attorney. As it stands, I have a hard time understanding the outrage.
Edit: It is at least $300k. If they win, they'll get a whole lot more than that.
Defence21 wrote:Kraftster wrote:I wish I could remember if I ever thought like all of you on this kind of stuff. I can't really remember what I thought before I became a plaintiff's attorney. As it stands, I have a hard time understanding the outrage.
Edit: It is at least $300k. If they win, they'll get a whole lot more than that.
The outrage is that a woman was stupid, which lead to her child's gruesome death, and yet she has the nerve to blame the zoo. It's wonderful that society allows idiots to not only escape responsibility, but to place blame elsewhere and gain monetarily as a result.
It's like the idiot who sued McDonald's and won because she was burnt by her coffee. Zero responsibility.
It's sickening, really.
Defence21 wrote:Kraftster wrote:I wish I could remember if I ever thought like all of you on this kind of stuff. I can't really remember what I thought before I became a plaintiff's attorney. As it stands, I have a hard time understanding the outrage.
Edit: It is at least $300k. If they win, they'll get a whole lot more than that.
The outrage is that a woman was stupid, which lead to her child's gruesome death, and yet she has the nerve to blame the zoo. It's wonderful that society allows idiots to not only escape responsibility, but to place blame elsewhere and gain monetarily as a result.
It's like the idiot who sued McDonald's and won because she was burnt by her coffee. Zero responsibility.
It's sickening, really.
Kraftster wrote:Defence21 wrote:Kraftster wrote:I wish I could remember if I ever thought like all of you on this kind of stuff. I can't really remember what I thought before I became a plaintiff's attorney. As it stands, I have a hard time understanding the outrage.
Edit: It is at least $300k. If they win, they'll get a whole lot more than that.
The outrage is that a woman was stupid, which lead to her child's gruesome death, and yet she has the nerve to blame the zoo. It's wonderful that society allows idiots to not only escape responsibility, but to place blame elsewhere and gain monetarily as a result.
It's like the idiot who sued McDonald's and won because she was burnt by her coffee. Zero responsibility.
It's sickening, really.
Do we know that she is blaming the zoo entirely? Perhaps she is willing to admit the part she played in causing this death but believes that a zoo which displays highly lethal animals should have procedures in place for when things go wrong. This isn't like someone suing the Denver movie theater for not having a plan for responding to someone who starts firing automatic weapons. Its fairly foreseeable that things could go wrong and someone might end up on the wrong side of an enclosure. The zoo effectively did nothing to respond.
The responses to the lawsuit basically read to me as something approaching, "hey, if you make a (fairly innocent so far as I can tell) mistake as a parent and your kid ends up dead, tough." I'm not sure that's a much better commentary on society than seeking to hold the zoo accountable for doing a poor job of keeping patrons safe.
bhaw wrote:Kraftster wrote:Defence21 wrote:Kraftster wrote:I wish I could remember if I ever thought like all of you on this kind of stuff. I can't really remember what I thought before I became a plaintiff's attorney. As it stands, I have a hard time understanding the outrage.
Edit: It is at least $300k. If they win, they'll get a whole lot more than that.
The outrage is that a woman was stupid, which lead to her child's gruesome death, and yet she has the nerve to blame the zoo. It's wonderful that society allows idiots to not only escape responsibility, but to place blame elsewhere and gain monetarily as a result.
It's like the idiot who sued McDonald's and won because she was burnt by her coffee. Zero responsibility.
It's sickening, really.
Do we know that she is blaming the zoo entirely? Perhaps she is willing to admit the part she played in causing this death but believes that a zoo which displays highly lethal animals should have procedures in place for when things go wrong. This isn't like someone suing the Denver movie theater for not having a plan for responding to someone who starts firing automatic weapons. Its fairly foreseeable that things could go wrong and someone might end up on the wrong side of an enclosure. The zoo effectively did nothing to respond.
The responses to the lawsuit basically read to me as something approaching, "hey, if you make a (fairly innocent so far as I can tell) mistake as a parent and your kid ends up dead, tough." I'm not sure that's a much better commentary on society than seeking to hold the zoo accountable for doing a poor job of keeping patrons safe.
1 death in 114 years is a poor job of keeping people safe? By the sounds of it the way you are posing it, people die at the zoo regularly.
In response to numerous media inquiries, we can confirm that we have filed a Civil Complaint in the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas asserting claims that include wrongful death and negligence, resulting from the November 4, 2012, fatal mauling of two-year-old Maddox Derkosh by a pack of African wild dogs on the grounds of the Pittsburgh Zoo. The Complaint, which names the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium and the Zoological Society of Pittsburgh as defendants, was filed on behalf of Elizabeth and Jason Derkosh, parents of Maddox Derkosh. He was their only child.
Our Complaint details the events -- including the litany of institutional lapses in fundamental exhibit design, safety, and security that caused Maddox's death. 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.
The filing marks just the beginning of the legal process to demonstrate that the death of Maddox Derkosh was absolutely preventable and that the Zoo failed in its responsibility to protect Maddox -- and every other visitor to the wild dog exhibit -- from harm. We now know, and the Complaint details, that the Zoo's management was warned, before the tragedy, by at least one employee, that parents would lift their children to see through the viewing enclosure "at least ten" times every day. Rather than thanking their employee for bringing this hazard to their attention, and then correcting it, the Zoo curtly reprimanded him and told him, "This is not your concern, go back to work."
Tragically, Maddox fell as his mother held him to see into the exhibit through the viewing opening. The Complaint details and includes photos of the precautions taken by other Zoos to protect their patrons from African wild dogs including the use of barrier glass, moats, and wire mesh, preventing the very tragedy that occurred at the Pittsburgh Zoo.
The Zoo knew or should have known how to protect its visitors from the killer dogs, and the fatal consequences that would likely result when "human prey" suddenly appeared in their territory. Any chance of survival was diminished by the Zoo's abysmal emergency response plan, which included blank and useless tranquilizer darts.
Elizabeth and Jason are loving parents. They still mourn. They still hurt and will hurt the rest of their lives. They deeply appreciate the support of the greater Pittsburgh community and they are determined to do what they can to ensure that what happened to their only child can never happen again at the Pittsburgh Zoo, or at any zoo. They remain especially grateful for the outpouring of love and goodwill for the "Trucks for Maddox" holiday toy truck drive that celebrates the legacy of Maddox and his caring for other kids.
Kraftster wrote:
That is likely a testament to the fact that the zoo responded appropriately in other situations where some hapless mother tried to kill her child.
Kraftster wrote:It is not the zoos job to make sure that their exhibits are safe.
bhaw wrote:Is PA a state where they divide the award based on % of liability (can't remember the technical term)? Or is it all or nothing?
pittsoccer33 wrote:Kraftster wrote:It is not the zoos job to make sure that their exhibits are safe.
I know you're being facetious, but what exactly is a safe exhibit - one that is completely caged in and closed off? He could fall into the tiger or bear pens just as easily. Those the fall would likely be what killed him since it would be 20 feet down onto rocks and concrete.
mac5155 wrote:If they were suing to get the safety measures implemented, fine. Don't go after the $.
Kraftster wrote:And, yes, I was being facetious. I just don't understand the harsh view that folks are taking here. I mean, I'm the first person to say that we should hold people accountable for being stupid, but I'm generally considered to be an *******, so I just didn't think that was a widely held view.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests