Zoo: Boy's mauling death is mom's fault (she lifted him to railing for better look at wild dogs)

[Liberal_in_LA]

The Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium says the mother of a 2-year-old boy who was fatally mauled when he fell into a wild African dogs exhibit is to blame for her son's death and shouldn't be allowed to sue.





The zoo's attorneys made that argument in a response filed this week to the wrongful-death lawsuit brought by Jason and Elizabeth Derkosh, whose son, Maddox, died Nov. 4 after falling over a 4-foot-tall wooden railing into the exhibit when his mother lifted him up to get a better look.

"The injuries and damages sustained by Maddox Derkosh, including Maddox Derkosh's death, were caused solely by the carelessness, negligence, and/or recklessness of Elizabeth Derkosh," the zoo's attorney wrote Monday in the court filing. She "knew or should have known he could fall into the exhibit" and failed "to maintain a proper grasp of Maddox Derkosh after lifting him over the railing."

The parents' attorney, Robert Mongeluzzi, said the zoo "failed miserably in their solemn responsibility to prevent the attack" and has "now shamelessly attacked Maddox's grieving mother. We look forward to exposing their reckless conduct, in discovery, and at trial."

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Pittsburgh-Zoo-Boy-s-mauling-death-is-mom-s-fault-4808165.php

An attorney representing the parents of Maddox Derkosh said Tuesday that the little boy had an interaction with a monkey there, in which he placed his hands up on the glass, and the animal approached the glass from the other side and put its hands up against the boy's.

That, attorney Robert Mongeluzzi said, is likely the reason why Maddox lurched out of his mother's arms and through an opening in the display of the African painted dogs on Nov. 4.

"She did not take her son and put him on the railing and stand him there," Mr. Mongeluzzi said. "She was picking him up when he lurched forward and fell from her grasp.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/court-wont-cut-claims-in-wrongful-death-case-at-pittsburgh-zoo-698298/#ixzz2ehsonzSN

[geek tragedy]

1. The zoo has a point. nt

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. Attorney is saying zoo should have known parents would hold children up for better look

[geek tragedy]

3. How much is the zoo supposed to protect people from their own stupidity?

It's tragic, but children dying because of negligent/reckless parents is regular occurrence.

[Liberal_in_LA]

12. image of how she stood kids on railings, also photo of railings, slanted so parents won't do that

[magical thyme]

73. The computer-generated image at the top is incredibly deceptive

Unless that woman is a giant. A 4' railing comes to the chest, not the hips. She had to be holding the child very high up in the air for him to fall over a 4' railing.

[magical thyme]

72. the zoo had signs up not to climb or sit or stand on the railing.

It wasn't designed to support people of any size. And the net hanging below was to catch dropped cameras, not dropped children.

[liberalhistorian]

31. Except that the railings

surrounding the exhibit were not sufficient given the inherent danger of the animals. When you display dangerous animals like that, you have the duty to ensure that protections are as strong and safe as possible, and it did not do that in this case. That was one of the first points made by several zoo experts when this first came out.

And, having once been the mother of a very curious, active young son (now grown), I know just how very quickly they can move and/or squirm from your grasp and just how very easy it is to lose control of them. I cannot imagine how haunted she must be from this and how much she will suffer for the rest of her life. The least the zoo could have done was to have provided adequate protections from their dangerous animals. A four-foot railing is not, in any way, sufficient, and they damn well should have known that.

[NickB79]

47. The protection was more than adequate

Beyond the 4ft railing, there was a drop that put visitors out of reach of the animals below, so there was no danger from that end.

At 4 ft, the railing was more than high enough to prevent young children from getting to the top of it, and the top was slanted inwards to further prevent a child from perching on the top.

The ONLY way this was dangerous was if a parent assisted a young child up to the top of the railing, or went too closely to the edge without sufficient grip on their child.

I've taken my young daughter to the Minnesota Zoo many times, and it has similar enclosures around the predators. I know damn well that babies and toddlers can squirm around, which is why I stay back a responsible distance when I feel there's even the slightest chance she could fall forward. Even then, I subconsciously tighten my grip a little. If I want a closer look, I hand her to my wife, or place her in her stroller.

[geek tragedy]

49. That's the conclusory language plaintiffs will use.

But the mother actively and willfully circumvented the safety measures that were in place. Primary fault is her reckless behavior.

[wercal]

79. Just about everthing in life has a 'typical standard of care' attached to it.

The USDA regularly inspects zoos, and if this railing were really that insufficient and atypical, the USDA would have cited them for it, and possibly fined them.

The firm I work for actually designed a portion of an African Wild Dog Exhibit...our design never got built because it turns out we did not give the dogs enough square footage to roam in. This is when we discovered that just about every exhibit for every imaginable type of animal has a very specific set of guidelines to follow. Once again, I would be shocked if this exhibit didn't meet all of those USDA guidelines.

My local zoo has a similar setup to this...where you are walking on an elevated walkway, and can look over the railing down at the animals...so these photos have a degree of familiarity to me...and that exhibit is for bears.

[scheming daemons]

4. The zoo is correct.

I am a Pittsburgher. Been to the zoo many times. Been to the exhibit many times.

There are signs EVERYWHERE to not lift child up over railing.

She lifted her child up and put his feet at top of railing. Then she lost her grip and he fell into the exhibit.


It was tragic.


But it was also 100%, unequivocally, the mom's fault.

[greytdemocrat]

6. Correct.

Terrible accident but not the zoo's fault.

[livetohike]

7. Absolutely agree with you. When this happened, I heard the arguments that "everyone else does it"

and the zoo should do something about it. It reminded me of something my Dad (RIP) used to say when I was young. "If everybody jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?".

Also, I have no doubt that if this mother was from the Hill District, or Homewood (rather than the suburbs) she would have been charged with negligence, or perhaps manslaughter. The debate over this on KDKA was sickening.

[Politicalboi]

20. I've never been there

But from those pictures, I see no signs. I wouldn't need a sign to know not to do that, but some people like those car commercials that need to warn idiots not to jump their car from one building to the next may need more signs. I don't think she should win her suit, it was a terrible tragedy, and she should be held responsible. This could even be a murder on the mothers part. Would more signs help? I still don't know.

[liberalhistorian]

32. She is disputing that she put him on the top of

the railing. That is the zoo's story, not hers. Who is right? I guess we'll find out if and when there is a trial. There's no way to really know at this point.

[NickB79]

45. Pull up the statements from the police report

There are witnesses on record as saying she placed the boy's feet on top of the railing, so it is not "the zoo's story" as you say.

[anneboleyn]

110. I hate to sound cold, but I STRONGLY suspect that this is exactly what happened.

I have seen videos on YouTube -- the news, etc. -- in which parents have placed their children in astonishingly dangerous positions at zoos with no apparent appreciation of the danger these situations present. Honestly it is amazing to me how people at zoos will blatantly ignore rules that are clearly posted and do things that lack common sense -- such as placing their children on railings or exposing them to the animals (or deliberately antagonizing the animals) in some other way that is exceptionally dangerous.

This child was TWO. I hate to say something that sounds cold but I strongly suspect that the mother placed the child on top of the railing for a "better look" (as witnesses reported). This was incredibly dangerous because of the fact that predators were below in the enclosure but ALSO because the fall alone would be very dangerous for a two-year-old. And mothers and fathers everywhere will say a two-year-old is very hard to hold onto with 100% certainty -- placing him on top of a railing with a potential fall-- plus predatory wild animals below -- is a very, very bad idea.

[magical thyme]

117. Exactly. Furthermore, there is no way that her toddler "lunged" over that railing

It is 4' high -- that is roughly chest height for most people. If she had only been holding him up in front of her, with the railing braced against him and her arms wrapped around him, he would not have been able to "lunge over" the railing as her lawyer claims.

[PoliticAverse]

5. This seems to be a dispute over the facts of the case, which likely will merit a trial. n/t

[leftyohiolib]

8. pegging the b.s. meter

"She did not take her son and put him on the railing and stand him there," Mr. Mongeluzzi said. "She was picking him up when he lurched forward and fell from her grasp.
even still how is this the zoo's fault - she should have had a better grasp on her child

[scheming daemons]

11. The railing is about 3.5 to 4 feet high.....

You have to lift the kid up pretty high for him to go over.


Mom's fault.

[liberal_at_heart]

21. maybe the railing should be high enough people can't fall in.

[scheming daemons]

22. A) You have to see over it... and B) Maybe we shouldn't worry about protecting people from their own

negligence.

Don't lift your kid up onto a railing to look at an exhibit that contains deadly animals. Especially when there are signs everywhere telling you not to do that.

Is it really that hard of a concept?

[PoliticAverse]

23. This would be a case of protecting a child from someone else's negligence. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

25. then maybe they should redesign the exhibit. The truth is both are responsible. She shouldn't have

lifted her child up like that and the zoo is responsible for putting up barriers so that you cannot get hurt.

[leftyohiolib]

29. you're wrong, they are not both responsible the mother is. the zoo put up barriers she tried to get

around them. you cant protect yourself totally against people's stupidity it knows no boundries

[Warpy]

82. I disagree. The railings were sufficient.

You can't anticipate every idiot who comes along. Idiots are just too ingenious.

The mom disregarded the clearly posted signs, lifted the child up, and lost control of him probably because he wriggled like toddlers do and she had to know that.

If you're going to bring a toddler around dangerous animals, you have a duty to obey instructions on keeping him safe.

[avebury]

108. The zoo did have barriers to protect the public. Everybody

knows what toddlers are like. The mother was totally irresponsible to raise her child up to the railing. If she wanted to raise him up she could have put enough distance between her and the railing to make sure that her child would not fall in the pit if she lost hold of him. It is called common sense and apparently not everyone is born with it. This incident was totally preventable, just like most child/gun incidents. This was not an accident, it was parental negligence and mother just needs to suck it up and live with the consequences of her stupidity. The zoo is not liable.

[magical thyme]

74. a 4' high railing is high enough to not fall over

It is chest height or close to it.

[wercal]

81. A typical railing for a drop off over 42" is ....42"

This railing was 48", to make extra sure nobody could accidentally fall over it.

You will find 42" railings in the upper decks of stadiums, where the drop off is deadly high...and just last weekend a few drunk people at NFL games fell over them. The railing is high enough to prevent somebody of sound mind from falling...but you can't stop drunks or kids that have been lifted up.

[Mariana]

99. Nobody fell in. The child was dropped in.

It's not the same thing.

[anneboleyn]

111. A two-year-old did not just "fall in." He was lifted up according to witnesses

This explicitly violates the zoo's rules. People can't break the rules, designed for their own safety, then blame the zoo.

[liberalhistorian]

34. Better grasp? Really?

Do you have or have you ever had kids? Do you know how very easy it is to lose your grip on them, especially when they're squirming around? How easy it is to make such judgments after the fact.

I'm amazed at the vitriol expressed toward the mother here, especially given the horrible, irreparable loss she suffered. Even if it does turn out to be largely her doing, she suffered the worst loss possible and has been, and is being, punished more than enough. It isn't as if she dropped a fucking comb in the exhibit, for Christ's sake.

[kcr]

35. Kids dying makes people have pretty strong emotions.

I have kids and it's precisely why I wouldn't hold them over a railing like that. They squirm. I don't think expressing vitriol at the mother at this point though is going to do any good. But holding this zoo responsible isn't the answer, because parents sometimes do make horrible mistakes and the consequences are tragic. That doesn't mean we take away zoo experiences away from society, and that's exactly what happens if we hold them responsible for her mistake. We can't have nice things. I think that's part of where the vitriol is coming from, too.

[leftyohiolib]

37. no she shouldnt have put her child up there

Do you have or have you ever had kids? Do you know how very easy it is to lose your grip on them, especially when they're squirming around? How easy it is to make such judgments after the fact.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY SHE SHOULDNT HAVE PUT HIM UP THere, as a mother she should have know at least thgis much.

i dont know if it's vitriol for her personally but more about the fact that she did something stupid that got her child killed and is now trying to blame others for her stupidity. if she didnt try to sue there'd be nothing but sympathy for her here

[LiberalAndProud]

58. Why the lawsuit?

This is tragic and I'm sure the mother is heartsick. I just don't think she should be seeking remuneration. She thumbed her nose at every safety measure the zoo employed. Now she wants the zoo to pay because she was able to circumvent. I've rarely seen anything that works for the general good come from this sort of litigation.

[Xithras]

62. Which is all the more reason she shouldn't have done it.

Do you know how very easy it is to lose your grip on them, especially when they're squirming around?

Knowing how children CAN squirm out of their parents grip, why did the mother choose to pick the child up in such a dangerous place? The child was perfectly safe where he was, but the mother CHOSE to lift the child up and place him in danger...KNOWING that kids squirm. If the kid wanted to be picked up, she should have moved away from the edge. By lifting him beyond the protection of the safety barrier, while KNOWING (as every parent does) that kids squirm, she created the danger herself.

It's heartbreaking, but she really did cause this accident. It's not vitriol, but a simple recognition of the facts. The mother made an extremely poor choice, and her child tragically paid the price for it. The zoo did nothing wrong.

[Bay Boy]

83. I've got a pretty good idea...

I had my kids at the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, they were probably 2 & 3 at the time. At the time, maybe different now, there was a short pipe railing that a child could easily go through if they were unattended. But that wasn't going to happen. I had such a death grip on their wrists I'm surprised they didn't cry. That's what you do when you are protecting your kids.

[RobinA]

92. By Suing The Zoo

she opened her actions up to question. Yes, this was a tragic accident and the mother has suffered plenty. But when you sue, you need to be aware that you will be a party to an adversarial process.

[Sissyk]

96. Have you had kids? I have.

I would have never lifted one of my children up to stand on a 4ft high railing over wild animals. Never.

I'm sorry for the parents; but sometimes you have to take responsibility and quit blaming the world for bad things.

[we can do it]

9. One more case of shitty parent blaming others for the outcome.

[Link Speed]

104. Ask any retailer or teacher

It's shitty parenting behind most crappy kids.

"You should have a sign."

After years of coaching baseball - from Little League to National Select - I am convinced that the skyrocketing rates of ADD (or whatever they are calling it) are due to bad parenting.

[HappyMe]

10. I think the zoo has a good point.

That mom is responsible for her kid. Just how much is required to protect people from their own stupidity and bad judgement.

I feel bad for the mom but money won't bring her kid back.

[idwiyo]

13. Agree with the Zoo.

[madaboutharry]

14. There was a similar tragedy years ago in New Orleans.

A parent held a young child up to get a better look at alligators. I don't understand why anyone would do that.

[PoliticAverse]

59. What was the outcome of that situation (any legal actions)? n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. people are so stupid around wild animals

I watched several times... tourists stand next to the gator in the pond on Big Pine Key Florida...his mouth literally inches from their ankles. I thought the idiots would try to reach down and pet him. Thats how stupid they were. Lucky for them that gator was well fed...

[eissa]

15. I feel awful for the mom

Her grief and guilt must be overwhelming. But this is not the zoo's fault. Reminds me of the hikers that went over the waterfall in Yosemite. Some parents also threatened to sue, despite the fact that there are signs everywhere warning not to cross the railings and enter the water.

[kcr]

16. In the article it states court of public opinion is against the zoo

I don't know, but from what I've seen I've seen articles on this in multiple places, opinion almost overwhelmingly favor the zoo. From the information given I have to as well. It's horrible what happened, but I don't want zoos to go back to the days of those horrible cages because people can't read and follow signs.

[Politicalboi]

18. Perhps people should be

The one in the cages looking out. I could go for that.

[kestrel91316]

44. [phone]

[HolyMoley]

78. The "court of public opinion" only sees one thing

a "grieving" mother and the loss of her two year old child.

Facts don't matter in a case like that, only emotion does.

[anneboleyn]

112. Yes. Law vs. emotion and mob rule

The mother violated the zoo's safety regulations. People may be emotional because of the child's death but neither the zoo nor the animals (which would likely be slaughtered according to mob rule) did anything unexpected or unpredictable.

[MFM008]

17. I could not hold the zoo

responsible for this . nope. Sorry lady.

[REP]

19. She wanted her child to interact with wild dogs??

And the child was 2?

Sounds like someone was tired of being the parent of a toddler.

She should be charged with gross negligence.

[RebelOne]

24. This reminds me of a boy who was killed by a crocodile

in Miami. His father put him on the wall enclosing the crocodile and he fell in.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19770905&id=m2lQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uFkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6195,4238885

[hedgehog]

26. Just to ask a new question - how much experience is there with this type of exhibit design

in which the animal has free access to a woodland or grassland setting and people observe from a walkway that travels over the animals with only a vertical barrier? The Syracuse Zoo has had two such exhibits, one showing wolves and another tigers. I think these are maybe 10 years old or so. Sometimes it takes an incident like this to point up problems. Regardless of who is to blame, maybe a tall sheet of plexiglass is needed.

[Tanuki]

38. Several years ago, a gorilla escaped from the zoo in Boston

and meandered the neighborhood. I suppose it was only a coincidence that he was sitting at a bus stop when he was apprehended, but it sure sounded like it was part of his getaway plan! The best quote of all was from a passerby who mistook him for a person wearing "a big black jacket and a snorkel."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/09/29/franklin_park_gorilla_escapes_attacks_2/

[TeeYiYi]

61. I believe she'll be allowed to sue...

...and I suspect the case will be settled out of court.

I agree with you; regardless of any negligence on the mother's part, the design of the exhibit could easily be found to be a contributory factor. A 4 ft. fence separating the public from killer African dogs, in hindsight seems a little lax to say the least. The fact that the fence was only 4 ft. tall may have given the public a false sense of security about the true nature of the dogs in the exhibit.

TYY

[kcr]

67. I don't know.

I think perching a up kid on a 4 ft railing is a bad idea, whether there are man eating dogs waiting down below after the dangerous fall or not.

[noamnety]

71. It sounds like it was either a 10 foot or 14 foot separation from the dogs.

"he unexpectedly lunged out of his mother's grasp, over the wooden railing, and into a net meant to catch falling debris and trash. He bounced from the net into the dogs' enclosure about 10 feet below."

I agree that a 4 foot wall wouldn't give me a sense of urgent danger about what was within. But a 10 foot pit that the animals were contained in probably would, that's the setting I'm used to seeing for crocodiles and such.

[magical thyme]

76. The 4' fence also had a 10'+ drop to the inside

So there was actually a 14-15' drop from that railing. That lone, wild dogs or no, would cause a normal person to be careful of a toddler.

[anneboleyn]

113. Exactly. She situated a two year old over a long drop AND wild animals

[LittleBlue]

27. She held him over African dogs? SMH

Those things are among the most violent animals on the African continent. They often run in packs with hyenas to hunt. The mother has no one to blame but herself.

That poor kid must have been torn apart.

[Liberal_in_LA]

39. pic of african dogs

?w=600

[liberalhistorian]

88. Yikes! I would NOT

want to be the zookeepers in charge of those things! How awful to think of a small child being ripped apart by them.

Are they any relation to dingoes in Australia?

[seabeyond]

28. a zoo in albq, i put my little one on the rail, wrapped both arms around and hug him against my body

well aware of his age jolting forward, and the repercussions.

i feel for the mom. and the family. and the boy that lost his life. it was an accident. but, when a parent does soemthing like this, knowing the dangers, they had better damn well have a secure and tight grip.... always. paying attention constantly.

[Raine]

30. I agree with the zoo. nt

[deutsey]

33. Sometimes when my kids were that age or even a little older

and we'd be on a balcony or some place like this zoo setting, I'd feel panicky at just the thought of them getting up on the ledge. There's no way I could actually have held them up onto it.

I feel sick when I think of the trauma that mom is going through. My heart goes out to her, but I can't blame the zoo for this terrible thing.

[aikoaiko]

36. "Feet on the ground"

I've been to a lot of 2nd tier zoos that don't have the high end protections and the rule was feet on the ground (or on the deck) at all times. No climbing, no lifting, no holding up high unless my son was on my shoulders.

Safety so simple even a gun owning parent could understand.

[X_Digger]

42. +1 -- it's a simple rule that avoids all kinds of problems. n/t

[Orrex]

40. Does anyone actually blame the mother for pursuing this?

If you were to lose your child in a fatal accident due to your own error, would you run to the nearest media outlet and declare your culpability? Or would you, in your overwhelming grief and guilt and desperation, seek some way of escaping that awful responsibility?

I don't doubt that most people will confidently assert that they would never let such a thing happen, and that they would take full responsibility if it should occur. And I assert that nearly all of them would be lying.

I've been to that zoo many times, and I've seen the dog enclosure in question. We don't lift our kids onto the railings to give them a better view--specifically out of fear that they'll fall--but I've seen countless parents do exactly that.

This is a tragedy that wasn't the zoo's fault, but the mother is no more guilty than any of the thousands of other parents who do the same thing. Or every single parent in the world who has let their children out of their site for more than half a second.


This grieving mother has been openly mocked online and in social media and in local media outlets. She will spend the rest of her life with the vivid memory of seeing her child torn apart by wild animals, yet apparently that's not enough to satisfy our collective lust for righteous vindication.

[avebury]

46. She is suing the zoo because she does not

want to admit that she is 100% responsible for her child's death. While it is understandable that she doesn't want to face reality, the zoo should not be required to pay the price for her negligence/stupidity. People need to assume responsibility for their actions. For those who state that she didn't do anything that a lot of other parents have done the fact is they lucked out, she didn't.

I am sick and tired of people who whail about what a tragic accident something is when incidents like this occur because of parental stupidity/negligence.

[Orrex]

52. She is hardly unusual in any of that

As you note, countless others have gotten lucky while she did not. I agree 100% that the zoo shouldn't be held liable for this death that was 100% her fault, but it's perfectly understandable that she would seek to escape that awful reality. Just like the millions of others have tried to escape responsibility for their own stupidity.

The killed her child, and I rather suspect that she knows it.

[anneboleyn]

115. Yes. Great points.

[seabeyond]

48. yes. i would take responsibility for it. no, i would not go after the zoo. would not even be a

thought in my mind

the mother is in pain, watched a horror right in front of her. i can feel for the mother. be sad for her. no desire to mock.

no, i would not go after the zoo

[Orrex]

53. I believe you.

I don't believe that I would go after the zoo, either, but experiences suggests that many others would do something very similar in their effort to escape the reality of their guilt and pain.

[geek tragedy]

50. Her case is still rubbish.

Whether a plaintiff is sympathetic is not dispositive of the suit's merits.

[Orrex]

54. Obviously, I would say.

But I'm more bothered by the people who would mock her than by the fact that she pursued this case.

[geek tragedy]

55. I can completely understand the lawsuit on a

multitude of levels. She doesn't deserve to be mocked, but the ambulance chasers representing her do.

[Orrex]

64. Again I agree completely (nt)

[WinkyDink]

56. *Raises hand.* Her lawyer's argument seems to be: All exhibits should function the exact same way.

[Orrex]

65. Well, he's an asshole and a parasite.

Maybe he can explain to us all how the bat exhibit should function like the polar bear exhibit.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

63. I agree with you for the most part

However, the court system should not be her therapist.

[Orrex]

66. Also true (nt)

[kcr]

68. I don't blame the mother for pursuing it

I feel nothing but sympathy for her and can't imagine what she's going through. I just worry about the reaction to it, especially if she's successful. I see statements like, "the railing made her think it was safe", and I just cringe. I worry about the future of our zoos if she prevails.

[Nye Bevan]

70. I do. Her child is dead because of her stupidity.

And trying to deflect the blame from herself only makes matters worse.

[Orrex]

89. Then blame everyone who does exactly the same thing

Different tragedies, of course, but the world abounds with people desperate to maintain deniability, plausible or otherwise.

And trying to deflect the blame from herself only makes matters worse.

Well, that's a matter of opinion.

How, exactly, does it make it worse?

[JVS]

84. I do. I don't think the public should have to suffer by having their zoo defunded because this...

woman feels sad about making a mistake.

[Orrex]

90. I think you understate the magnitude of her suffering

And I equally think that the zoo was never in any real danger of being defunded.

[JVS]

91. "And I equally think that the zoo was never in any real danger of being defunded."q

Do you think that the zoo grows money on trees? The public pays for the zoo's costs and giving money to people who accidentally throw their kids to wild dogs isn't worthwhile expenditure of funds.

[Orrex]

93. The zoo was never in any real danger of being defunded

From the outset, it was pretty clear that the lawsuit would fail, as it has.

[Ms. Toad]

107. Did the open mocking start because of the incident -

Or because she was not content to leave it as a tragedy when she sought to place blame for the incident on the zoo?

This is the first I have heard of this incident - and what I'm seeing looks not like a "collective lust for righteous vindication" so much as "how dare you" attack the zoo for what was at best a tragic accident - and at worst a horrible consequences of her own careless behavior.

[Orrex]

116. The very first threads I could find about it on DU attacked the mother

"Further proof that some people are not cut out for parenting."

"Just because people have children does not qualify them as parents - merely keepers. I am constantly amazed at how much the little shits get away with. "

"You can't make everything stoopid-proof."

"The dog's death is a tragedy, the kid's is evolution in action."

"I wonder if the mom was texting or talking on a cell phone rather than watching her kid? Wouldn't surprise me."

This was before any solid facts were available, beyond the most basic details of the incident. Rather than offering even the most basic expressions of compassion, some people couldn't wait to stomp on this woman.

Local media were all over the mother about it, too.


I'm not suggesting that she is blameless, but I wish I were surprised by the eager ferocity of the attacks upon her.

[TeeYiYi]

41. Terrible tragedy. Bad decision by a parent...

TYY

[TheCowsCameHome]

43. Zoo 1, Mom 0. *bang* Next case, please.

Sorry, but it was entirely avoidable.

[bunnies]

51. yep. nt

[Shrike47]

57. I agree with the zoo, mom is at fault.

Still a tragedy.

[Sunlei]

60. how tragic. even without the dogs, that's quite a dangerous high drop to risk

[Nye Bevan]

69. So. She picked up her kid and dropped him over the fence into the wild dog enclosure.

And of course tragedy ensued.

This is the absolute epitome of a frivolous lawsuit.

[gvstn]

75. In lighter news--this rabbit was thrown in a tiger cage and got away.

We live in a very sick world but I love that picture with the cat's eyes crossed like that and the bunny surviving. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2417494/Zoo-China-tests-tigers-reflexes-throwing-live-rabbit.html

[Unrepentant Fenian]

77. I gotta go with the zoo on this one.

[HolyMoley]

80. Yep, justice denied

Visitor safety was always in peril.



Maddox became the only visitor in the zoo's 116-year history to die when he unexpectedly lunged out of his mother's grasp, over the wooden railing, and into a net meant to catch falling debris and trash.

[FreeJoe]

86. i blame Darwin. nt

[Monster_Mash]

87. I usually am the first to talk about personal accountability...

... but the system seems to be too easily defeated to me.

4 feet is short enough that a grown adult could trip and fall over it...

IOW, a layered security effect would have been much more reasonable.

[kcr]

95. 4 foot is a common height for a railing.

3.5 is the OSHA standard. Besides, there was a layered effect. The fact there was a significant drop was another deterrent. It's not as if these dogs could come right up to the 4 ft railing. And no one tripped. It was a deliberate negligent act. I'm sorry, but as tragic as this was, it would be an ultimate tragedy to go back to the days of small cages. Better to just close the zoos down. And all because of idiots who ignore signs.

[TeamPooka]

94. Winning a bad lawsuit will not remove the mother's responsibility for the death of her child

[Sheldon Cooper]

97. I will not join in the gang-pummeling of this mother.

She made a stupid mistake, which many parents do, and paid a horrible, hideous price for it. Her life will never be the same, and she has to live with that fact every single day.

I won't defend her either, but I think the zoo needs to take a closer look at this. They were warned on several occasions by zoo employees that parents were lifting their kids up on the railing. To my mind that creates an attractive nuisance kind of situation, and I don't think it's a stretch to expect them to take additionals safety precautions. There was no secondary safeguard beyond that railing, and maybe there should have been.

A few years ago, a trio of young men taunted a tiger at the San Francisco zoo. The tiger jumped out of her enclosure and killed one of them, wounded another, and was eventually killed elsewhere in the zoo. Now, you can say that those men were total dumbasses who should have known better than to taunt a tiger, and you'd be right. But there is no way in hell that the tiger should have been able to escape, either.

I don't know if this lawsuit will go anywhere, but if blame gets assigned by percentages, then by all means the mother bears the lion's share of guilt. I just don't think it's 100% of the guilt.

But don't let me get in the way of a good beatdown. Carry on.

[kcr]

98. This is the problem with thinking the zoo needs to "take a closer look"

Yes, you're right, zoos are an attractive nuisance. Either accept that fact or close them down/return to the era where they were shoved into tiny pitiful cages. Which will it be? Because it isn't true that there wasn't a secondary safeguard beyond that railing. Those dogs weren't right there on the other side of that railing. THere was a significant drop. This type of set up is common in zoos. If the mother doesn't get 100% of the blame, then zoos themselves need a redesign, because this sort of enclosure is common since the days of cages. But before we consider that, I think we need to ask ourselves if that's right thing to do. And I guess you could say maybe it is. Maybe we can't have nice zoos because of the tiger taunters and dumb ass parents. That's a shame if that's the case. See, I'm in the camp of these people exist and they will just be dumbasses and get themselves killed somewhere else. Parks, malls and other public places aren't having to redesign to save them. So why should we lose/diminish our zoos?

[WinkyDink]

100. It is her son who paid the "horrible, hideous price." Let's be clear on that. And the mother isn't

reading here.

[Iris]

103. It pays to read - They were warned on several occasions by zoo employees

that parents were lifting their kids up on the railing.

I'm assuming "they" are zoo officials.

It seems like it would behoove the zoo to pay the parents a settlement and fix their exhibit.

[Yo_Mama]

101. I agree with the zoo

Anyone sensible would not expose their two year-old to the hazard of that drop, regardless of whether there were dangerous animals at the bottom of it. If you KNEW the child would stay in your arms, it would still be risky.

This is a parent not controlling their toddler. As sorry as I am for the little child and for his mother, this was a case of a parent not exercising due care.

[darkangel218]

102. This mother should be charged with criminal negligence and sent to jail.

Its ridiculous what she did. And no, the zoo didn't do anything wrong ffs.

Gawd!

[YarnAddict]

105. Just my opinion

I think this lawsuit is solely for the benefit of the mother's mental health. She NEEDS to think that someone or something other than herself bears some responsibility for this tragedy.

IMHO, the zoo should settle for about $1.00, which will be reported as an "undisclosed amount of money," and then move on. The poor mom will have the consolation of feeling that the zoo accepted some responsibility, and if that will help her to get out of bed every morning for the rest of her life, then it's worth it.

[avebury]

106. I disagree. Even in they settle for $1 and report it as

an "undisclosed amount of money" that might encourage other idiot parents who commit reckless acts to sue in any future actions. Why should this woman be consoled that the zoo accepted some responsibility when they are not at fault? This is no difference then a gun incident. The responsibility rests with the mother and she is just going to have to learn to live with it. Her stupidity cost her son his life. That is the hard cold fact of life.

[YarnAddict]

109. It absolutely is her fault

No question. I think she is probably having a very difficult time dealing with her culpability, and that this is a way of easing her mind just a little.

I also think there probably were a few other things the zoo could have done, especially since it sounds like it was well known that parents did lift their children up on the railing.

But frankly, we're such a litigious, sue-happy society that I don't think most people need any encouragement to hire a lawyer and attempt to sue the crap out of anyone that looks at them cross-eyed.

[TwilightGardener]

114. Mom needs to accept that she made a tragic error. The zoo did not.

That fact might be hard to live with, and it certainly doesn't pay as well. But there it is.