Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

2 Year Old Boy Killed By Animals At Pittsburgh Zoo


Recommended Posts

Mr. Coaster, it's called common sense, which it seems is something fewer and fewer people have these days.

 

In your statement above about the railroad tracks, don't you think these people on the railroad tracks should have thought "Hey, if I stand on these railroad tracks long enough, I am going to get hit by a train." Yeah, I know might be a hard one to grasp, just like, "Hey, if I put my 2 year old on this 11 foot railing overlooking wild dogs, he might possibly fall and get eaten!"

 

Believe me, I feel horrible about what happened, and I am sure most people do, and people with kids, such as my self (6 year old) probably feel even worse, but bottom line is, it WAS the mothers fault, and I am sure the worst thing for her is having the live the rest of her life remembering what happened, and thinking about what her son would be like as he grew older.

 

I don't know what I would ever do if I lost my little girl, accidental or not, but I can assure you I would be lost, she means so much to me. I never realized how much a person can change when they have a kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But still, it is the legal responsibility of the zoo to ensure the safety of all guests and to enforce the rules that they set down. Though, the blame can not be solely pinned on one person. Both parties are at fault here, not just the family.

 

Middle school mentality here.

 

"I can be stupid and it is everybody else's job to make sure I don't get hurt YOLO!"

 

Seriously, As a member of society it is assumed and expected that you can and will practice some form of common sense. Don't blame the Zoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But still, it is the legal responsibility of the zoo to ensure the safety of all guests and to enforce the rules that they set down. Though, the blame can not be solely pinned on one person. Both parties are at fault here, not just the family.

 

Not only did you just contradict yourself, but you're wrong.

 

Like I said before, if you have read anything in this thread, the zoo has existed 114 years without an incident like this. I have to think that's a pretty damn good track record for the zoo, and if they can go that long, they MUST be doing something right.

 

Like Elissa said earlier, the dogs didn't come and attack the child. The child was DROPPED into the enclosure because the GUEST WAS DOING SOMETHING THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DOING, and it's been reported there are signs warning against this...

 

How anyone could even think about blaming the zoo is embarrassing to me. TPR members should know better.

Edited by robbalvey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ You of course don't have to be nice but a coaster forum sure seems like a good place for it.

 

What is embarrassing to me is that there is very little compassion shown for a woman who's child was eatin in front of her. Was it negligent, of course, but some of your attitudes completely suck.

 

First of all, Robb tends to be very frank with his opinions. Just the way he is. Not that I disagree with him on this or have any less respect for him. Don't take what he says so personal.

 

Secondly, for some people, humor is the best way of digesting a horrific story. as the old saying goes, "the best comedy comes from tragedy". I respect that you see how serious this is and are empathetic towards all involved, but not everyone is going to feel or react this way, and its not necessarily that they don't care. This same issue was discussed about 5 years back when that poor teenage girl lost her legs on a ride at the former Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom.

 

 

How anyone could even think about blaming the zoo is embarrassing to me. TPR members should know better.

 

I 100% agree. But I can see someone filing a frivilous lawsuit against the zoo, in the sue happy society we live in today.

Edited by IrishBuckeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, well obviously I kinda walked into the lions den here. I'll admit i didn't expect such a rush of opposition. All I was trying to do is offer another perspective, varied to the one always heard. Though, for those people who are saying I expect other people to cover the stupid things people do. People don't intentionally do stupid things, they just happen. Everyone does stupid things, albeit some less extreme than others, but all the same in concept. Nobody is perfect, and people know that. Everyone should be prepared to cover their own stupid things, and to help others. It's what makes a community strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone does stupid things, albeit some less extreme than others, but all the same in concept.

That's a HORRIBLE way to look at things, though!

 

It's one thing to spill your coffee in the car, it's something else to DROP YOUR CHILD INTO A PIT OF WILD DOGS!!!

 

Basically what you're saying is "Every place in America needs to protect themselves from the most extreme stupid thing that someone may, by chance, accidentally do, and if they aren't prepared for the 1-in-a-million chance happening, they should be partially at fault."

 

I couldn't disagree with you more.

 

Like I said in my post earlier, if you honestly believe this, that the park should take some blame, then every public recreation facility should close it's doors in fear of the "totally unpredictable, worst case scenario" because no place would be safe.

 

Do you understand now why your argument makes no sense?

 

--Robb "Anytime you make something idiot proof, you find there is a bigger idiot." Alvey

Edited by robbalvey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what solution do you propose to keep things like this from happening. People will do stupid things, it happens over and over. That's a fact of life. So how would you plan to keep someone from getting hurt, or would you let people die, over and over again. (I'm not trying to attack you, i'm trying to defend my statement, just as you are, please don't take it personally.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the sake of argument I will take your argument with the example of the railroad seriously. In that specific case there had been incidents of railroad employees being present while individuals were using the bridge to jump into the water. Nothing was done to deter such action, thus setting a precedent that the posted rule was void.

 

In the case of the zoo i'm willing to guess that there there hasn't been a case in the past of a similar rule violation, but if there had been someone else also stupid enough to stand or allow someone else to stand on the railing, I'm confident the zoo would uphold the posted rule. Thus, the posted rule is the precedent and upheld.

 

By your account there would never be a need for posted warnings, because signs apparently do not hold up in a court of law. This is entirely inaccurate and if such were the case there wouldn't be warning signs on nearly everything.

 

The mother did have to witness a terrible event, but in a way it almost seems to be natural justice.

 

The only person I feel truly sorry for is the poor child who had to suffer being eaten by dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Coaster, maybe if parents started taking responsibility for their kids! A two year old does not know, nor could he get himself out of harms way, that is what we as parents are here for, to RAISE our kids, teach them what is good, what is bad, and keep them out of harms way.

 

It drives me crazy how many times I see kids in potential dangerous situations, and the parent's have nothing better to do than worry about that texting their friends, or updating facebook! I think we have lost a lot in society of people taking responsibility for their actions.

 

I don't post here a lot, but this whole ordeal has got me on my "soapbox" and 99.9 percent of the people I talk to say the mom is to blame 100%!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what solution do you propose to keep things like this from happening. People will do stupid things, it happens over and over. That's a fact of life. So how would you plan to keep someone from getting hurt, or would you let people die, over and over again. (I'm not trying to attack you, i'm trying to defend my statement, just as you are, please don't take it personally.)

Your statement is ridiculous. You really should stop defending it. Your statement is what's so wrong with much of America. You don't want to take personal responsibility for YOUR actions, and will look to deflect blame onto someone else, so you'll be in the clear, no matter what the situation is. That sucks. And it's so horribly wrong.

 

"I did something stupid...but no one or nothing prevented me from doing it...so therefore it's not *MY* fault... Where's my lawyer???"

 

--Robb "If I were a park owner, I wouldn't let you in my park." Alvey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robb, I am prepared to take responsibility for my actions. Though I am accepting the fact that people, despite all their prodding and convincing, don't think the same way. And I don't believe lives should be lost because of that. That is my opinion, just as you have yours. And I will not change my opinion just as you wont change yours. In any case, I'm sorry I created such a disturbance, i only wanted to state my view on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^So you think that dumb people who make bad decisions should all be allowed to sue for it?

 

I can go walk in front of a moving car and then sue the person for hitting me?

 

Am I supposed to create special bubble boy bullet proof suits for everyone to wear?

 

Can I jump into Shamu's tank and then sue Sea World?

 

I really don't understand your point. Specifically this: "Though I am accepting the fact that people, despite all their prodding and convincing, don't think the same way. And I don't believe lives should be lost because of that."

 

This is what evolution is about. People who do stupid things and don't think like the smart people die out and don't produce as many offspring...or they drop their offspring into an enclosure with wild African dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robb, I am prepared to take responsibility for my actions. Though I am accepting the fact that people, despite all their prodding and convincing, don't think the same way. And I don't believe lives should be lost because of that. That is my opinion, just as you have yours. And I will not change my opinion just as you wont change yours. In any case, I'm sorry I created such a disturbance, i only wanted to state my view on this.

I'm done responding to you because I'm getting dumber every time I read one of your posts.

 

--Robb "There is a HUGE difference between having an opinion and being illogical." Alvey

Edited by robbalvey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a volunteer in a Zoo volunteer program - this is something, as a volunteer corps never want to deal with. We're trained and prepared each season to respond and assess different situations. We're given radios to help guests and fellow staff when the occasion and situation needs it or requests that assistance. In all my time volunteering and later on working for the Zoo, this is something I never want to broadcast over staff/volunteer radio. That a visitor grown or young has fallen into an exhibit and has suffered injury/death due to it.

 

I feel bad for the family, but, yet there was probably alot on the parent's behalf that could've been done to prevent this. This is why at the zoo we tell our guests to have their kids off fences and we even remind them if they don't follow our rules. We tell them with a smile "Please step off the ropes/fence. You may hurt yourself or the animals and we don't want more work for our zookeepers!". I want to say something else to some of these parents, but, being a volunteer I have to put on a happy face and tell them politely to get off or climb off whatever they are currently on.

 

It's a shame, but, it's a shame that could've been EASILY avoided had the right decision been made.

Edited by Chris Benvenuto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^So you think that dumb people who make bad decisions should all be allowed to sue for it?

 

They should be shot but in our society there seems to be no common sense and they let them sue!

 

Remember about 5 years ago the three guys who taunted the tiger in the San Francisco zoo. The tiger was able to leap out of the inclosure because he was pissed and killed one, mauled the other two. The dead kids family and the two that lived sued. The family has settled out of court and the other two are still in litigation.

 

People doing stupid things, allowed to sue and getting a settlement. Our legal system sucks sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What shocks me is how you all could be blaming the poor mother who is obviously heartbroken. She saw her child eaten in front of her. This is something she will never completely recover from, and yet you all are pinning her against the wall, throwing all blame on her. The zoo has to exhibit a responsibility to make sure that even if somebody were to jump over, this wouldn't happen. Now, i don't think the zoo should be shut down because of this. I think the zoo should undergo safety changes to prevent something like this from happening again. A previous case happened like this with a New York railroad. There was a bridge with signs all over that said "do not enter" Yet still, people went onto the bridge to jump into the river. One day somebody got hit by a train and died. The family sued and won. This was because the railroad, by law, had to exhibit a responsibility to enforce the rules set down. If they did not enforce the rules it isn't considered a rule by the court. If the zoo is sued, they will lose, due to a legal precedent.

 

 

The zoo does have the responsibility to keep the guests safe. I'm sure what is going to happen now is that there is going to be a full investigation and a determination will be made as to if the zoo is negligent in anyway. Basically for there to be negligence the mother is going to have to prove five things, 1. that that zoo had a duty of care, 2. that the zoo breached their duty, 3. that the zoo was the factual cause, 4. that the zoo was the proximate cause, and 5. that there were damages. Out of those five elements, you're going to have a very easy time proving 1 and 5, they're basically a given in this case. The question of if the zoo breached their duty is going to be a lot harder. I've read nothing so far that would indicate to be that the zoo did in fact breach their duty. If the fences were shorter then normal, or if the concrete was uneven and that caused the mother to trip and throw her kid over the fence, then you might have a breach. If however, the zoo was doing everything they were supposed to be doing, and all of those things would reasonable keep people safe there isn't going to be a breach of that duty. As far as causation, that is going to be a question that depends on if the duty was breached in the first place, though here if there is a breach of duty, I imagine causation will be easy to prove.

 

I've seen a few stories about this on the news and read what has been online. As of right now I'm just not convinced that the zoo is looking at much liability. Depending on the law in Pennsylvania, it may be possible that the zoo will be found to be a certain percentage at fault. For example, lets say a jury finds that the mother was 98% at fault and the zoo is 2% at fault, and the damages are calculated to be 1,000,000. In that case the mother would recover right around $20,000. Figure the attorney is going to take 35%, that leaves a total recovery of $13,000 for the mother. When you remove the $6,000-$10,000 that it would take me to properly prepare for a trial like this, Mom is not looking at under $5,000. Finally, any attorney willing to take on the amount of work that a case like this is going to have, for a potential $7,000 in profits is crazy. That ends up being a deal where the lawyer ended up working for less then minimum wage.

 

The moral of this long post? I'm not so sure that the mother is going to have any solid ground in which to bring a lawsuit from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^So you think that dumb people who make bad decisions should all be allowed to sue for it?

 

They should be shot but in our society there seems to be no common sense and they let them sue!

 

Remember about 5 years ago the three guys who taunted the tiger in the San Francisco zoo. The tiger was able to leap out of the inclosure because he was pissed and killed one, mauled the other two. The dead kids family and the two that lived sued. The family has settled out of court and the other two are still in litigation.

 

People doing stupid things, allowed to sue and getting a settlement. Our legal system sucks sometimes.

 

 

That's a very cool case actually. I believe (and it's been a while so I don't know the status of it) that there was a countersuit by the San Francisco zoo for the value of the Tiger that was killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Again, I go back to my theory of evolution...what do you think happened to the cavemen who taunted tigers thousands of years ago? Exactly. This guy obviously snuck through the cracks of evolution somehow and the present day tigers took care of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what solution do you propose to keep things like this from happening. People will do stupid things, it happens over and over. That's a fact of life. So how would you plan to keep someone from getting hurt, or would you let people die, over and over again. (I'm not trying to attack you, i'm trying to defend my statement, just as you are, please don't take it personally.)

Your statement is ridiculous. You really should stop defending it. Your statement is what's so wrong with much of America. You don't want to take personal responsibility for YOUR actions, and will look to deflect blame onto someone else, so you'll be in the clear, no matter what the situation is. That sucks. And it's so horribly wrong.

 

"I did something stupid...but no one or nothing prevented me from doing it...so therefore it's not *MY* fault... Where's my lawyer???"

 

--Robb "If I were a park owner, I wouldn't let you in my park." Alvey

 

Another problem with America is that people need to have the last word and won't give up a losing argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what evolution is about. People who do stupid things and don't think like the smart people die out and don't produce as many offspring...or they drop their offspring into an enclosure with wild African dogs.

 

Evolution is COMPLETELY broken if we're still chucking kids into wild dog habitats after 100,000 years of being a species. The stupid haven't died out. They're busying having bastard children while the smarter types are getting graduate degrees while letting their fertility fade out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/