Boy Falls into African Painted Dog Exhibit at Piitsburgh Zoo Dies

[Elley Mae]

The woman admits she put the child on the railing, and then she has the gull to sue? If this woman stuck the child into a window, and a child fell, would she sue the building builder?

No silly, the window maker.:fence:

 

[Nova]

I love ya' Nova and usually I agree with you. Not on this one. Sometimes tragic accidents happen. Sometimes people make mistakes and horrible things result from those mistakes. But we can't litigate and legislate ourselves into an accident-proof world. What we can do, though, is litigate and legislate ourselves into a drab world where we can't have fun anymore, where only busInesesses with a huge amount of capital can risk providing entertainment or services to the public and where we have to be helmeted and padded to suffocation and sign extensive release forms before we can enter any establishment.

If the zoo had little steps leading to the rail, or had a line of icecream cones or toys dangling in a place only reachable by standing on the rail or if they had sings inviting people to stand there, them they would be negligent. As it stands, IMO, it is only the mom who was negligent here.

Since you are a lawyer and I am not, could you at least clarify that I am correct as to the principle of shared liability existing in PA law?

Because of the post to which you replied, it appears you are correcting my understanding of the law. My point in that particular post was merely that liability may be shared under PA law. I'm sure you will agree as to that much.

Now whether liability SHOULD be shared in this case is another matter, one to be litigated in pleadings and, perhaps, at trial. Since I have yet to see a picture of the exhibit, I can't begin to form an opinion.

But my point was that under PA law, liability doesn't automatically fall exclusively on one party or the other.

***

That being said, I'm sure you know that with a 4' railing, a good plaintiff's attorney will argue the zoo should have expected that parents would lift small children to see over the barrier and, therefore, the zoo should have installed some sort of screen to keep small children from accidentally falling over the railing. (After all, the zoo was aware of the problem of people dropping their cameras and installed a net to solve the problem. "Why did the zoo care more about cameras than children?", asks the mother's attorney.)

Whether such an argument would prevail depends on a lot of factors, including a jury's sympathy for a grieving mother. But I don't have to tell you that.

 

[believe09]

Shortly after this well publicized incident I was at the Zoo in Central Park NYC and watched a couple dangle their toddler over the side of an outdoor exhibit which featured water and animals. Their wriggling toddler who was very stimulated by the animals he saw.

I wonder if they would have sued the zoo if he had managed to slip from their grasp?

 

[jjenny]

Shortly after this well publicized incident I was at the Zoo in Central Park NYC and watched a couple dangle their toddler over the side of an outdoor exhibit which featured water and animals. Their wriggling toddler who was very stimulated by the animals he saw.

I wonder if they would have sued the zoo if he had managed to slip from their grasp?

Is there any doubt they would? Suing is a favorite American pastime, after all.

 

[Reader]

So we agree. What I said was that an older child might have been under less supervision (I've seen kids running loose at that zoo and the zoo itself runs a summer camp program) and therefore able to surmount the barrier without assistance from a negligent parent.

For that reason, the exhibit may need some redesign. (I say "may" because I still haven't seen it.)

I haven't been in this discussion, just reading, but wanted to see it also. From these pictures I can't tell where the mother would have been holding him, or how she got him over that screen, with the roof there. Anyway, here it is.

 

[redheadedgal]

reader-- the area above the black netting --where there is screen now in that photo-- was open/unenclosed to visitors when maddox fell.

thanks passionflower for the lawsuit update!

 

[Reader]

reader-- the area above the black netting --where there is screen now in that photo-- was open/unenclosed to visitors when maddox fell.

thanks passionflower for the lawsuit update!

Oh, OK, thanks redheadedgal, so the screen was added later...gotcha.

 

[HMSHood]

Shortly after this well publicized incident I was at the Zoo in Central Park NYC and watched a couple dangle their toddler over the side of an outdoor exhibit which featured water and animals. Their wriggling toddler who was very stimulated by the animals he saw.

I wonder if they would have sued the zoo if he had managed to slip from their grasp?

Who in their right mind dangle their toddler over an exhibit like that?????????? Their child could fall and get hurt by the fall or attacked.

I am pretty sure they would sue of their child slipped from their grasp.

 

[Mira]

maybe they think they can buy a new little boy with all that money... no? well what good is it going to do anybody, then?

nobody but that mother put that baby in danger, what she did was unbelievably stupid and careless. the fact that she has not been charged with at least negligence is a wonder.

 

[i.b.nora]

In the closeup photo of the viewing pavilion, there is no screen in the opening above the net. There is screen and was screen on the other upper openings. Also, the lower openings beneath the middle rail have see-through plexiglas or lexan or some other similar kind of material to allow the little folks to see into the enclosure, safely and unobstructed. The mother was at fault.

 

[Nova]

I haven't been in this discussion, just reading, but wanted to see it also. From these pictures I can't tell where the mother would have been holding him, or how she got him over that screen, with the roof there. Anyway, here it is.

Thank you, Reader. I think the "open space" above the barrier is the area at the very end of the platform, the part overlooking the "camera" net below. The rest of of the pavilion seems to be enclosed by the barrier plus a screen.

Which begs the question: if the zoo was aware of a problem of children (or adults) climbing over or leaning too far over the barrier on the sides of the pavilion, why did zoo officials assume it was safe to leave the very end section unscreened?

Despite the way it may appear in this thread, I am NOT a fan of frivolous lawsuits and have refused to sue in instances such as a taxi accident where I felt the damages were too trivial to take up the court's time.

But I think the rush here to absolve the zoo and blame the mother is premature.

 

[Nova]

In the closeup photo of the viewing pavilion, there is no screen in the opening above the net. There is screen and was screen on the other upper openings. Also, the lower openings beneath the middle rail have see-through plexiglas or lexan or some other similar kind of material to allow the little folks to see into the enclosure, safely and unobstructed. The mother was at fault.

Oh, really? Then how do you explain the screens on the sides, but not on the end section? Apparently the zoo was aware there was a danger of people falling over the barrier, but chose to leave one section open for the benefit of picture takers.

And again: under PA law, it isn't a matter of one side or the other being at fault. Both sides may share liability.

 

[EmmaliLucia]

This whole case really rubs me the wrong way.

On one hand, why wasn't there glass? That way it wouldn't have interfered with cameras (Except for those with flash)

But on the other hand, why the hell would ANY parent play Lion King (Or Michael Jackson, you can pick which pop-culture reference you'd like) with their child around ledges or wild animals? I've been reading about this on other websites and people have said that this apparently happens at many zoos, which just boggles my mind.

And now that I've seen the pictures; a kid could TOTALLY see through the glass and plastic part of that viewpoint, sorry, I'm not buying that she had to lift him up so he could see the painted dogs. There were probably a MILLION signs saying "Don't sit/stand on the ledge" and she stood him up on the ledge.

This is a tragedy but not one where the zoo is liable, in my opinion.

 

[Nova]

...This is a tragedy but not one where the zoo is liable, in my opinion.

Except your own post shows how the zoo is also liable ("in addition" to the mother, not "instead of").

And on that, I can agree.

 

[HMSHood]

This whole case really rubs me the wrong way.

On one hand, why wasn't there glass? That way it wouldn't have interfered with cameras (Except for those with flash)

But on the other hand, why the hell would ANY parent play Lion King (Or Michael Jackson, you can pick which pop-culture reference you'd like) with their child around ledges or wild animals? I've been reading about this on other websites and people have said that this apparently happens at many zoos, which just boggles my mind.

And now that I've seen the pictures; a kid could TOTALLY see through the glass and plastic part of that viewpoint, sorry, I'm not buying that she had to lift him up so he could see the painted dogs. There were probably a MILLION signs saying "Don't sit/stand on the ledge" and she stood him up on the ledge.

This is a tragedy but not one where the zoo is liable, in my opinion.

I do not see why one would use a flash at the zoo as it is open in the day time.

 

[Nova]

I do not see why one would use a flash at the zoo as it is open in the day time.

I'm assuming here, but I think the problem with plexiglass is that it quickly gets smeared with fingerprints, making photography impossible, with or without a flash.

But surely there's a way to devise netting or bars that are wide enough to accommodate a camera lens but narrow enough to prevent children from getting through!

 

[Sonya610]

But surely there's a way to devise netting or bars that are wide enough to accommodate a camera lens but narrow enough to prevent children from getting through!

Would netting work for the National and State Parks too?

Netting the trails entirely might be the answer lest someone fall off a cliff or stumble on a steep slope or drown in a shallow stream while walking off the netted path.

National and State Parks plus all balconies and escalators and two story garages etc.... Also any 2nd story windows that open....netting.

I feel so much safer!

 

[flourish]

Would netting work for the National and State Parks too?

Netting the trails entirely might be the answer lest someone fall off a cliff or stumble on a steep slope or drown in a shallow stream while walking off the netted path.

National and State Parks plus all balconies and escalators and two story garages etc.... Also any 2nd story windows that open....netting.

I feel so much safer!

This thread is about the Pittsburgh zoo exhibit. I'm not sure anyone suggested adding netting to the great outdoors. In any case, IMO it's quite a jump from suggesting an additional net at this zoo exhibit where a safety issue has arisen, to suggesting netting hiking trails. :facepalm:

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

"Zoo where boy killed by wild dogs had been warned over safety of enclosure but had not made changes, claims family lawyer"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...um-Zoo-blames-mom-fatality.html#ixzz2idyLj62r

 

[Cracka*Jaxx]

I do not see why one would use a flash at the zoo as it is open in the day time.

For instance, if you want to take a pic of your friend who is standing in the enclosure, with the animals outside in the sunlight in the background. A flash is the only way to get both subjects bright enough.