Register New Player - Log In
Welcome to our world of fun trivia quizzes and quiz games:     New Player quiz register Play Now! trivia game
World Chat
World Board
Moderators : romeomikegolf bionic4ever kyleisalive ozfei Pagiedamon gtho4 sue943 Terry
Topic: Zoo tragedy

Posted by: rayven80

Subject: Zoo tragedy
Date: Nov 29 12

Earlier this month a mother set her 2-year old on a railing to let him get a better look at the African wild dogs. He fell into the enclosure and died.
The district attorney isn't going to press charges against her but they haven't determined whether the zoo was at fault. I imagine the mother will sue the zoo and they will have to upgrade their enclosures and pay a fortune for her decision.
Why couldn't this just be considered an accident and end it?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/11/29/Mauling-victims-mom-wont-be-charged/UPI-95711354208546/



Please feel free to leave feedback for the site administrators. We will take all feedback into account as we tweak and add new features.
The old reply to thread function was removed because it got to the point where people weren't even reading the announcements and assuming, by default, that they were somehow being wronged or forgotten or insulted or abused or cheated out of something in some manner.


6 replies. On page 1 of 1 pages. 1
supersal1

I can't see that millions of dollars in damages would help the mother at all.

I don't know about criminal charges, but the zoos I visited when my kids were younger had measures in place to stop that sort of thing happening.

Reply #1. Nov 29 12, 4:58 PM

Aussiedrongo

That's a terrible story but I can't see how the zoo could in anyway be held responsible. The barriers are in place for a reason and common sense should tell you it's not for sitting a two year old on top of.

Reply #2. Nov 29 12, 5:26 PM

SisterSeagull

Because nowadays no-one is willing to accept responsibility for their own actions or omissions... It's always someone else's fault

Reply #3. Nov 29 12, 6:11 PM

weissmarc

I totally agree with SisterSeagull, aside from the fact that we are the "Nation of Litigation" and some bottom-feeder is always lurking in the murk. The child first fell onto a protective netting which may have had an unfortunate trampoline-like effect instead of catching him. The mother is COMPLETELY at fault for putting her child at risk, period.

Reply #4. Nov 30 12, 2:05 AM

rayven80

I was wondering if I was the only one questioning this. I'm glad to see that I'm not.

Reply #5. Nov 30 12, 1:45 PM

slytherinwitch

As a native Pittsburgher and one who for years has volunteered at the Zoo Boo here, this tragedy hit close to home. It should be pointed out that in 114 years of operation, this is the first and only visitor fatality at the Pittsburgh Zoo. Safety has always been a paramount concern and taken very seriously. No matter what precautions are in place, there is always someone who for whatever reasons, be they ignorance or idiocy, will find a way to skirt the safety rules and place themselves or others in danger. You can't legislate away stupidity.

As tragic as this is, it would be a greater farce if the Pittsburgh Zoo were to be held accountable for the perhaps momentary but nevertheless appallingly bad decision on the part of the mother in this case to place a 2 year old child on a railing over an enclosure of a pack of wild dogs and let go of him. She is to blame for her son's death and will spend the rest of her life with that thought. That said, I hope she can find a measure of peace to go on in time.

Reply #6. Nov 30 12, 4:23 PM

6 replies. On page 1 of 1 page(s). 1

Legal / Conditions of Use