Parents of Maddox Derkosh Suing Pittsburgh Zoo (Elizabeth, Penn: 2014, inspector)

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by EveKendall

The exhibit had a fence with vertical slats covered by clear plexiglass so a child who was shorter than the railing could still see down into the enclosure.

Exactly. The Plexiglas walls aren't for adult viewing.

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

For starters the mother in question did not "dangle" her child as some on here are suggesting.

As for your comparison: Depends on whether it would be reasonable to assume that guests would want to lean out the window or get on the ledge to observe something.

and that is the issue here. The zoo designed an exhibit that had limited visibility for children, requiring that their parents lift them up to get a better view of the animals below. This is supported by the fact that the zoo was warned about visitors doing it...repeatedly. Not by disgruntled employees. Not by overly concerned visitors. Warned by their own safety personnel.

It is not the mother's fault that she lifted her child up so he could see the animals in an exhibit that was not designed to accommodate children. It is not unreasonable for us assume that such an exhibit should accommodate a 2 yr old. The zoo screwed up.

Most balconies are put where there is a view, not facing a brick wall.

How about instead of balancing your child up on a rail, over a pit of wild animals.....you pick him up...... hold him cradled against you, in the safety of your arms, instead?

And.....the barrier was Plexiglas/mesh....the boy could see through it......but that wasn't good enough for mom.

Bottom line....... mom screwed up......and she doesn't deserve a big, fat, payday.

[simetime]

If this was such a probelm why has'nt there been more instances of "stupid parent trick with kids" happen before?

[Velvet Jones]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

For starters the mother in question did not "dangle" her child as some on here are suggesting.

As for your comparison: Depends on whether it would be reasonable to assume that guests would want to lean out the window or get on the ledge to observe something.

and that is the issue here. The zoo designed an exhibit that had limited visibility for children, requiring that their parents lift them up to get a better view of the animals below. This is supported by the fact that the zoo was warned about visitors doing it...repeatedly. Not by disgruntled employees. Not by overly concerned visitors. Warned by their own safety personnel.

It is not the mother's fault that she lifted her child up so he could see the animals in an exhibit that was not designed to accommodate children. It is not unreasonable for us assume that such an exhibit should accommodate a 2 yr old. The zoo screwed up.

OK, so what would you prefer? The zoo eliminate the animals? There is no limit to human stupidity, and you post verifies that. No matter what safe guards you put in place some idiot will try and get around them. If this mother had thrown her kid in to on coming traffic would the municipality be at fault? How about every bridge in the city? Should little Billie be able to stand on the railing with mommy not paying attention so with some safe guard that he never falls in to the river below? Honestly, this thread and this entire incident disgusts me beyond belief and exemplifies what is wrong with society today.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Velvet Jones

How about every bridge in the city? Should little Billie be able to stand on the railing with mommy not paying attention so with some safe guard that he never falls in to the river below?

Hey, I already used the bridge/fireworks/falling into the river scenario!

[gmagoo]

How about the woman who received a life sentence for drowning her kid in a bathtub? If she was smart she could have taken her child to the zoo and dropped the child into a dangerous animal exhibit. Instead of life in prison she would be waiting for a big check. Just sayin`.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by simetime

If this was such a probelm why has'nt there been more instances of "stupid parent trick with kids" happen before?

It did, and the zoo was repeatedly informed of it.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by Annie53

Most balconies are put where there is a view, not facing a brick wall.

How about instead of balancing your child up on a rail, over a pit of wild animals.....you pick him up...... hold him cradled against you, in the safety of your arms, instead?

And.....the barrier was Plexiglas/mesh....the boy could see through it......but that wasn't good enough for mom.

Bottom line....... mom screwed up......and she doesn't deserve a big, fat, payday.

You're assuming it was mom's decision alone with little documentation to back your claim up. The fact that this exact scenario was repeated time and again (documented by the fact that the zoo was warned numerous times) illustrates that clearly the viewing was insufficient and contradicts your conclusion.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Exactly. The Plexiglas walls aren't for adult viewing.

and yet on numerous occasions that we know of and likely more that we don't parents were compelled to pick their children up and hold them near the railing which illustrates that it was insufficient given the terrain of the enclosure.

If you've been to the zoo lately you'll notice that few if any of the other exhibits feature a direct drop where someone can accidentally fall into an animal enclosure. Even those animal enclosures that feature little to no barrier to prevent people from jumping in (like the tiger enclosure) have at least few feet of space between the area where visitors stand, and the edge of the animal's enclosure begins. Not so with the wild dog pit.

What is amazing is that more children or adults weren't hurt by this negligent design that could potentially allow for anyone leaning over the railing to get a better view of the animals to fall in.

[WPANative]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

What is amazing is that more children or adults weren't hurt by this negligent design that could potentially allow for anyone leaning over the railing to get a better view of the animals to fall in.

Or maybe there are just more common sense people in this world then I realize.

Are you an attorney?

You come off as someone who would deny or doubt the truth even if it was looking you directly in the face.

We all know common sense is absent from today's world. The fact that this doesn't happen on a regular basis at the Pittsburgh Zoo is proof positive that this woman was purely reckless. Debate it all you want. You're as absent minded as she is.