Parents of Maddox Derkosh Suing Pittsburgh Zoo (Washington, McDonald: how much, asbestos)

[sparrowmint]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

On the contrary nothing motivates like liability. What do you think prompted McDonald's to start putting the caloric content of their meals on all of their menus nationwide, or offering (relatively) healthier options?

Here are the real reasons: For the first one, the Affordable Care Act which is going to require everyone to post calorie information at some point in the future, McDonalds is simply complying earlier for good PR. The second one, consumer demand, as people have been driven to Subway, Panera Bread, and other companies that claim to offer healthy options. McDonalds has been pretty transparent about that, as they talk about trying to create "Subway-killing" products to regain customers. That's why the McWrap exists, not because of liability, for god's sake. But sure, you can make up your own reasons, while there are incredibly unhealthy fast food and sit-down restaurant options everywhere, with no end in sight to any of it.

You helpfully left out how basically all those lawsuits within the US have been dismissed over the last decade, as they should have been. The multi-billion dollar company isn't overhauling its menu because of the lawyer fees in those cases, but because there is demand for them. If there wasn't demand, they would drop them (as they have recently dropped a few types of salads and adjust their menu as necessary).

[lust4life2]

I feel so sad, for what happened and what is now happening...

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

And you run the risk of the company or community ignoring you because you're the "stupid lady who let her kid get eaten"..

So being the "stupid lady who let her kid get eaten then tried to profit from it" is much better

[gg]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Having personally visited & observed the exhibit I can most definitely say other entities besides the child's mother are wholly without blame for her negligent actions and would rather not waste the courts time & cost the zoo institution money to answer the obvious just so a grieving family can try to place blame elsewhere & profit from a tragedy they were the sole cause of. Yet just another example of our over litigious society that leeches out taxpayer money that could be used to dealing with much more important matters.

I for one do not want to visit a zoo that 100% blocks all possibly concievable human/animal interaction

I fully agree to be honest. It really gets old having to moron proof everything. We have to live with the ridiculous train horns due to morons. It keeps going and going. There are way too many attorneys and that profession sure isn't some respectable one, that is for sure. A bunch of leeches.

[Clint.]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

They do. All businesses have liability coverage. Whether or not they will have to raise prices remains to be seen, but I doubt it. Whatever they end up settling for with the family will be peanuts compared to what a trucking company will pay out in a given year for numerous claims. This probably won't hurt the zoo as much as the bad publicity will or has.

But has the publicity from this hurt the Pittsburgh Zoo? Mostly what I've heard are people basically absolving the zoo and saying it was a tragic accident, and if forced to assign fault lay the responsibility on the mother.

Every now and then there will be a story about a zoo animal attacking a human (San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks; Bronx zoo tiger attack; Five Shocking Zoo Attacks), but other than that from the actual human victim's family (and their lawyers of course), there generally seems to be very little public blame toward zoos following incidents like this. It seems that most people figure the incident is usually the result of human error or provocation. And they're usually right. It's like finding a way to climb up a telephone pole and messing around with the wires - don't do it, and if you do, then sorry, but getting fried is a natural consequence.

There is essentially no more 'natural' wilderness for many of the animals in zoos, and what is remaining will probably be gone in 25 years. Maybe someday those areas currently being slashed to plant palm oil trees for girl scout cookies or taken over by impoverished humans with bacteria-like reproduction rates - when they're not busy slaughtering elephants to indulge Asian superstition - can be reclaimed and animals reintroduced. In the meantime, if changes can be made to improve an animal's zoo enclosure so that the animal has more area to roam and places to hide from gawkers then that would be a welcome change.

[villageidiot1]

Originally Posted by zip95

What's the problem?

It's their fundamental right to sue anyone for anything. A judge or jury will decide if the suit has merit. If not the case will be tossed out.

I know that's not ideal... If we lived in a perfect world there would be a group of highly trained intelligent people who would decide whether or not a lawsuit has merit or is waste of time... If they decided that the lawsuit was a waste of time they could throw it out right away, but if they decided it was reasonable they could take a closer look... In this crazy fantasy world we could call this closer look a trial and we could call these people judges. It'd be awesome.

Good point. We hear about lawsuits being filed all the time in the media, but what people don't hear about are how many of those suits never get to court, are settled out of court for lower amounts or lose in court.

Originally Posted by greg42

Yeah. You know, it's not surprising because this is just par for the course. I mean, the kid died. What would be surprising these days is someone NOT suing or seeking a settlement in that scenario. Attorneys will come up with any basis.

I'm sure the zoo has liability insurance, and that is the entity who would take the lead in any defense. The insurance co will likely be the ones deciding whether to settle or to fight it out in court.

I agree. I fully expected a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Wonder how they came up with $300K? I was expecting $10 million back when I posted they will sue on the original thread. The amount makes me take it a bit easier on them. They will win in court. Their kid was mauled and killed by a pack of dogs right in front of them and others. This might not even go to court, due to the forgone conclusion. They might just get a settlement.

I find a $300K lawsuit surprising. I don't understand why a Philadelphia attorney would take the case for this amount unless he is expecting a quick settlement out of court.

Originally Posted by Hopes

Businesses get sued all the time. Businesses really don't care about being sued like you think.

It's just part of doing business since the world is full of sue happy people who think like you.

Yes, any business assumes they will get sued and understand liability insurance is a cost of doing business.

I fully expected the family to sue and I think the reason we are seeing the lawsuit is so the mother can absolve herself of some or all of the blame. This may be the motivation for the small amount of the lawsuit. If the zoo does not settle out of court, the family may drop the suit.

If this suit eventually goes to court, it is possible we may see a verdict where the court determines a percentage of liability. People going to the zoo have a reasonable expectation of safety. The zoo does not have a reasonable expectation that people will act sensibly. The court might rule something like the zoo was 60% responsible and the mother 40% responsible, which might help satisfy the family that it was not completely the mother's fault. They might end up with less than $90K in this scenario.

[greg42]

The $300k appears to come from "damage in excess of $50,000 on each of 6 counts" which means they're just looking for in excess of $300k when you multiply that.

If anyone read that article linked in the first post early on that day (as I did), you might want to go back and read it again as it was substantially updated. What I remember is it originally said "unspecified" amount.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by Hopes

They're not going to trial. You and I will have to just agree to wait and see.

Of course they're not going to trial. The zoo isn't going to want this to go to trial because regardless of the fact that the mother is primarily responsible for the death of that child the zoo still has the legal responsibility to "idiot proof" the exhibits as they contain dangerous wild animals. If the family wanted a big pay out they wouldn't offer to settle at 300k.

300k that will get negotiated down to somewhere closer to 200k, that at least a 1/3rd of which will be taken by the attorney, and that is also taxable unless they funnel it into their charity.

If they wanted this thing to go to trial they could easily get a judgement in the millions. Money probably isn't the motivating factor here.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by Clint.

But has the publicity from this hurt the Pittsburgh Zoo? Mostly what I've heard are people basically absolving the zoo and saying it was a tragic accident, and if forced to assign fault lay the responsibility on the mother.

Every now and then there will be a story about a zoo animal attacking a human (San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks; Bronx zoo tiger attack; Five Shocking Zoo Attacks), but other than that from the actual human victim's family (and their lawyers of course), there generally seems to be very little public blame toward zoos following incidents like this. It seems that most people figure the incident is usually the result of human error or provocation. And they're usually right. It's like finding a way to climb up a telephone pole and messing around with the wires - don't do it, and if you do, then sorry, but getting fried is a natural consequence.

There is essentially no more 'natural' wilderness for many of the animals in zoos, and what is remaining will probably be gone in 25 years. Maybe someday those areas currently being slashed to plant palm oil trees for girl scout cookies or taken over by impoverished humans with bacteria-like reproduction rates - when they're not busy slaughtering elephants to indulge Asian superstition - can be reclaimed and animals reintroduced. In the meantime, if changes can be made to improve an animal's zoo enclosure so that the animal has more area to roam and places to hide from gawkers then that would be a welcome change.

I don't honestly think it will. People are rightfully obsolving the zoo in this case. The only reason that I haven't taken my little one is less that I believe the zoo to be unsafe, and more the to the point that what occured makes me feel uneasy (for the time being).


I should probably reitterate (not so much for yourself as for others) that I'm not saying that I believe the zoo is at fault here or even deserves to be sued. Legally yes they are still liable as outlined by others in this thread, but its without question as to why the child died and that unfortunately lies with the mother's poor judgement. What I disagree with is the way that she or her husband are being portrayed as being motivated by greed which is highly unlikely given what they have requested and what they've been through.

These people deserve our pity for what they are going through, even if they're making some unwise or unpopular decisions as a result of it. There literally is nothing worse that a person can experience in their lifetime, and we should be thankful that none of us have the go through it to fully comprehend where these people are coming from.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by UKyank

So being the "stupid lady who let her kid get eaten then tried to profit from it" is much better

You're making an unfounded assumption devoid of critical thought in suggesting that she's in it to profit.

Again, and I don't know how anyone struggles with this simple concept: the mother/father's concept of reality is not at all similar to yours at this point. There's a level of manic/obsessive thinking here resulting from the traumatic event they experienced that you're unable to comprehend. If they were in it for a payout they'd be trying to get this thing to go to trial.