Parents of Maddox Derkosh Suing Pittsburgh Zoo (Whitehall: amusement park, buying)

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by WPANative

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.

What is the version of the "truth" you're referring to here? A lot of people in this thread seem to be eschewing what I tend to think of as common sense in assuming that two parents who lost a child could only be motivated by greed in pursuing litigation against the entity who owns the exhibit where their child died. Someone even recently went so far as to compare her to Andrea Yates. I think the failure of that comparison speaks for itself, and the person who posted it.

As a parent I find it bizarre that anyone with their own children would assume a money grab as the primary objective here, but perhaps they're just projecting their own priorities. If I lost my child my personal finances could potentially be a concern, but largely because I would not be able to function on a day to day basis for quite some time and would need some form of monetary support to sustain me until I could get to a point where I was able to keep it together during work. That is of course if I made the decision to shoulder the burden of losing a child (faultless or not) for the rest of my life as opposed to checking out early. Anyone who's ever known someone who lost a child will tell you that the impact of that loss never leaves them. Decades will pass and the scars will still remain. The Derkosh family has stated the the purpose of their suit is "to demonstrate that the death of Maddox Derkosh was absolutely preventable and that the Zoo failed in its responsibility to protect Maddox", and through the process of discovery they have demonstrated just that. Whatever you want to assume with the benefit of hindsight about her own personal fault in this matter you cannot ignore that the zoo knew that this could happen.

They knew that people like Elizabeth Derkosh were holding their kids close to the railing, leaning over, and even putting their children on it. They knew that the possibility for something terrible existed with their exhibit years before Maddox was even born, and they chose repeatedly to do nothing about it. By choosing to not put up some form of barrier to cover the open end of the viewing platform whether it be plexiglass, fencing, or simply a wire mesh screen they maintained an unsafe exhibit despite warning, after warning, after warning, after warning. The zoo created the potential for harm through their own negligence. They are liable.


I'll tell you what. You produce evidence to suggest that Mrs. Derkosh repeatedly made it a habit of putting Maddox's life in danger, that this wasn't an isolated incident where an imperfect being like the rest of us simply let her guard down and didn't recognize a potential danger, and I'll agree with the stone throwers in the thread that she was entirely at fault.

But...until you produce said documented evidence I'm going to put the majority of the blame on the zoo that callously ignored warning after warning of people reacting the exact same way to a dangerously designed exhibit.

[greg42]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

Decades will pass and the scars will still remain.

I do not doubt it.

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

The Derkosh family has stated the the purpose of their suit is "to demonstrate that the death of Maddox Derkosh was absolutely preventable

They don't need a suite to demonstrate that, but okay.

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

and that the Zoo failed in its responsibility to protect Maddox", and through the process of discovery they have demonstrated just that.

They have demonstrated no such thing. They have discovered that people have discussed the same action happening in the past. You are jumping to conclusions to say that they have demonstrated the zoo has failed in its responsibility. That is the way the plaintiffs' counsel will project it, of course. But there is nothing to conclude there, not yet.

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

Whatever you want to assume with the benefit of hindsight about her own personal fault in this matter you cannot ignore that the zoo knew that this could happen.

It would appear someone there knew that people were lifting up kids at the exhibit. This does not alone constitute a conclusion of liability. I would expect it makes it more likely there won't be a trial and will be a settlement in favor of the Derkosh family.

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

They knew that people like Elizabeth Derkosh were holding their kids close to the railing, leaning over, and even putting their children on it. They knew that the possibility for something terrible existed with their exhibit years before Maddox was even born, and they chose repeatedly to do nothing about it. By choosing to not put up some form of barrier to cover the open end of the viewing platform whether it be plexiglass, fencing, or simply a wire mesh screen they maintained an unsafe exhibit despite warning, after warning, after warning, after warning. The zoo created the potential for harm through their own negligence. They are liable.

Liability or negligence is not at all as open and shut as you paint it here. For example, you are making a big assumption that they simply chose to ignore prior incidents. It's quite possible they ran things by such people as insurance underwriters, inspectors and others from the AZA and USDA, and so forth. Those entities repeatedly signed off on the exhibit.

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

I'll tell you what. You produce evidence to suggest that Mrs. Derkosh repeatedly made it a habit of putting Maddox's life in danger, that this wasn't an isolated incident where an imperfect being like the rest of us simply let her guard down and didn't recognize a potential danger, and I'll agree with the stone throwers in the thread that she was entirely at fault.

I believe it's a tragic accident. That does not require her or the zoo to be at fault.

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

But...until you produce said documented evidence I'm going to put the majority of the blame on the zoo that callously ignored warning after warning of people reacting the exact same way to a dangerously designed exhibit.

I'd bet my life that there was nothing callous about it.

Here's what I want to know: Where do you draw the line at which the responsibility of the general public to have a tiny shred of common sense ends and the absolute requirement to protect us from our own stupid selves begins? Because if it's where you're drawing it in this case, there's a huge chunk of liability out there for entities too numerous to even begin to list. And if it's not where you draw it in this case, it is presumably the emotional reaction to what specifically has happened here that is causing you to see it differently than other similar possibilities.

[ditchdigger]

As a parent I find it bizarre that anyone with their own children would
assume a money grab as the primary objective here, but perhaps they're just
projecting their own priorities.

As a parent, she'll have to get up on the witness stand and say something like "The Zoo failed to protect my son from my own poor judgment", in order to persuade me otherwise.

[gg]

Originally Posted by WPANative

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.

Well said. Do we all want to live in a bubble? I personally would like to live in a world that people can experience things. Qtip seems to want to live life through the TV and not actually do anything. It is dangerous to drive, walk or really do anything active at all. The woman was careless and we cannot protect everyone from everything. Do you really want the zoo to enclose everything and we walk through the place looking through glass. What about the sidewalks? Should they be made of rubber?

Goodness, get a grip.

[villageidiot1]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

As a parent, she'll have to get up on the witness stand and say something like "The Zoo failed to protect my son from my own poor judgment", in order to persuade me otherwise.

You're not the one who has to be persuaded. The suit will either be thrown out, settled out of court or decided by either a judge or a jury.

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Well said. Do we all want to live in a bubble? I personally would like to live in a world that people can experience things. Qtip seems to want to live life through the TV and not actually do anything. It is dangerous to drive, walk or really do anything active at all. The woman was careless and we cannot protect everyone from everything. Do you really want the zoo to enclose everything and we walk through the place looking through glass. What about the sidewalks? Should they be made of rubber?

Goodness, get a grip.

Under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Derkosh's have a legal right to file a civil suit. If the judge determines the Derkosh's have brought a frivolous suit, they can be made to pay attorney's fees and costs. Let the legal system do its job.

[ditchdigger]

You're not the one who has to be persuaded.

You never know. They haven't chosen a jury yet, have they?

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

You never know. They haven't chosen a jury yet, have they?

That would be awesome! I hope they get a balanced jury and not all bleeding hearts.

[Bludy-L]

The DA should have charged the mother as soon as this happened. The mother caused it all.

-- Posted with TapaTalk

[LIRefugee]

Welcome this thread back to the top of the list, for:

Pittsburgh zoo settles federal investigation of mauling death by African painted dogs

The zoo agreed to settle a USDA investigation into the death of Maddox Derkosh by paying $4,550 to the department. As the article notes, the settlement does not include an admission of liability, the USDA had inspected the exhibit 35 times since 2006, though mostly from the point of view of animal welfare, and it wasn't explicitly stated what the payment is for, other than to end the investigation and waive the right to a hearing.

Also not unstated is the status of the Derkosh family lawsuit, though I assume it is still pending.

[Burghgirl17]

Originally Posted by LIRefugee

Also not unstated is the status of the Derkosh family lawsuit, though I assume it is still pending.

You are correct: https://dcr.alleghenycounty.us/CaseD...D=GD-13-009348

I would think that this will be pending for some time. I'd imagine it will take some more time for discovery, then likely either settle independently or through a mediator.