Parents of Maddox Derkosh Suing Pittsburgh Zoo (Penn: closing, wage)

[Velvet Jones]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

Your inability to grasp the concept of liability doesn't render it invalid. Regardless of the attempts of yourself and others to dehumanize the Derkosh family make no mistake she was absolutely justified in pursuing litigation against the zoo, and probably just made the park a whole lot safer for the rest of us.

Don't you DARE act like you speak for me or anyone else. Your ideals are what have helped destroy this country. Oh, and your concept of liability is just that, yours. In legal terms liability come down to whatever a weasel lawyer can convince a jury of. There is virtually no set legal standard.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by UKyank

The case came to a settlement agreement today; unfortunately the terms are confidential so no one knows how much of a payoff the family got.

When they first filed this lawsuit, I said they'd settle out of court. It was a money grab. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

...and probably just made the park a whole lot safer for the rest of us.

Settling out of court doesn't make parks safer. Settlements happen all the time without anything changing. It doesn't set a president. All it does is give them money.

[charisb]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

Actually the counter argument is that the zoo has a legal responsibility to protect its guests...even from themselves. Also the zoo knew that people were putting their kids on the railing in a similar manner yeras prior to Maddox being killed. It was a common occurrence, they refused to make the exhibit safer (which again they are legally obligated to do).

It is impossible to protect people who make terrible decisions from themselves. Everyone knows railings aren't meant to be stood on, especially with a toddler who has little muscle control, even more so when you are standing over wild animals! Somehow the zoo managed to function 116 years with anyone dying during a visit.
I understand feeling sympathetic toward the family; I do not understand supporting this baseless lawsuit.
I feel bad for the zoo in all of this and I miss the painted dogs exhibit.

[charisb]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

Illustrates that despite the resurgence of more advanced tech industries and a much more educated workforce this city is still very much part of Pennsyltucky.

If anything seems "Pennsyltucky" it's your attitude that someone should do something incredibly stupid and then look for a pay day.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

Niagara falls is not a business.

But lets assume it is for a moment. If Niagara falls repeatedly sees people putting their kids on the railing then they have a responsibility to build a better barrier. Should it result in a lawsuit? If Niagara falls was as negligent as the zoo was in refusing to address a potential safety problem that they were repeatedly warned about: absolutely. Try not to let that last bit go over your head. The zoo decided on multiple occasions that the cost of a dozen feet of screening/fencing/plexiglass was too much to bear to safeguard against the numerous warning of potential danger at that particular exhibit. The zoo prioritizes cost over safety.

Your inability to grasp the concept of liability doesn't render it invalid. Regardless of the attempts of yourself and others to dehumanize the Derkosh family make no mistake she was absolutely justified in pursuing litigation against the zoo, and probably just made the park a whole lot safer for the rest of us.

I was unaware that you held a law degree

[UKyank]

The only positive from this is that a few pittsburgh law firms turned down the chance at this money grab out respect for the zoos mission (and terrible pr) over a bogus quick buck lawsuit, unfortunately this firm out of Philly could have cared less.

It's a sad commentary overall that many people get undeserved money over the simple fact that insurance carriers will always settle a case based on cost analysis rather then merit. This would have been an expensive case to litigate - lots of discovery; many expert witnesses, & multiple days of trial, etc. & their insurer decided it would be cheaper to settle for x amount & admit no guilt rather then proceed.
The parents attorneys likewise presumably doubted their chances of winning & likewise jumped at the settlement offer.

They simply profited off of our broken litigation system like millions of others do every year & the rest of us lose.

[youngabe]

Originally Posted by charisb

If anything seems "Pennsyltucky" it's your attitude that someone should do something incredibly stupid and then look for a pay day.

Thank you. When I saw the Pennsyltucky comment, the poster was far-reaching. So, because people don't agree with this, everyone is automatically an uneducated hick? I think not. Every single area in this country, there would be strong feelings related to something like this.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

They have a legal responsibility to protect their guests..even from their own absent mindedness. The zoo CHOSE not to.

And how far do you feel establishments need to idiot proof the people? We have to live with trains blowing their horns because people don't understand what a train track is. Do you want all exhibits covered in glass? See everything through a huge fence instead of some open air? Should the ticket prices increase by twofold because we need to help all idiots not get hurt or killed? How many people are killed in cars a year? We seem to not be able to idiot proof drivers very well. Where does it end? We try and dumb down society to the point we are no doubt going to all be buffoons. We shift blame because of accidents and the world has to pay for someone's mistake. How many years and how many people saw that exhibit before this mistake by the mother was made? We now can't see the dogs, due to this. Isn't that enough? They removed them. Maybe we better just have a bird exhibit there for safety. I think this idiot proofing needs to stop. We can't always ALL have to pay for someone's mistake. Believe it or not, mistakes will ALWAYS be made and what we get are massive overreactions. In this case we now can't see the painted dogs, we see nothing. What a wonderful education we will get once we dumb down everything because of a few people that make mistakes.

[SlurmsMcKenzie]

I don't think this argument will ever come to a resolution. It saddens me every time I think about it that this poor boy died in such a manner.

[villageidiot1]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

If nothing else the hundreds of negative comments and thousands of associated "likes" of those comments on Facebook in media articles related to this settlement should let the Derkosh family know that they are now pariahs in Greater Pittsburgh for "cashing in" on being careless and inattentive. They'll probably take the money and run.

I remember looking at the lawsuit that was filed and I was surprised they were sueing for such a small amount. I doubt they walked away with very much cash.

Originally Posted by Flamingo13

Settlement should have been: they pay their own legal bills for a frivolous lawsuit!

If the judge determined that it was a frivolous lawsuit, it would have been tossed out and they would've paid both court costs and the legal costs of the zoo.

Originally Posted by Velvet Jones

Don't you DARE act like you speak for me or anyone else. Your ideals are what have helped destroy this country. Oh, and your concept of liability is just that, yours. In legal terms liability come down to whatever a weasel lawyer can convince a jury of. There is virtually no set legal standard.

I wasn't aware that this country had been destroyed. There are many potential liability suits that "weasel lawyers" can take. They choose they ones with the best chance of winning.

Originally Posted by Hopes

When they first filed this lawsuit, I said they'd settle out of court. It was a money grab. Nothing more.

Settling out of court doesn't make parks safer. Settlements happen all the time without anything changing. It doesn't set a president. All it does is give them money.

Both our legal and civil systems are designed to settle suits out of court. How does that make it a money grab?

Originally Posted by charisb

It is impossible to protect people who make terrible decisions from themselves. Everyone knows railings aren't meant to be stood on, especially with a toddler who has little muscle control, even more so when you are standing over wild animals! Somehow the zoo managed to function 116 years with anyone dying during a visit.
I understand feeling sympathetic toward the family; I do not understand supporting this baseless lawsuit.
I feel bad for the zoo in all of this and I miss the painted dogs exhibit.

Civil courts are designed to determine who was negligent. In countries where the court system doesn't work, you have mob rule.

Originally Posted by UKyank

The only positive from this is that a few pittsburgh law firms turned down the chance at this money grab out respect for the zoos mission (and terrible pr) over a bogus quick buck lawsuit, unfortunately this firm out of Philly could have cared less.

It's a sad commentary overall that many people get undeserved money over the simple fact that insurance carriers will always settle a case based on cost analysis rather then merit. This would have been an expensive case to litigate - lots of discovery; many expert witnesses, & multiple days of trial, etc. & their insurer decided it would be cheaper to settle for x amount & admit no guilt rather then proceed.
The parents attorneys likewise presumably doubted their chances of winning & likewise jumped at the settlement offer.

They simply profited off of our broken litigation system like millions of others do every year & the rest of us lose.

All of this could possibly be true except for the fact the Derkosh family was not suing for very much money.

Originally Posted by h_curtis

And how far do you feel establishments need to idiot proof the people? We have to live with trains blowing their horns because people don't understand what a train track is. Do you want all exhibits covered in glass? See everything through a huge fence instead of some open air? Should the ticket prices increase by twofold because we need to help all idiots not get hurt or killed? How many people are killed in cars a year? We seem to not be able to idiot proof drivers very well. Where does it end? We try and dumb down society to the point we are no doubt going to all be buffoons. We shift blame because of accidents and the world has to pay for someone's mistake. How many years and how many people saw that exhibit before this mistake by the mother was made? We now can't see the dogs, due to this. Isn't that enough? They removed them. Maybe we better just have a bird exhibit there for safety. I think this idiot proofing needs to stop. We can't always ALL have to pay for someone's mistake. Believe it or not, mistakes will ALWAYS be made and what we get are massive overreactions. In this case we now can't see the painted dogs, we see nothing. What a wonderful education we will get once we dumb down everything because of a few people that make mistakes.

So it is OK if only a few children die? How many childen would have to die before it would be necessary to idiot proof an exhibit like this?

Sometimes it is inconvenient to have to idiot proof things. I remember when I didn't have to worry about getting a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. I remember when many pools had diving boards and some even had a high dive. Now try to find one. Diving boards were removed because the pool owners couldn't idiot proof them. So out society has determined that everything must be idiot proof or you can be held liable if an idiot injures himself.

It now costs all skiers more money for lift tickets because of the insurance ski resort owners must pay because of idiots who run into trees and off cliffs in places they shouldn't be skiing.