Remember the Pittsburgh Zoo example of retarded parenting?

So you still aren't answering my question.

In your scenarion, yes the father berkeleyed up. You want to break the law and ignore a cross walk on your own, do it. But you got a child in tow you better be paying more attention. That's just poor parenting.

JoeyM wrote:

This thread needs to get the Fort Knox treatment.

In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid:

Nah, it just needs people pulling their heads out of each others asses.....

So here is the question to ask, what is a "Reasonable" barrier?

I don't want to hear any more "idiot proofing the world" or "Well, we're saying these other people said they heard others saying it was a bad idea" things.....and knock off the trolling.

yamaha wrote: So here is the question to ask, what is a "Reasonable" barrier?

If it was built in the last 20 years or so, the International Building Code says it needs to be a minimum of 42" high with pickets or other barrier below the railing that will reject passing a 4" diameter sphere.

That seems pretty reasonable to me, and from what I have seen of the pictures, the guard rail they had met that criteria.

Datsun1500 wrote: In the zoos case you can argue that both are at fault. The Mother for losing control of the child, and the zoo for not having a better enclosure. If you charge the zoo with negligence and make them pay a penalty, it's also fair to charge the mother with negligence. It's not fair to only charge the zoo, that's what is happening here.

This is what I've been trying to say all along. Both parties played a role in the child death. IIRC I even said that in the first thread. IMO the police, through not charging her helped make her feel she had no fault in the accident so it must all be the zoo's fault.

So she AND the zoo can both sue the police! Awesome! Everybody wins!

fine. I was trying to get people to shut up, but I'll jump back into the fray. An ordinary wooden railing with closely spaced slats or mesh should be sufficient protection.

In some places, Gatorland adds a metal catch fence

If you place yourself in harm's way when those barriers are in place, you made an effort to do so.

Lol I don't think anybody should sue anybody, it was after all an accident. If she isn't going to be charged with endangerment or involuntary manslaughter, she shouldn't be able to sue the zoo.

Datsun1500 wrote:

moparman76_69 wrote: If she isn't going to be charged with endangerment or involuntary manslaughter, she shouldn't be able to sue the zoo.

I am pretty sure that is what most people said in the original post. Edit: Here it is http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/sometimes-stupid-hurts-other-people/56646/page1/

Datsun, holy hell.....I seriously looked and looked before starting this thread.....+1 for finding it

yamaha wrote: I'm not thrilled to see a child killed due to this and I'm not thrilled to see taxpayers forced to foot the lifetime bill for this woman. Personally, I think she has been punished.......however, if she ever attempted to sue the zoo over wrongful death, then I'd have to say feed HER to the wild dogs.

This was pretty much my sentiment over the whole thing.....I don't think there is anything that angers me more than frivolous lawsuits.

Yeah, kind of reminds me of the parents who lost their daughter in a street-racing incident a few years ago. Tragic, horrible, sad... but they wanted to ban all forms of racing after that. No. Looking after ourselves is our own responsibility. Unless you're not capable – in which case it's the responsibility of your legal guardian, or parent.

If you're talking about Cynthia Ranyak, she didn't want to ban racing. She wanted to tax it and use the money for anti-street-racing education. You can read her words, unfiltered, in our forum here. She joined up and participated in that thread. (Username Neon18 )

JoeyM wrote: If you're talking about Cynthia Ranyak, she didn't want to ban racing. She wanted to tax it and use the money for anti-street-racing education. You can read her words, unfiltered, in our forum here. She joined up and trolled on an epic scale, the likes of which has yet to be surpassed

ftfy

Help! Help! Someone please refer me to a good attorney. My kids were swimming last night in our pool. It was fairly chilly out, so they were pretty cold when they got out. I couldn't find a clean towel to wrap around them. My poor son was so cold, his lips were blue. I wanted to warm him up quickly. So I put him in our clothes dryer. He broke his arm, both his legs and three ribs. There was no warning on the dryer that children should not be placed inside, and the opening was big enough for him to fit in, so I figured it was OK. I'm going to sue because they need to make the opening smaller so that little kids can't be put inside by their loving, thoughtful, careful and protective parents....

Sigh....

I talked with my friend from Pittsburgh who I mentioned earlier. He said he'd been to the zoo numerous times with his daughter. He never felt like they were in danger at the viewing platform. His recollection is that there were posted warnings to not put your children on the railing (...and that he never had seen it happen during his visits.)

In reply to Klayfish:

I'm not sure if I should laugh my behind off or if I should scowl....

yamaha wrote: In reply to Klayfish: I'm not sure if I should laugh my behind off or if I should scowl....

Laugh.... knowing that is merely a matter of time before it happens.

In reply to JoeyM:

i was at this exhibit many times i grew up in the burgh and go everyweek and have spent so much time at the zoo working on it and visiting. the CEO of the Zoo has said there was no signs and that they were aware of parents picking kids up. a employee is the star witness for the family he stated he warned his boss about the danger. if you watch all the interviews you see this people saying this to the camera and one witness says she felt lucky that she was just at the rail with her child doing the same thing.

as far as money if they win any its going to a charity they started right after the death of their child

Maddox Derkosh's parents launch Trucks for Maddox charity

Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/local/allegheny/maddox-derkoshs-parents-launch-trucks-for-maddox-charity/-/10927008/20057028/-/13l0123z/-/index.html#ixzz2VT5Hwnqa

I looked in on this thread, only to realize that I'm still giving exactly zero berkeleys about any of it.

Margie

In reply to Datsun1500: Yes she does she made a mistake that she has to live with for the rest of her life. This does not make her a bad parent or that she did not care about her child but i also feel the zoo made a bigger mistake by not doing anything......as far as the lawsuit i think the family is trying to bring to light that areas exist where things like this can can happen

This whole thing is so much like the woman who ran into the fountain while texting and then tried to sue the mall that it's just not funny.

But what will happen is the zoo's insurance company will pay some blood money to make her go away and the insurance company will then tell other zoos they have to make their exhibits idiot proof or they won't insure them.

And the segment of the population which tries to use their brain and accepts responsibility for their own actions will have to deal with yet another layer of stupidity insulation.

Somebody mentioned putting kids in the dryer.

Easy with that chainsaw there, bud.

Things like this are due to idiots using their screwups like a lottery ticket. I get a little sick of it.

cutter67 wrote: In reply to Datsun1500: Yes she does she made a mistake that she has to live with for the rest of her life. This does not make her a bad parent or that she did not care about her child but i also feel the zoo made a bigger mistake by not doing anything......as far as the lawsuit i think the family is trying to bring to light that areas exist where things like this can can happen

So it's the zoo's fault she put Maddox in harm's way?

Maybe the kid did it because his name was maddox.