As for the parents, I don't know how neglectful they may or may not be. As someone who now deals with 3 granddaughters, 2, 2 1/2 and 3 years old, respectively, I know how quickly they can get away from you and get in situations that could be harmful. It only takes a couple of seconds sometimes. Even the most diligent parent can find themselves in that situation.

 

If someone can't handle the number of kids they have with them in public, they shouldn't have that many kids with them in public. It's really that simple.

 

No I don't have kids. You don't need to have kids to figure that out. It's common sense.

 

I know plenty of parents who have multiple kids who would NEVER let this happen. I'm sure everyone else does too.

So you believe the safety inspections cover every possible way for a child to enter? Doesn't this case actually prove that inspections are not fullproof?

 

It's actually the inspectors fault. Your illogical thinking and comprehending are putting the blame on everything except the parents, who might I add, have a LENGTHY criminal history including negligence for Ms Gregg. But keep believing you're the only one that's right.

Edited May 31, 201610 yr by NKYknowitall

If someone can't handle the number of kids they have with them in public, they shouldn't have that many kids with them in public. It's really that simple.

 

No I don't have kids. You don't need to have kids to figure that out. It's common sense.

 

I know plenty of parents who have multiple kids who would NEVER let this happen. I'm sure everyone else does too.

 

Oh Deuce...wait till you have a couple of rug rats running around and you just might change your opinion a little. I didn't have my own kids either, helped my gf raise her two youngest daughters but they were already middle school age...but now I am "Popi" to their three daughters who are all 3 yo and younger, and let me tell you, one of them can be a handful, two can run you ragged...and having all three, well I just don't know how some do it. If you think a diligent parent can't find themselves in a bad spot with their kid then you are just very inexperienced and unknowing in that arena, as I was for most of my years but am learning now.

 

Now with all that said, that's not to say this particular parent WASN'T negligent in this situation. But the event just in and of itself with what little we know about it doesn't in my mind specifically point to a bad, neglectful parent, though it COULD very well turn out to be part of the issue with the event.

It's actually the inspectors fault. Your illogical thinking and comprehending are putting the blame on everything except the parents, who might I add, have a LENGTHY criminal history including negligence for Ms Gregg. But keep believing you're the only one that's right.

 

I'm not sure if you fully understand the meaning of the world "culpable." That plus you not reading my posts makes it quite difficult to have an intelligent discussion.

I used to be so against people putting leashes on their children but some kids really need them. This child seems to fit that category. If you have a child that is inquisitive and frequently wanders away, get one.

I'm not sure if you fully understand the meaning of the world "culpable." That plus you not reading my posts makes it quite difficult to have an intelligent discussion.

 

LOL, there it is! I was wondering how long it was going to take before that phrase was brought out in this thread.

LOL, there it is! I was wondering how long it was going to take before that phrase was brought out in this thread.

 

I should have broken it out earlier. Can't imagine why it's so hard to understand that multiple parties share blame here.

If the woman already has a criminal history that includes negligence, that pretty much seals the deal for me.

I should have broken it out earlier. Can't imagine why it's so hard to understand that multiple parties share blame here.

 

Probably because the child entered a restricted area, child doesnt enter area, there is no issue, therefor it can be perceived that blame faults back to the child and those responsible for said child.

If the woman already has a criminal history that includes negligence, that pretty much seals the deal for me.

 

Something about a daycare?

I should have broken it out earlier. Can't imagine why it's so hard to understand that multiple parties share blame here.

 

Which party do you think shares the most blame?

Probably because the child entered a restricted area, child doesnt enter area, there is no issue, therefor it can be perceived that blame faults back to the child and those responsible for said child.

 

Sometimes I have to go to the absurd to prove a point. Looks like it's time.

 

Zoo has rattlesnakes behind a 12-inch wall with a sign that says "DO NOT ENTER - RESTRICTED AREA."

 

I think we can all agree that such a sign wouldn't be sufficient, correct? So if we can agree on that we can then say there's a line somewhere as to whether enough precautions are in place.

 

I'll say once again that the fact a 4 yr old child was able to get to the bottom without much effort and with no help from an adult makes that debate pretty easy.

Which party do you think shares the most blame?

 

How would I know? How would anyone know?

Probably because the child entered a restricted area, child doesnt enter area, there is no issue, therefor it can be perceived that blame faults back to the child and those responsible for said child.

 

Exactly. The only reason anything occurred is because the child and those responsible for him failed to adhere to park policy. That, IMO, should completely negate any liability on the zoo's part. They have signs all over the zoo about not standing on railings, not entering exhibits, etc. If someone disobeys those, the zoo shouldn't be held liable IMO.

How would I know? How would anyone know?

 

Well you have posted pretty frequently in the thread, so I figured that you would at least have opinion. Clearly no one knows which party shares an exact percentage of the blame. I was just wondering what your opinion was.