May 31, 201610 yr Which party do you think shares the most blame? Did you really expect him to give his opinion? You've been around for 5.5 years. You should know that's not his style. :lol2:
May 31, 201610 yr 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. If my four year old falls down the steps at the Yum Center and breaks his face, is it the Yum Center's fault for not having rails a four year old can use? Or is it my fault for not holding his hand?
May 31, 201610 yr 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.So...a zoo can let loose a cobra and it's ok as long as they have a sign saying "don't touch"? You can't honestly think a sign is enough, can you? I'm not saying the enclosure wasn't sufficient -- honestly I'm trying to stay out of this debate -- but just having warnings may not be enough.
May 31, 201610 yr So...a zoo can let loose a cobra and it's ok as long as they have a sign saying "don't touch"? You can't honestly think a sign is enough, can you? I'm not saying the enclosure wasn't sufficient -- honestly I'm trying to stay out of this debate -- but just having warnings may not be enough. No. A sign isn't enough. But multiple signs, a barrier of some sort, bushes, and a 12 foot moat are...
May 31, 201610 yr No. A sign isn't enough. But multiple signs, a barrier of some sort, bushes, and a 12 foot moat are... UKMF;s own words: 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.
May 31, 201610 yr So...a zoo can let loose a cobra and it's ok as long as they have a sign saying "don't touch"? You can't honestly think a sign is enough, can you? I'm not saying the enclosure wasn't sufficient -- honestly I'm trying to stay out of this debate -- but just having warnings may not be enough. Obviously if the zoo would release an animal into areas that the public is, there's a liability. I've been to the gorilla exhibit a ton. It would take serious effort, 4 year old or otherwise, to get into that enclosure. The public is protected from the animals at all times, unless they enter areas they aren't allowed in, such as the enclosure. They don't just have warnings. They have the enclosures, which provide more than adequate safety barrier between the public and all animals, with signs that also let them know to not enter restricted areas for their own safety.
May 31, 201610 yr We will probably never know the answer to a lot of these questions, but how did no one else see this kid and think he was up to no good and say something. How fast did he get from the people into the moat. Someone had to have seen him go over the railing and into the bushes.
May 31, 201610 yr So...a zoo can let loose a cobra and it's ok as long as they have a sign saying "don't touch"? You can't honestly think a sign is enough, can you? I'm not saying the enclosure wasn't sufficient -- honestly I'm trying to stay out of this debate -- but just having warnings may not be enough. You should let administrators of school systems know that signs aren't enough. :walk: Off topic, I know, but I saw an opportunity and I went with it.
May 31, 201610 yr Obviously if the zoo would release an animal into areas that the public is, there's a liability. I've been to the gorilla exhibit a ton. It would take serious effort, 4 year old or otherwise, to get into that enclosure. The public is protected from the animals at all times, unless they enter areas they aren't allowed in, such as the enclosure. They don't just have warnings. They have the enclosures, which provide more than adequate safety barrier between the public and all animals, with signs that also let them know to not enter restricted areas for their own safety. But that's not what you said: 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.
May 31, 201610 yr From cincinnati.com Man, I gotta say...from a public safety standpoint, that's a little thin to me if it's anywhere near accurate.
May 31, 201610 yr WHAT? Now I can see indirectly responsible, especially if a kid is older. But If, and I mean If the parents are responsible it's the parent that was there. I'll be understand if the prosecutor and agencies like CPS look into this and even decide not to pursue charges. Fox & Friends cites ‘rap sheet’ of black dad who wasn’t at zoo to blame him for gorilla’s death
May 31, 201610 yr 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. In a similar vein, would you agree with this statement? If someone can't keep a toddler out of their wild animal exhibits, they shouldn't have those wild animals displayed to the public?
May 31, 201610 yr Why is that illogical? If their safety procedures are up to current standards, then why would the zoo be held liable? Speaking from firsthand knowledge - the aspect of life safety is the sole responsibility of the designer. In buildings, life safety systems are the responsibility of th architect whose stamp is on the drawings, and although the local planners and the fire marshall reserve the right to review plans, provide comments and requirements on plans, and inspect for certificate of occupancy, they are NOT held responsible for any failures in life safety after the fact. In other words, they can require you to incorporate additional safety measures, they can tell you I'd you haven't designed it to their satisfaction, and they can inspect your property and tell you if it "passes or fails" their inspection, but even after they review you plans and inspect your property and give it a pass, it's still completely on you, the designer, if it fails to provide sufficient life safety.
May 31, 201610 yr Man, I gotta say...from a public safety standpoint, that's a little thin to me if it's anywhere near accurate. The only thing I can see changing is the ladder down into the water for the animals. Other that, I see absolutely no problem with it.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.