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?

 

This goes back to what I said earlier... The zoos exhibits are built to meet certain specifications that deem them safe. If the exhibits meet that standard, why would the zoo do anything different? Why cater to one group of people and not another?

 

So to answer, no, I don't agree with that statement, because the exhibit is safe. A 40 year track record proves that.

This goes back to what I said earlier... The zoos exhibits are built to meet certain specifications that deem them safe. If the exhibits meet that standard, why would the zoo do anything different? Why cater to one group of people and not another?

 

So to answer, no, I don't agree with that statement, because the exhibit is safe. A 40 year track record proves that.

 

Are zoos not responsible for the safety of their patrons and animals? Both the toddler and the gorilla were failed. I believe multiple parties share the responsibility of this failure.

Are zoos not responsible for the safety of their patrons and animals? Both the toddler and the gorilla were failed. I believe multiple parties share the responsibility of this failure.

 

Is it not a parents responsibility to protect their child?

 

I agree that both were failed. We disagree on who failed them. I just don't see the zoo being at fault in this case.

This goes back to what I said earlier... The zoos exhibits are built to meet certain specifications that deem them safe. If the exhibits meet that standard, why would the zoo do anything different? Why cater to one group of people and not another?

 

So to answer, no, I don't agree with that statement, because the exhibit is safe. A 40 year track record proves that.

1.6 Million visits a year at that zoo and no incidents in 38 years. That's a lot of people not jumping into the gorilla exhibit. Both parties are at fault, it's a matter of who is more responsible I guess. Good chance it's up to the court to decide.

Is it not a parents responsibility to protect their child?

 

I agree that both were failed. We disagree on who failed them. I just don't see the zoo being at fault in this case.

I agree to point. The parent should be responsible. However, when visiting a zoo "my toddler can breach a gorilla exhibit in minutes" shouldn't be a concern...

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

 

I saw that this morning. I usually love Fox, but I thought this was a cheap shot. I took my kids to the zoo by myself all the time. No doubt if he was there he would have been criticized as some kind of irresponsible criminal not paying attention.

Somebody posted the back of an admission ticket to the zoo but I can't find it right now. It has all the legalese about entering the park at your own risk and the zoo not liable if you do not follow rules, procedures, etc. By entering the park, you agree to not hold the zoo liable.

 

Is this enough to protect the zoo in a lawsuit? I assume it's not.

This goes back to what I said earlier... The zoos exhibits are built to meet certain specifications that deem them safe. If the exhibits meet that standard, why would the zoo do anything different? Why cater to one group of people and not another?

 

So to answer, no, I don't agree with that statement, because the exhibit is safe. A 40 year track record proves that.

 

Let me shift from public safety to employee safety for a second to make a point. So, construction worker, walks steel for 30 years, sometimes depending on the project he might be 300-400 feet off the ground. He has never fallen...and has never worn fall protection as required by standard. Is he safe?

 

And I hear the very same arguments at workplaces all the time. "Well I've done it like that all my life and never cut my finger off". "That machine has never had a guard on it for 25 years and no one has ever gotten hurt". Lack of an event doesn't necessarily mean everything is ok.

Somebody posted the back of an admission ticket to the zoo but I can't find it right now. It has all the legalese about entering the park at your own risk and the zoo not liable if you do not follow rules, procedures, etc. By entering the park, you agree to not hold the zoo liable.

 

Is this enough to protect the zoo in a lawsuit? I assume it's not.

 

Full Ticket Disclaimer

 

No Rainchecks / No Refunds

 

Use of this ticket constitutes acceptance of the terms and conditions set forth on this ticket. The person using this ticket grants the Zoological Society of Cincinnati (the “Zoo”) permission to use his or her image, or that of his/her children, in advertising, publicity and other promotions without payment or compensation to holder. By using this ticket, the person using it voluntarily assumes all risk of personal injury (including but not limited to death) and loss of property, by accident or otherwise, incidental to attending the Zoo and using its rides, attractions and facilities, and agrees that the Zoo, its directors, officers, employees, and agents are not responsible for and shall not be liable for any such injuries or losses, no matter how caused. This ticket evidences a revocable license to enter the Zoo’s property, and this license may be revoked (and the holder ejected from the Zoo’s property) at the sole discretion of the Zoo, without refund, if misused or if the holder fails to abide by the policies, rules or regulations of the Zoo. Such policies, among other things, prohibit the possession and/or use of controlled substances and intoxicants on Zoo property. Park hours, prices, policies, and programs are all subject to change without notice. This ticket is non-refundable, non-exchangeable, and non-replaceable if lost or stolen. Unauthorized resale of this ticket is prohibited. Fees for parking, food, merchandise, pay-per-ride attractions, and special concerts and events are not included. Buy tickets…

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.

 

 

Right, but that assumes that the building is going to be used in a manner consistent with its the designers intentions.

 

I am not in the architecture business, so i don't know how their ratings go, but in the industrial piping business, if a customer uses equipment, or runs a higher pressure than the system is rated for, the liability is on the customer for failing to heed the rated pressure.

 

If I install a water line rated for 125 psi, and the customer decided he wants to run that line with 200 psi, the line is going to fail. Who is responsible? Technically, there is nothing preventing the customer from being able to run a higher pressure through the system, other than a clearly marked rating. If the customer ignores the rating, then they assume all liability for its inevitable failure.

 

If the child had acknowledged and adhered to the numerous signs and safety barriers that were present, he wouldn't have ended up in the situation he was in. But, because the child is only 4, the responsibility falls on the parent.

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

 

It's still the fault of the zoo apparently

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.

 

You're making too much sense for some to understand

This might be a more applicable example:

 

If you jump a construction fence, which is clearly labelled "no trespassing" and are injured while inside the construction zone, who is at fault? Is it the construction company, for not preventing ever possible way a person might be able to enter into the construction zone? Or is it the person who illegally came onto the property, ignoring all "no trespassing" signs, and got hurt as a result of their actions?

Full Ticket Disclaimer

 

No Rainchecks / No Refunds

 

Use of this ticket constitutes acceptance of the terms and conditions set forth on this ticket. The person using this ticket grants the Zoological Society of Cincinnati (the “Zoo”) permission to use his or her image, or that of his/her children, in advertising, publicity and other promotions without payment or compensation to holder. By using this ticket, the person using it voluntarily assumes all risk of personal injury (including but not limited to death) and loss of property, by accident or otherwise, incidental to attending the Zoo and using its rides, attractions and facilities, and agrees that the Zoo, its directors, officers, employees, and agents are not responsible for and shall not be liable for any such injuries or losses, no matter how caused. This ticket evidences a revocable license to enter the Zoo’s property, and this license may be revoked (and the holder ejected from the Zoo’s property) at the sole discretion of the Zoo, without refund, if misused or if the holder fails to abide by the policies, rules or regulations of the Zoo. Such policies, among other things, prohibit the possession and/or use of controlled substances and intoxicants on Zoo property. Park hours, prices, policies, and programs are all subject to change without notice. This ticket is non-refundable, non-exchangeable, and non-replaceable if lost or stolen. Unauthorized resale of this ticket is prohibited. Fees for parking, food, merchandise, pay-per-ride attractions, and special concerts and events are not included. Buy tickets…

 

The bolded says all you need to know.

This might be a more applicable example:

 

If you jump a construction fence, which is clearly labelled "no trespassing" and are injured while inside the construction zone, who is at fault? Is it the construction company, for not preventing ever possible way a person might be able to enter into the construction zone? Or is it the person who illegally came onto the property, ignoring all "no trespassing" signs, and got hurt as a result of their actions?

 

Common sense says the person who trespassed. In this situation, clearly the zoo is at fault.