May 31, 201610 yr The bolded says all you need to know. Agree, but you know some lawyer will try to find an angle to sue the zoo. I'd bet she's already been to a lawyer or one has approached her.
May 31, 201610 yr Saw friends share this on Facebook from a "Support Michelle Gregg" group... "Good News Everybody!! Michelle met with her lawyer yesterday and he believes she has case against the zoo for negligent infliction of emotional distress. As an invitee, the zoo has a duty to make sure that monkey exhibits are childproof. It is obvious that the monkey enclosure was in fact not childproof and, by and through this failure of duty, the zoo is liable for all damages, including but not limited to: injuries sustained in the fall, witnessing the slaughter of the monkey and all the counseling required to ease the pain of the events. Fingers crossed."
May 31, 201610 yr Common sense says the person who trespassed. In this situation, clearly the zoo is at fault. Sometimes it seems like common sense is one of the least common things.
May 31, 201610 yr Saw friends share this on Facebook from a "Support Michelle Gregg" group... "Good News Everybody!! Michelle met with her lawyer yesterday and he believes she has case against the zoo for negligent infliction of emotional distress. As an invitee, the zoo has a duty to make sure that monkey exhibits are childproof. It is obvious that the monkey enclosure was in fact not childproof and, by and through this failure of duty, the zoo is liable for all damages, including but not limited to: injuries sustained in the fall, witnessing the slaughter of the monkey and all the counseling required to ease the pain of the events. Fingers crossed." Please. And my McDonald's coffee burned my mouth this morning. Guess I'm gonna sue them
May 31, 201610 yr Sometimes it seems like common sense is one of the least common things. Very rarely is it used. Oh well
May 31, 201610 yr Please. And my McDonald's coffee burned my mouth this morning. Guess I'm gonna sue them Well now it's appearing that may be a fake account. The other posts have things to do about "wet dogs" and random stuff.
May 31, 201610 yr My first clue should have been "monkey exhibits" when it was Gorilla World. I feel foolish now.
May 31, 201610 yr Well now it's appearing that may be a fake account. The other posts have things to do about "wet dogs" and random stuff. I've seen so many different things at this point that I don't know what to believe.
May 31, 201610 yr As soon as I saw this thread, I knew there would be a lawsuit. It's the American way.
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. Come on bud you're better than this, you just said let a snake loose in the zoo. Is that what happened here, no. A gorilla was in his exhibit, where humans were not supposed to go his exhibit.
May 31, 201610 yr 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. You didnt help your argument here at all, if anything you made it worse. If the snakes are behind a wall, in which they cant get out, and the only way for humans to get to them is to go into that restricted area, yeah the sign should be enough. Again, human goes go where they are not supposed to go, we have no issues here.
May 31, 201610 yr Let's come at this a different way. Forget a minute that it's a toddler that can't read signs and doesn't realize he will likely be tossed like a pile of dung. If this was an adult who did the same thing, we would have the same result. They would be forced to shoot the animal. Yes, the adult would be at fault but it doesn't bring back the animal. Doesn't the zoo owe it to their animals to make sure someone getting in the exhibit is impossible?
May 31, 201610 yr Zoo to file charges for child endangering after 2-year-old boy falls into cheetah exhibit | fox8.com
May 31, 201610 yr Let's come at this a different way. Forget a minute that it's a toddler that can't read signs and doesn't realize he will likely be tossed like a pile of dung. If this was an adult who did the same thing, we would have the same result. They would be forced to shoot the animal. Yes, the adult would be at fault but it doesn't bring back the animal. Doesn't the zoo owe it to their animals to make sure someone getting in the exhibit is impossible? :thumb: :thumb:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.