My first clue should have been "monkey exhibits" when it was Gorilla World. I feel foolish now.

 

You my friend are on a real hot streak lately.

Doesn't the zoo owe it to their animals to make sure someone getting in the exhibit is impossible?

 

youngest one loves the zoo. He just told me of the Cleveland incident. He than says. Clowns like this are going to ruin zoos for all of us. Society will sue, zoos will sue and the Only way we will be able to see animals will behind a huge wall of glass or stuffed in a museum.

The bolded says all you need to know.

 

I can't imagine that purchasing a ticket like this is anything near ironclad, though. I'm sure having that language printed on there is better than nothing, but that's not a whole lot more valid than a sign, in my opinion. There's no signature required, to the best of my knowledge. Also, do they offer translations of the disclaimer for non-English speakers/readers?

Can the gorillas sue, If they can use evolution as a theory then it's basically murder.

 

If that family sues after they got their kid back safe and then the way she thanked God, then go and sue. she should be ran out Of town.

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.

 

You're correct, the Zoo is responsible for ensuring that gorilla exhibit is being used as designed and that it is not overcrowded beyond the inspectors' designated capacity. Also, they are responsible for seeing that the designed requirements for all barriers are maintained. By law, those are all liabilities of the Zoo.

 

I'm curious looking at THIS picture of the gorilla exhibit if that guardrail meets current standards. I'm fairly certain it does not, seeing as the current edition of the International Building Code (which is the default standard adopted by the United States Access Board) states that "Open guards shall have balusters or ornamental patterns such that a 4-inch-diameter (102mm) sphere cannot pass through any opening up to a height of 34 inches (864mm)." That means that nothing larger than 4" in diameter should be able to pass through the guardrail below 34" in elevation. Obviously, that boy was larger than 4" around, and obviously, he got through the guardrail.

I read that the females responded to the zoo teams retreat call. I'm guessing the male was pretty quick to react. Any footage of the gorilla scaling the ladder?

 

I found it interesting that a 17 year old male isn't ready for reproduction.

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.

 

As a rule I try to not to make a fool of myself by stating who is to blame when I wasn't there nor have I watched any video to help me. Again, what would I base my answer off of?

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?

 

I'm certainly no attorney but unlike your example of the fence/construction company there is an expectation of safety at a zoo.

So we have a 3 foot wall and a couple of feet to crawl before you fall into the pit. I'm not sure if it takes much of an effort , even for a small child, to get to the bottom of the pit.

 

That also would seem to refute the argument put forth that "minutes passed." It wouldn't take but a few seconds.

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.

 

A 40 year track record proves nothing.

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.

 

Preach!!!!!

It's still the fault of the zoo apparently

 

The zoo, the parents and the inspectors are all at fault. I can't understand how this isn't the obvious answer. If a 4 year old kid can find a way to become face to face with a silverback gorilla then your exhibit is dangerous any way you want to slice it.

So we have a 3 foot wall and a couple of feet to crawl before you fall into the pit. I'm not sure if it takes much of an effort , even for a small child, to get to the bottom of the pit.

 

That also would seem to refute the argument put forth that "minutes passed." It wouldn't take but a few seconds.

 

What are you basing that off of? How do you know how fast the kid was moving? Were you there? maybe he got side tracked, and went to the cotton candy stand before doing a cannonball into the Gorilla Moat?

 

Because im fairly certain you will come back with the refusal to have an intelligent debate defense, i would like to clearly state that this was nothing more than me bringing attention to the fact that you claimed that it was a rule of yours not to give an opinion on an issue....and you followed up it by giving an opinion.

Zoo claims Gorilla had ties to Islamic State

Zoo claims Gorilla had ties to Islamic State

 

I would bet there are some people out there that think that story is real. :lol2: