- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Zoo Kills Gorilla to Protect Small Child in Enclosure
Posted on 5/31/16 at 9:35 am to Deactived
Posted on 5/31/16 at 9:35 am to Deactived
quote:
I also sympathize with the zoo though. If you make the enclosures completely fool proof, people will complain that they look like prisons. You try to please the public by making it as natural as can be and something like this happens.
I do too. It is a tragic situation all around. About the only way it could have been worse is if the gorilla was tranquilized, killed the kid in a rage, and then had to be put down regardless. That is a route that some have advocated though, because as we know, gorillas>children.
0
Posted on 5/31/16 at 9:35 am to Deactived
quote:Exactly so every once in a blue moon something crazy is going to happen. I, personally, don't see it as anyone's fault unless she was helping the kid get in or something.
I also sympathize with the zoo though. If you make the enclosures completely fool proof, people will complain that they look like prisons. You try to please the public by making it as natural as can be and something like this happens.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 9:37 am to Winkface
quote:
humans>animals
You cannot make this argument because humans are animals.
humans = animals.
You will have to write a conditional statement for your logic to make sense.
-while (humans == animals);
-----do laws_of_nature;
-else (humans_watching_animals);
-----if humans watching animals in enclosure, then humans > animals;
-----else if animals watching humans in outdoors, then humans < animals;
-----else human in an animal suit;
-----------output print ("You are at a furry party");
This post was edited on 5/31/16 at 9:38 am
Posted on 5/31/16 at 9:37 am to Pectus
Posted on 5/31/16 at 9:40 am to AlwysATgr
What are the chances that somebody would intentionally "accidentally" having their child fall into a zoo animal exhibit in the hopes that an animal would harm the child and the resulted lawsuit would generate a pleasant, prosperous AND famous lifestyle for the "bereaved" parents?
Nobody would ever do such a thing, right? That's what I'm thinking -- that would never happen.
Nobody would ever do such a thing, right? That's what I'm thinking -- that would never happen.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 9:41 am to SabiDojo
quote:
The negligence of the parents is almost irrelevant to me because of the nature of the risk. If you're going to start a zoo, you anticipate risk, ESPECIALLY the risk of unsupervised children.
Agree to disagree on this one. If this is a comparative negligence state, the zoo's attorney's will have a very strong argument on the parents' negligence. Especially if it took some work for the child to get in. I would bet my life that the parents would be hit with comparative negligence in any litigation.
Also, I'm not sure this is a case of strict liability. Was there some type of damage to the enclosure that the zoo had never been made aware of? It's been opened a long time, never happened before? Finally, what exactly are the monetary damages suffered by the child and parents?
Posted on 5/31/16 at 9:54 am to Festus
quote:
Agree to disagree on this one. If this is a comparative negligence state, the zoo's attorney's will have a very strong argument on the parents' negligence. Especially if it took some work for the child to get in. I would bet my life that the parents would be hit with comparative negligence in any litigation.
Apparently it was a two-foot tall wooden fence with spacing in between, 4 feet of green grass, then a 15-foot drop. From what I saw on television, not only was it not difficult for the child to get in, but the child couldn't appreciate how little space he had between the fence and the drop off.
quote:
Also, I'm not sure this is a case of strict liability.
It doesn't have to be. I said the negligence of the parents is almost irrelevant.
quote:
It's been opened a long time, never happened before?
Doesn't really matter if it has never happened before.
quote:
Finally, what exactly are the monetary damages suffered by the child and parents?
I was responding to the "negligence of the parents" as the paramount consideration, which I think is ridiculous. What are the damages? I don't know. I don't know if the boy suffered any broken bones, if he will need counseling, or whatever.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 10:19 am to SabiDojo
One thing that is for certain is that, ironically, the child's family is going to sue the crap out of the zoo and WIN. Make no mistake, the family will walk away with A LOT of money over this. Negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress come to mind.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 10:21 am to Jim Smith
quote:
One thing that is for certain is that, ironically, the child's family is going to sue the crap out of the zoo
I do have issues with this
if this happened to me, I would just be happy to have my kid back alive
no way I would sue the zoo
Posted on 5/31/16 at 10:24 am to Salmon
quote:
I do have issues with this
if this happened to me, I would just be happy to have my kid back alive
no way I would sue the zoo
Be that as it may, I guarantee you that these parents will file suit and they will walk away with a lot a lot of money. Plaintiff's attorneys are knocking their door down right now. While I think it's totally ridiculous, as an attorney I can see it absolutely happening.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 10:24 am to Jim Smith
quote:
Make no mistake, the family will walk away with A LOT of money over this.
If the kid died, or suffered life changing injuries? Yes.
But from what I've read, he hasn't. What do you define as A LOT? And how do you think these parents can run up damages with no substantial injuries?
Sincerely, I'm curious. Give me a ball park number, and where you came up with it.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 10:26 am to Festus
WGAF the gorilla was 17 anyway which is like 120 in gorilla years id say he was probably ready to go
Posted on 5/31/16 at 10:26 am to Festus
I haven't read anything on the boy's injuries, but he did fall 15 feet onto concrete. Then, he was dragged by a 400 pound make gorilla. If the boy wasn't injured, that's nothing short of a miracle.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 10:27 am to Festus
quote:article said he suffered a concussion. That's worth a quick settlement of at least $100K depending on how much bad publicity you can drum up under the table.
If the kid died, or suffered life changing injuries? Yes.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 10:28 am to Womski
quote:
article said he suffered a concussion
Oh shite. That's terrible.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 10:30 am to SabiDojo
I never said he wasn't injured. I'm asking about the A LOT of money. Injuries have levels. I'm trying to determine the injuries that support, as someone has mentioned, the parents being able to subsequently buy the zoo.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 10:30 am to Womski
quote:
That's worth a quick settlement of at least $100K depending on how much bad publicity you can drum up under the table.
Seems like the parents are getting most of the bad publicity.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 10:38 am to Womski
quote:
Womski
quote:
That's worth a quick settlement of at least $100K depending on how much bad publicity you can drum up under the table.
Womski, you literally are the person that declared they will be able to buy the zoo. You think this zoo can be purchased for $100K?
Posted on 5/31/16 at 10:46 am to Festus
quote:
If the kid died, or suffered life changing injuries? Yes.
But from what I've read, he hasn't. What do you define as A LOT? And how do you think these parents can run up damages with no substantial injuries?
Sincerely, I'm curious. Give me a ball park number, and where you came up with it.
Sure. The child doesn't have to have physical injuries for the parents to recover. However, I guarantee that it will be argued that the child somehow does have physical injuries. Whatever the case may be, the family will argue that they suffered emotional distress, as did the child.
The family may seek redress for survival injuries, medical costs (psychiatry, etc.), loss of consortium, mental anguish (PTSD, having to witness your child almost being killed by a freaking gorilla, etc.).
I'd say the could recover somewhere below $500k. While I'm not going to waste my time finding perfectly analogous jurisprudence, one case comes to mind. A seaman fell overboard and remained in ocean water for almost 20 hours before being rescued. He was awarded $250k for PTSD. Smith v. Tidewater Inc., 2004-0195. My point is, people DO recover for big chunks of money for mental anguish. Here, there are 3 people (if the father was there) that may have emotional distress claims.
Posted on 5/31/16 at 10:49 am to Jim Smith
quote:
Jim Smith
Sounds like you've done this before.
Page 17 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News