Parents sue Pittsburgh zoo in mauling death of 2-year-old boy who fell into wild dog exhibit

As you can see the parents have sued even though it is the mother's fault her son is dead, and there were signs posted.  Dumb bitch.  I hate parents like this, they give good parents a bad name.

Parents sue Pittsburgh zoo in mauling death of 2-year-old boy who fell into wild dog exhibit

By Associated Press,May 23, 2013

PITTSBURGH — The parents of a 2-year-old boy who fell into a wild African dogs exhibit and was mauled to death last fall have sued the Pittsburgh zoo.

The lawsuit filed Thursday claims that officials had ample warning that parents routinely lifted children onto a rail overlooking the exhibit for a better view.

Jason and Elizabeth Derkosh seek unspecified damages in the Nov. 4 death of their son, Maddox. He fell from the wooden railing after his mother lifted him up to get a better look at the painted dogs.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-23/national/39465992_1_painted-dogs-pittsburgh-zoo-elizabeth-derkosh

 

[Sisteract]

Yep

Quoting Kaylawv2:

I think her lawsuit is ridiculous. Her negligence caused her child's death. I've been to this zoo many times, even though it is common sense,there are warning signs everywhere. I think she is looking for someone else to blame make herself feel better.

[GLWerth]

I totally disagree with her suing the zoo. It was her fault, plain and simple for putting her child up on that rail.

However, there were probably multiple people telling her to sue...when our daughter died, so many people said "sue the doctor, sue the hospital".

After a while, maybe it convinced her of what she wanted to believe, that she was not at fault for her child's death.

[cjsbmom]

I'm not so sure. The DA's office here found there was no cause to file charges against the zoo, so they will have a hard time proving in court that it was the zoo's fault. 

I am still angry with the zoo for closing the exhibit because of this. They closed it and sent all the dogs to other zoos. 

Quoting JoshRachelsMAMA:

I bet she's betting on the zoo settling.

Weapons grade jackahole parents.

Quoting cjsbmom:

I live here, and I totally disagree with them suing. As horrible as it must have been for that mother to watch her son being mauled to death, she bears responsibility for it because she lifted him above the railing in the first place. There are signs all over that exhibit that say do not stand or sit on the railing, etc., yet people routinely do it. She's not the first mother to put her child up on the railing like that. She's just the first one to lose her grip on him and have a tragedy of this nature occur. People fail to realize these are wild animals, whether they are in a zoo or not.

[Bookwormy]

The Pittsburgh Zoo is amazing! They don't need this bs. It's bad enough that this woman killed her child in their zoo & traumatized others doing it. Now she's blaming the zoo?!

[cjsbmom]

I could see if the exhibit was still open, them maybe suing to get the zoo to close the exhibit, but the exhibit and dogs already are gone. 

Quoting HappyMorgana:

First off, you want to get rich off of your dead child? THAT in ITSELF makes me angry. It's not going to bring your child back. What good is the cash? If one of my children died, whether it was my fault or not, the last thing I would be thinking is how much is my kid's life worth? That's first of all. I never understand people suing, unless it is the other person's fault and they don't have enough for the funeral. Even at that point I wouldn't sue, if I somehow allowed my children's life insurance to lapse, (they have Gerber Life), I would be asking family before I thought of calling a lawyer.

Beyond that, the lawsuit is completely crazy! There were signs telling people NOT to do EXACTLY what she did do. So she is at fault. The zoo is not at fault. The dogs just did what the dogs do in the wild. They are vicious animals and they do this. It is natural instinct. When the child fell in, the dogs didn't do anything "wrong" persay, they did exactly what was in their natures to do. They attacked. Something, as far as they were concerned, came into what they saw as "their terroritory" and did not have the ability to understand it was a small child in their pen.

Sounds to me like she cannot accept what she has done, and that this tragedy was no one else's fault but hers. I guess I can see that part of it. If she loved her son, she certainly doesn't want to acknowledge that she was at fault. But she has too, because she was, and there is no one else she can blame. She did something stupid and wrong and now her child is dead because of it.

Either that, or, (and I shudder at this), she only cares about getting a little cold hard cash out of her son's death.

I am hoping a judge tells her that this is her fault, not the zoo's, that there was ample warning, if she had bothered to read the signs or at the very least had some common sense. Someone needs to say it to her. And after that she needs some serious therapy, who wouldn't after causing the death of their young child?

[cjsbmom]

Yes, they did. Maybe the rest of us here should sue these people because the zoo closed that exhibit following this accident. Those dogs are rare and we should not have been forced to send them to other zoos to appease the family.

Quoting o0gone0o:

Didn't the zoo have to put down a dog or 2 that wouldn't back off?  If  so they should counter sue her for loss of the revenue and future revenue by the off spring that willno longer be created.

I've been to that zoo with my kids, The signs are very clearly posted every couple of feet. She's at fault for her sons death not the zoo. Its horrible and sad but its just not their fault.

[valhallaarwen]

 If the doctor did something wrong with your daughter's medication or treatment that's one thing.  But this woman put her child in danger on purpose and therefore she should not be able to sue.

Quoting GLWerth:

I totally disagree with her suing the zoo. It was her fault, plain and simple for putting her child up on that rail.

However, there were probably multiple people telling her to sue...when our daughter died, so many people said "sue the doctor, sue the hospital".

After a while, maybe it convinced her of what she wanted to believe, that she was not at fault for her child's death.

 

[valhallaarwen]

 I don't understand why she is suing if the DA found no cause, and actually there is no cause if this woman disregarded signs.  I don't feel sorry for her.  I don't understand why the zoo closed the exhibit.  Maybe the people of Pittsburgh should sue her for stupidity and neglect ofher child. 

Quoting cjsbmom:

I'm not so sure. The DA's office here found there was no cause to file charges against the zoo, so they will have a hard time proving in court that it was the zoo's fault. 

I am still angry with the zoo for closing the exhibit because of this. They closed it and sent all the dogs to other zoos. 

 

[GLWerth]

I don't think she should be able to sue, or rather, that the case should not go forward very far, but I was stating a possible reason she might go forward with it.

When my daughter died, the doctor wasn't there and didn't answer her page and my emergency c-section was delayed by half an hour. I could possibly have sued, but since it wouldn't have brought my child back, I saw no point. Then again, I blamed myself for it for a long, long time, because I wasn't aggressive enough with the doctors and nurses.

Grief and guilt can do strange things to people and make actions seem reasonable that wouldn't under normal circumstances.

Of course, it is still possible that this woman simply wants a payoff, but it won't bring her child back and probably won't bring her peace.

Quoting valhallaarwen:

 If the doctor did something wrong with your daughter's medication or treatment that's one thing.  But this woman put her child in danger on purpose and therefore she should not be able to sue.

Quoting GLWerth:

I totally disagree with her suing the zoo. It was her fault, plain and simple for putting her child up on that rail.

However, there were probably multiple people telling her to sue...when our daughter died, so many people said "sue the doctor, sue the hospital".

After a while, maybe it convinced her of what she wanted to believe, that she was not at fault for her child's death.

 

 

 

[valhallaarwen]

 Sorry about your daughter's death.  I didn't think you stated that she should sue btw.  I do think this woman is after money.

Quoting GLWerth:

I don't think she should be able to sue, or rather, that the case should not go forward very far, but I was stating a possible reason she might go forward with it.

When my daughter died, the doctor wasn't there and didn't answer her page and my emergency c-section was delayed by half an hour. I could possibly have sued, but since it wouldn't have brought my child back, I saw no point. Then again, I blamed myself for it for a long, long time, because I wasn't aggressive enough with the doctors and nurses.

Grief and guilt can do strange things to people and make actions seem reasonable that wouldn't under normal circumstances.

Of course, it is still possible that this woman simply wants a payoff, but it won't bring her child back and probably won't bring her peace.

Quoting valhallaarwen:

 If the doctor did something wrong with your daughter's medication or treatment that's one thing.  But this woman put her child in danger on purpose and therefore she should not be able to sue.

Quoting GLWerth:

I totally disagree with her suing the zoo. It was her fault, plain and simple for putting her child up on that rail.

However, there were probably multiple people telling her to sue...when our daughter died, so many people said "sue the doctor, sue the hospital".

After a while, maybe it convinced her of what she wanted to believe, that she was not at fault for her child's death.