Tragedy at the PGH Zoo

psteav wrote: Soo....exactly WHERE did it say she was suing the zoo? The way some of you guys hate on attorneys is crazy.

This part right here:

pinchvalve wrote: "The child may have believed there was a Plexiglas barrier as he appeared to lunge forward, the prosecutor said. Zappala said he was still investigating whether the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium might be culpable of negligence, manslaughter or endangering welfare of children because of the design of the exhibit."

If they are "investigating", odds are they will find something to litigate about, that is their job afterall.

DrBoost wrote:

Wally wrote:

DrBoost wrote: In my opinion, she was negligent. She did what she had to do to avoid the measures set in place to protect everyone. Should she be prosecuted? I don't think so. She didn't do what she did in order to hurt her child. But, she should in NO WAY be able to sue the zoo. If she does, I think the Zoo should remove all exibits and replace them with LCD tv's showing animals in their natural habitat.

Hell, I'm being sued by two people now and the bus I was driving wasn't even moving, and they weren't in it.

Details, we need details!!

I was waiting to make a right turn, another car was waiting to make a left. A third car tried to squeeze between us and took off her right side mirror on the left rear corner of my bus. Two of her passengers are suing for $8 million a piece for unspecified injuries.

Wally wrote:

DrBoost wrote:

Wally wrote:

DrBoost wrote: In my opinion, she was negligent. She did what she had to do to avoid the measures set in place to protect everyone. Should she be prosecuted? I don't think so. She didn't do what she did in order to hurt her child. But, she should in NO WAY be able to sue the zoo. If she does, I think the Zoo should remove all exibits and replace them with LCD tv's showing animals in their natural habitat.

Hell, I'm being sued by two people now and the bus I was driving wasn't even moving, and they weren't in it.

Details, we need details!!

Two of her passengers are suing for $8 million a piece for unspecified injuries.

Son of a biscuit!! THAT'S why we hate attorneys. Not all, but the kind that take this kind of case on. Yes, I know, the legal system is screwed up or you wouldn't have these guys out there getting rich but that's where my disdain is aimed.

e_pie wrote: This part right here:

pinchvalve wrote: "The child may have believed there was a Plexiglas barrier as he appeared to lunge forward, the prosecutor said. Zappala said he was still investigating whether the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium might be culpable of negligence, manslaughter or endangering welfare of children because of the design of the exhibit."

If they are "investigating", odds are they will find something to litigate about, that is their job afterall.

Thanks for playing, but no. Zappala is the District Attorney. He cannot file civil suit on behalf of the mother. If he does file criminal charges against the zoo (which are unlikely unless there really was an issue with their protective barriers) then DipE36 M3 McAwfulmother might receive some "restitution" (I don't know how PA's restitution system works...here in MO, it's basically a joke). However, DAs generally have much better things to do than waste time filing charges that won't go anywhere.

I have seen nothing in the OP's post that indicates mom is planning on suing the zoo. Is there a chance she will? Sure. Will she probably have to shop around until she finds an attorney? Possibly. Will some shady shyster eventually take her up on it? Probably.

As for the general zeitgeist of attorney-bashing that always surrounds these discussions, I always find myself reminding people of the same three points.

1) There are a lot of shady attorneys out there. Most attorneys are not shady or unethical, although they may be lazy, overstretched, or incompetent. It sounds like the attorney who represents Wally's "victims" is probably one of those shady bastards.

2) Pretty much EVERY big damage judgment that is awarded goes through a jury. Six to 12 people who are not lawyers who have decided that someone was injured as a result of someone else's actions, and that person B should pay person A for the trouble they caused. As for calculation of damages, that can be difficult to understand. The big thing to remember is that the lawsuit will generally ask for the maximum amount that could possibly be awarded, and the jury will award something up to that amount. Then the trial judge or appeals court may reduce that amount.

3) The media generally only reports on major verdicts that seem, on their face, to be ridiculous. Prime example is the McDonald's hot coffee case from the early 90's. Everyone held it up as a prime example of lawyers run amok. Once you actually read the background, though, you see a pattern of McDonalds doing something wrong that lead to someone being severely and needlessly injured.

Do juries screw up? Absolutely. Do they screw up on behalf of defendants as well? Sure. You're less likely to hear about it on the six o'clock news, though.

In reply to psteav: didn't anybody tell you that the voice of reason isn't welcome in these discussions?

BTW - keep up the good work.

I'm offended now.......

yamaha wrote: I'm offended now.......

I think Wally might know a lawyer that could help you out with that.

psteav wrote:

e_pie wrote: This part right here:

pinchvalve wrote: "The child may have believed there was a Plexiglas barrier as he appeared to lunge forward, the prosecutor said. Zappala said he was still investigating whether the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium might be culpable of negligence, manslaughter or endangering welfare of children because of the design of the exhibit."

If they are "investigating", odds are they will find something to litigate about, that is their job afterall.

Thanks for playing, but no. Zappala is the District Attorney. He cannot file civil suit on behalf of the mother. If he does file criminal charges against the zoo (which are unlikely unless there really was an issue with their protective barriers) then DipE36 M3 McAwfulmother might receive some "restitution" (I don't know how PA's restitution system works...here in MO, it's basically a joke). However, DAs generally have much better things to do than waste time filing charges that won't go anywhere. I have seen nothing in the OP's post that indicates mom is planning on suing the zoo. Is there a chance she will? Sure. Will she probably have to shop around until she finds an attorney? Possibly. Will some shady shyster eventually take her up on it? Probably. As for the general zeitgeist of attorney-bashing that always surrounds these discussions, I always find myself reminding people of the same three points. 1) There are a lot of shady attorneys out there. Most attorneys are not shady or unethical, although they may be lazy, overstretched, or incompetent. It sounds like the attorney who represents Wally's "victims" is probably one of those shady bastards. 2) Pretty much EVERY big damage judgment that is awarded goes through a jury. Six to 12 people who are not lawyers who have decided that someone was injured as a result of someone else's actions, and that person B should pay person A for the trouble they caused. As for calculation of damages, that can be difficult to understand. The big thing to remember is that the lawsuit will generally ask for the maximum amount that could possibly be awarded, and the jury will award something up to that amount. Then the trial judge or appeals court may reduce that amount. 3) The media generally only reports on major verdicts that seem, on their face, to be ridiculous. Prime example is the McDonald's hot coffee case from the early 90's. Everyone held it up as a prime example of lawyers run amok. Once you actually read the background, though, you see a pattern of McDonalds doing something wrong that lead to someone being severely and needlessly injured. Do juries screw up? Absolutely. Do they screw up on behalf of defendants as well? Sure. You're less likely to hear about it on the six o'clock news, though.

The McD's coffee suit: The story goes that mcDonald's had been sued before over hot coffee and other foods causing burns, they kept paying out settlements and they decided enough was enough. You do realize that the suit was appealed, the $2.7 million award was reduced to an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.00? Before saying they were doing something wrong, you also realize that Starbuck's, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's and Burger King have been sued for exactly the same thing? And that Bunn O Matic had a lawsuit over their machines allegedly making coffee too hot thrown out?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

This woman will find some sleazeball to take the case and the zoo etc will pay her off to shut her up. It will be cheaper to give in to extortion than it is to prove that she should bear full responsibility for her actions. That's what the legal 'profession' has brought this country to.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

I realize all of those things. Where does anything that you said contradict anything that I said?

BTW, thanks for the personal attack.

I don't see a personal attack, just a generalization......chill the berkeley out.

In reply to psteav:

Straight from your post. If I misread it, please correct me. No personal attack intended. That lawsuit raises my hackles because yes it IS a prime example of what's wrong with the legal system.

'The media generally only reports on major verdicts that seem, on their face, to be ridiculous. Prime example is the McDonald's hot coffee case from the early 90's. Everyone held it up as a prime example of lawyers run amok. Once you actually read the background, though, you see a pattern of McDonalds doing something wrong that lead to someone being severely and needlessly injured.'

I am no fan of McDonald's. IMHO they serve cardboard tasting crap. But that's beside the point.

McDonald's did nothing that the rest of the industry did not do, that's why the others got sued. The coffee she was served was allegedly brewed at 180-190 degrees but at 170 degrees when it was spilled. I can provide you with a picture of my infrared non contact thermometer reading about the same with my home coffeemaker. Guess I need to sue GE for making such a dangerous machine.

Bunn O Matic had a suit concerning coffeemaker temps higher than that thrown out. So why is it OK to sue MickeyD's, Wendy's etc for too hot coffee, but not Bunn O Matic? I guess that's because the Bunn O Matic plaintiff didn't hire the MickeyD's lawyers.

My dad received a lawsuit summons where some woman claimed he ran over her in a parking lot. She correctly identified his red Jaguar and its vanity plate (he immediately dropped the plate after this). She claimed he had 'flaming red hair', nope, Dad's was brown. She hired an attorney. It wound up that my dad paid something like $8000.00 for an attorney for him and a settlement in which he admitted nothing, it was only to make her go away. It would have cost him probably five times that amount to fight it. Yes, he would have 'won'. That's basically extortion. And that's what a LOT of attorneys do.

EDIT: For clarification, the so called 'accident' never happened. She picked what looked like a likely set of deep pockets, made up a wild claim, then found an attorney willing to take the so called 'case'.

There is a documentary about the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit. (Hot Coffee) Everything you think that you know is probably wrong, and what really happened, why and who paid for it will really piss you off. Let's just say that lobbyists make lawyers look like Santa Claus.

No word on a lawsuit yet regarding the Pittsburgh Zoo, but African Painted Zoo Dog Union Local 129 is considering something.

pinchvalve wrote: There is a documentary about the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit. (Hot Coffee) Everything you think that you know is probably wrong, and what really happened, why and who paid for it will really piss you off. Let's just say that lobbyists make lawyers look like Santa Clause.

EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT HOT COFFEE IS WRONG!!!

Sorry. I read that in a summer movie blockbuster trailer voice.

I have nothing else to contribute. Carry on.

In reply to pinchvalve:

Sad but true....

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG.......wasn't that a Weird Al song?

psteav wrote: 2) Pretty much EVERY big damage judgment that is awarded goes through a jury. Six to 12 people who are not lawyers who have decided that someone was injured as a result of someone else's actions, and that person B should pay person A for the trouble they caused. As for calculation of damages, that can be difficult to understand. The big thing to remember is that the lawsuit will generally ask for the maximum amount that could possibly be awarded, and the jury will award something up to that amount. Then the trial judge or appeals court may reduce that amount.

The juries are as much to blame as anyone in this process. Our country has gotten to a point where everyone feels that governments and big businesses are bottomless buckets of money and have no problem granting large settlements for fairly minor wrongs. Everyone seems to be ignorant of the fact that we all pay for these awards through higher prices and reduced services. There are a number of things that a lot of us will no longer do because we have to be worried about how we will have to pay for it if something goes wrong.

I’m suspicious of the “killed almost immediately” comment…I’ve never seen animals commit “almost immediately” to totally unfamiliar situations. Instead, they access, test, poke around, etc., and then, if the opportunity looks good, they move in. This reads more like a preemptive answer to the question that should be asked of the mother “why are you still alive”. Any decent parent would be in flight before their kid hit the ground. So, Elizabeth Derkosh, why are you still alive?????????????

On a lighter note…Wally, I always appreciate the well reasoned contributions you make to this board. As it turns out, my youngest daughter is absolutely crazy about buses and I’m wondering if there would be some way to get your autograph for her? You know, like a picture of you at the wheel of a bus or something like that. I’d be happy to send a self addressed stamped envelope to remove the hassle factor.

pinchvalve wrote: Let's just say that lobbyists make lawyers look like Santa Claus.

Well, we agree on SOMETHING.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

I will agree to disagree with you on the Liebeck case. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

Sorry to hear about your dad. If he paid $8k to settle the case, he got rooked. Also, his insurance company SHOULD have picked up the tab.

Regardless, like I said, there are plenty of shady lawyers to go around. But, when non-lawyers lump all lawyers (that would include me) in with those shysters, and denigrate the 'profession' as less than such, it raises my hackles.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

pinchvalve wrote: There is a documentary about the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit. (Hot Coffee) Everything you think that you know is probably wrong, and what really happened, why and who paid for it will really piss you off. Let's just say that lobbyists make lawyers look like Santa Clause.

EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT HOT COFFEE IS WRONG!!! Sorry. I read that in a summer movie blockbuster trailer voice. I have nothing else to contribute. Carry on.

Does it sound like this?

RX Reven' wrote: I’m suspicious of the “killed almost immediately” comment…I’ve never seen animals commit “almost immediately” to totally unfamiliar situations. Instead, they access, test, poke around, etc., and then, if the opportunity looks good, they move in. This reads more like a preemptive answer to the question that should be asked of the mother “why are you still alive”. Any decent parent would be in flight before their kid hit the ground. So, Elizabeth Derkosh, why are you still alive?????????????

I can see why she didn't help, the urge to help has been mostly bred out of us. We have gone from being a nation of doers to waiters. We rely on others to warn us, save us, even tell us what to wear to work. We are so used to not intervening now that the closest to involved anyone gets anymore is to take out their iphone and record it. That's why it's such big news when someone stops a crime, saves a life ect. It would never occur to the average person to do anything but be a victim.

RX Reven' wrote: </cite On a lighter note…Wally, I always appreciate the well reasoned contributions you make to this board. As it turns out, my youngest daughter is absolutely crazy about buses and I’m wondering if there would be some way to get your autograph for her? You know, like a picture of you at the wheel of a bus or something like that. I’d be happy to send a self addressed stamped envelope to remove the hassle factor.

Hopefully she grows out of it Send me a PM with your address and I'll see what I've got at work to send out.