A two year-old boy that was killed when he fell into a zoo's exhibit of African painted dogs, is now at the center of a wrongful death lawsuit in which the zoo is claiming that there is no "abnormal risk to the public" in the viewing of wild animals, as reported by the Post Gazette.
The exhibit in the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium where the child, M.D., was killed on November 4 has since been closed.
Robert Mongeluzzi, the attorney for M.D.'s family, stated that prior to his death, M.D. interacted with a monkey in another exhibit. The boy had allegedly placed his hands up against the glass between himself and the animal, and the animal put his hands up against the glass as well.
Due to this earlier behavior, according to Mongeluzzi, M.D. may have wanted to interact – harmlessly – with other animals in the zoo. It may also have been the reason he lurched out of his mother's grip and dove into an opening in the African painted dog's display.
According to Mongeluzzi, M.D.'s parents did not file the lawsuit for financial gain. Their sole motivation is to prevent tragedies such as this one from happening again.
Mongeluzzi said, "You can imagine the horror of being there and witnessing this is beyond what any person can bear. She's devastated. This is not a family that's looking to put the zoo out of business. That's not who they are. They want to make sure this doesn't happen again -- not at this zoo or at any other zoo in the world."
These statements by Mongeluzzi were made in response to a motions hearing as the zoo has sought to have many of the counts of the complaint thrown out. Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Paul F. Lutty Jr. heard the statements made by both sides and denied most of the motions made by Pittsburgh zoo.
The attorney for the zoo, Daniel Rivetti, argued that the strict liability claim should not be allowed to proceed as there is no "abnormal risk to the public" in viewing wild animals.
Rivetti argued, "Public zoos exist solely for the benefit of the community. Public zoos ... do not expose the public to inordinate risk ... therefore strict liability doesn't apply."
To which Mongeluzzi countered by saying that the court should be weighing in on all of the factors of the case at this stage. Additionally, at this point there has been no exchange of discovery or dispositions.
The zoo's value to the community, according to Mongeluzzi, has to be evaluated against the "high probability of harm to others at an unprotected area through which a child could and did fall."
Mongeluzzi further argued that there was a history of parents holding up their children up to the open railing of the exhibit so that they could get a better view. Furthermore, an employee of the zoo had warned his employers that this was occurring on a daily basis.
Mongeluzzi said, "The zoo was warned of the very hazard that occurred. The employee was curtly dismissed. He was told by his boss ... 'this is not your concern. go back to work'…I don't think there is a better case of reckless indifference possible."
If filing a lawsuit can force change, and prevent others from harm, that's a good enough reason to do it. If you need to recoup losses for funeral expenses, etc., that can also be achieved when you contact a personal injury lawyer to file your lawsuit.