Shouldn't the headline read "Nothing is Idiot Proof"

Why would the mother place her toddler on top of the railing in the first place? Toddlers fall over a lot, that's why they're called toddlers. Mom should face charges and nothing should happen to the zoo.

My issue is, what is going to happen the dogs? They're just doing what they would do in their natural environment.

The zoo should take the offense and sue the parent. I'm fairly sure there's signs stating "don't climb" on the fence, railing, etc." Sue the parent for violating posted rules and regulations. Crimmey, back in the 60s & 70s the San Diego zoo (and it's Wild Animal Park) all had signs like that.

A frilling 2 yr old baby put on a railing over-looking wild animals? Stupidity above and beyond. Don't penalize the zoo, penalize the dumb-arse parent.

Steve-2570999

Shouldn't the headline read "Nothing is Idiot Proof"

Well said. On behalf of IA Scooter Tramp, you may have a cookie.

I agree Julie,

The zoo did absolutely nothing wrong, it is not their fault people act inappropriately and are irresponsible! This mother should be punished for her stupidity and be charged for child neglect!

This is a terrible tragedy that could have been 100% prevented if the mother wasn't such a dumb@ss!

If the parent sues the zoo, the zoo should countersue. Nothing is 100% safe, however, most sane, reasonable, rational people would not play a game of chicken death with a toddler. This mother should have held the baby in her arms or moved to another point where the view was better. If that option was not available, guess what, there are plenty of other exhibits to see at the Pittsburgh Zoo. As for the dogs, I read in the Post-Gazette that they are not putting any of the dogs down. Thank goodness the animal's lives won't be forfeited to this stupidity.

I hate to say this but only one person is too Blame and that's the Mother, I hope if a suit is brought against the ZOO they fight it, if they settle there will only be more people with their hands out, if you're at fault there should never be a pot of gold at the end of that Rainbow. I feel Sorry for the KID, RIP.

Thanks Sandie,

I'm glad you shared that information about what they were going to do with the dogs...the dogs or any animal should NEVER be put down just because humans are dumb!

This was not the fault of the zoo. It was the fault of the parent.

I agree with those who say countersuit. I would argue that this was a frivolous action and sanctions should be brought against the attorney for bringing such. It depends on what the state of PA has but federal law has Rule 12 of the FCRP, where you give the other atty one shot at dropping the suit or else. I would also ask for reimbursement of ALL costs associated with the incident, including but not limited to legal fees.

Yes, if you haven't guessed it, I do animal law. I was an animal rescuer for years and got sick of what I saw at nursing homes and the VA (pet therapy) and at shelters. So, now I do dis law, elder law and animal law. And before people bash lawyers, there are a LOT of us who went into this field to help and keep our personal ethics intact. There is good and bad in every field plus sometimes we are forced to do things layfolks might not understand.

For example, I am in the position to drop clients when, for example, I find out they are scum-sucking leeches and their soon-to-be exes are right. However, by law we have to ask the court's permission to drop them and if not, continue to represent them to the best of our abilities or lose our licenses. I've ended up screaming at a client who stormed out into the court hall to sign the docs because I want out but he insisted I keep representing him (we were doing well but it was making me sick to my soul).

Lots of my friends do a lot of pro bono. We have a foreclosure project run by the Suffolk Cty Bar Assn and Touro Law School, and other clinics for other underdogs, such as domestic violence vics, and now, I suggested to the bar we set up a project to fight the insurance companies for victims of Sandy.

Sorry for rambling but I keep reading nasty comments about New Yorkers and lawyers and nothing can be farther from the truth-you can NOT paint any group with a wide brush...not everyone in the south is a toofless Honey Boo Boo-type family...

I meant Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

How about mommy paying attention to the damn kid instead of not paying attention? How about mommy reading the signs? I bet if a staff member saw & said something she would have been cursing the worker out.

The zoo should pay for the funeral expenses out of kindness but she should never win any lawsuit.

Why? I am all for kindness in most cases, but this woman is entirely responsible and should have to face every consequence... emotional, legal, and financial. She has caused the zoo enough trouble.

My first thought was if that were my kid the dogs would have mauled me too ... that's how fast I would have been over the ledge ... anyways: Ya ... I totally blame the Mom for this one. That said I don't care to see her prosecuted ... these kind of huge mistakes tend to do their own punishing ... almost like a life sentence for her ... her child's blood is on her hands ... ouch! And I'll be annoyed if there is some kind of backlash against the zoo or dogs ... I'll be doubly annoyed if I have to use binoculars to see the animals in the future because on this ideot.

Agree with all the above posts that put the blame for this entirely on the idiot mother. But as WhyNot stated, you can bet this family has a line of lawyers a mile long ready and willing to help them sue the daylights out of the zoo.

And if they win, soon zoos will only be able to have "safe" animals like bunnies and baby goats. Forget about lions, tigers and bears, or African painted dogs.

I am all for kindness, but the zoo paying for any expense regarding the death of this child would be in essence them saying that it was THEIR FAULT. At least that's how some lawyers and judges would see it in a suit.

It wasn't. It was the parents fault. Period.

The time for blaming others for our mistakes needs to end.

The victim here is the child. The only one to blame for his death is his mother.

Zoo's aren't 100% safe, duh! Life isn't 100% safe. You can't protect against everything and everyone.

The zoo passed all regulations and did what it needed to. The simple fact is you have expect people to use some common sense in the safety equation as well. No different than why you don't see fences along a highway, not only is in not practical, but you have to assume people will be smart enough to stay off the highway. What happened is sad but the zoo in no way is responsible. Even the question that they might be sued or still pending that charges may or may not be brought against the zoo is insane. It was her fault and no one elses. Common sense alone would suggest that you don't do something stupid like this but I would imagine the zoo also has the stupid people signs up around the zoo saying not to climb on fences and enclosures. It is a tragedy what happened but this women has no one to blame but herself. I hope the zoo fights this to the end if they are sued and counter-sues. I agree, wouldn't surprise me if she would be the type to chew out the zoo employee if they had told her to take the kid down.

I've posted over and over, It is time for personal responsibility and common sense to make a comeback. Part of that includes stopping frivolous lawsuits and holding judges and lawyers accountable for this nonsense and changing laws that allow this BS to go on. It is one thing that is eating our country from the inside out and needs to stop. She sues and wins we all will have to suffer then. If the zoo has to setup a defense fund I would be happy to send them a couple bucks to help out as I'm sure others would be too.

When I took my son to the zoo when he was young, he always wanted to get closer to the animals and to sit on the railing or put his hand near the cage. As a parent, I told my son that he could not sit on the railing and explained to him why - that it is dangerous, that he could fall in and get hurt, that there were signs everywhere saying you can't do that. He never asked again. That's what parents are supposed to do - teach their children.

This parent failed miserably, and her son had to pay the price.

Can you direct me to the chinchilla display? Mama needs a new coat.

(It's just a joke. Don't get bent.)

The mother was completely at fault, although I'm sure they'll end up suing the zoo and the rest of us will have to suffer with even more regulations because of her.

As for the funeral expenses, a collection was started on Facebook and I understand the funeral home is donating all its services so that's not an issue.

...zoos will only be able to have "safe" animals like bunnies and baby goats.

Sorry jac, but all I can think about from your comment is Monty Python and the killer rabbit :-)

The zoo is not liable for a penny. The mom was dumb. With that being said... she will never be the same, and will never forgive herself for what happened. I do pray she finds a way to move past this but in reality, she is going to punish her far worst than a jail could ever. Tragic.

I agree with everyone on here!, it is the Mother's fault!!, seriously! doesn't anyone have any common sense anymore!!, if her son wanted to see the dogs, the Mother should have just let him see the dogs from the place where it is safe, and if he cried, then let him cry!!, too many parents give in to their kids!, and they lack common sense!, putting him on the rail is STUPID!, you sometimes only get one chance, and many times it's too late!!, you have to always THINK!, before you attempt to do something!, and also be accountable!, I bet you, Her husband and her will sue, thinking it's the zoo's lack of security!, instead of her lack of common sense!!, you always have to watch your children!, and keep them safe!, and don't give in to their wants!, but to do whats best for them! THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED!, I'm glad the little boy is in heaven!, God bless him!, and to the parents!, God gave you a precious gift! and you didn't keep him safe! and it's not that zoos need to make their environment safer!, parents need to use their BRAIN!!

Robin - 2487232...i agree with your opinion but what's with all of the exclamation points? Exciting article?

We should put an end altogether from this practice of confining wild animals in cages soley for the amusement of humans. Zoos (like a circuses) are a reflection of another century. It's sad and cruel to put a life form, in a cage or in limited confinement, on exhibit for the term of its existence. Animals can and will become insane with anger and frustration.

Why didn't the mom just wash the kids hair in the shark tank...i don't let my baby outa my arms when I'm in public

@valhallaarwen-I had a zoo summer job during my college years. Parents cursed at me twice for pointing out a safety issue. One was a girl scout den mother.

Whenever you make something idiot proof, Nature supplies a better idiot.

@ you don't know Jack, very well said.

I say that you can feed the lawyers waiting/lining up on their (the parents) doorsteps to the lions, that will save the zoo some cash too. Lets face it, there are a lot of lawyers, not an endless food supply, but would do for a few months.

You can make something idiot-proof, but they will just build a better idiot!

well wahoo2, we posted at same time with same thought!!!!! Hooah

@downwithbigbrother, no annie isn't aware of it. Too much whale wars watching or something! Well said

If the family does sue the zoo and by some chance does win a settlement for their own stupidity, the blame goes to the dumba$$ lady who put the cup of hot Micky D coffee between her legs, the lawyer that actually filed the suit and the bleeding heart liberal California jury that awarded her the money. There is also the college student in Newark N.J. not too long after that that got hit by a car while riding his bicycle in downtown at night with no lights on it. The bicycle manufacturer was sued successfully because there wasn't a warning label on the bike warning users not to operate it at night without lights. This was a college student at what used to be called N.C.E. a engineering college that was not all that easy to get into. Oh well, we live in a country where a majority of the people elected to write the laws, belong to the same group that will argue them in court. Can you say conflict of interest? C'est la vie.

If the parents of the little boy sue the zoo, they will win because the zoo will settle for less money than what it would cost in legal fees to fight the law suit.

No zoo is idiot proof.

Monica, why doesn't that surprise me? Sorry that happened to you.

Looking at the railing, it looks fairly easy for a short child to view the animals from between the railing. It was not advantageous or necessary to place the child on top of the railing. It only become unsafe when a brainless person does something stupid like raise a child so he can stand on top of the railing.

Annie-322924

We should put an end altogether from this practice of confining wild animals in cages soley for the amusement of humans. Zoos (like a circuses) are a reflection of another century. It's sad and cruel to put a life form, in a cage or in limited confinement, on exhibit for the term of its existence. Animals can and will become insane with anger and frustration

Anne, when was the last time you visited a zoo? Your image of a zoo seems to be a bunch of monkeys crammed into a pet store window. Today's reputable zoos lead conservation efforts. Habitats are designed to give the animals an environment as close as possible to what they would experience in the wild. Unfortunately, due to poachers, hunters and increasing human encroachment into their homes, many of these animals would no longer exist if it weren't for zoos. They also allow humans to develop an appreciation - and, hopefully, compassion - for the vast diversity of life that exists beyond our borders. These days, many city kids have never even seen a cow up close.

Can't speak for circuses, but your opinion of zoos sounds like "a reflection of another century." (BTW, St. Louis has one of the best zoos in the world. Check it out.)

Loosing a child isn't enough? The zoo should pay for the funeral expenses out of kindness but she should never win any lawsuit.

In a perfect world, THIS would be the solution. But we all know that is NOT how this is going to end up.

Whenever you make something idiot proof, Nature supplies a better idiot.

LOL, so true.

That sorry excuse for a mother should be charged. She is either incredibly stupid or she wanted to get rid of the child.

I agree with SaraRW and youdon'tknowjack

This mother will suffer this loss and the thought of how agonizingly preventable it was for the rest of her life. In addition, she witnessed the attack. How can she possibly have one moment in her life that is not filled with gut-wrentching, searing pain?

Charging and convicting her would be a waste of time and money. It would do no good at all in this case. Spend the money on a public awareness campaign to save more children from needless, totally preventable tragedies. There actually are many, many loving parents who want to be responsible, but are ignorant of the dangers, or of the probability of accidents, who would heed the advice.

Maybe the woman is incredibly stupid or perhaps she is very clever..... I have to wonder if the "Mom" thought she could get rid of her kid (without going to jail) and possibly make some cash suing for this accident? Who would put a two year old on a railing? I do think the Zoo should put up more barriers..... so no one can accidentally (or on purpose) drop another kid into an area with dangerous animals.

Remind me... Wasn't it Michel Jackson who set the standard for stupid child endangerment tricks? This woman should pay attention to danger instead of comitting copycat stupidity. Poor, scared child. RIP.

Maybe what we need is a special Stupidity In Action film shown before entering any zoos. Filled with examples of what people have done to get themselves or others severely injured or done in. Despite the best efforts of society to keep them safe. So parents visiting with their kids can see why rules are put in place. This mother's failure to keep her child behind the protection barriers would be a good example. Just show the child fallen onto the ground. Another one would be the young man who climbed up a short incline for a picture with his back next to a lion fence.Only to have two lions attack his arm and back through the fence. Or show the father who stepped over a railing, then jumped over bushes to get a better shot at another exhibit. Provoking a polar bear to attack.Stick in the man who jumped off the tram going over a tiger area, the teenager who kicked at a lion behind some bars, and got his foot nearly eaten off. Then the teenager girl teasing a chimp through some bars, who was attacked, after crossing the barriers to keep people out. And so on and so forth over the past several years alone there would be enough to put together an interesting twenty plus minute presentation. Make it mandatory or sign a waiver if you break the rules clause.

If folks realize animals aren't just cute, fuzzy creatures, but wild and deadly in their natural environments, perhaps they will follow the rules more often. Walt Disney has done much to create a world of magic with animals. So it's understandable children want to see the real ones with their families. But no amount of magic can protect a child from potential harm those animals pose if their parents are not wise enough to keep them safely behind protective barriers.

As for this case, I am sickened over this senseless tragedy. But also baffled by her actions. Surely she would have noticed the protective netting below, a clear indication a fall risk was possible.Why did she stand her child on the railing? She could have just as easily held him in her arms at age 2. I pray that little soul rests in peace. After such a horrific death. His mother will carry the manner of his death each day the rest of her life.

How cruel and unjust to blame the mother. This incident epitomizes the definition of "Accident." Toddlers are unpredictable, surprisingly strong and top-heavy. And they move so fast, it's impossible to control them all the time. He saw doggies and leapt. Dogs process visual information three times as fast as humans do and they are instinctively territorial and lethal in their attack; by the time people realized what had happened, the little boy was probably dead. There would have been no margin for rescue. Zoos are usually very careful about setting up the exhibits, but they don't want to have so much fencing around the animals that you can't see them. Folks need to realize that sometimes there's just nothing to cure or fend off the inherent dangers of life. And that's why we call them accidents. Let it go.

Wind - good post. Spot on with what others have been saying on here, that it is her fault alone and she should be held responsible not the zoo, the majority thankfully appear to agree. Gives me hope.

Not to be picky but wanted to point out, since I've seen it so much, that the netting was not there to catch anyone. Only purpose was for small objects like cameras, sunglasses, ect. to be caught and not fall into the exhibit where the animals might try to chew on or a eat it before a zoo keeper could remove it.

Swilliams, your comment has no merit. She is 100% to blame and this is not an "accident". She put THE toddler on a railing (designed to show danger and to not go ontop or past) and she let go... it is absolutely her fault. I do feel bad for her and the family, but she was the big dummy here... no one else.

S Williams - I hope you are being sarcastic?

In case you aren't, this is not an accident. It was totally avoidable and was the mothers fault, end of story. Nothing cruel about it, it is a fact. He saw doggie and lept? No mom put him on top of a railing where he should not of been. No accidents here. She and she alone created the situation that lead to this little ones death. She is to blame and anyone who can't see that is a twit.

Now I agree with the last part about not curing all the inherent dangers in life, can't do it, and that also you can't watch toddlers every single second but again not a case of he saw something and went for it, he was in a place he shouldn't of been to start with and his mother thru her own free will put him there and chose to ignore the obvious reasons why the railing was there or the dangers below.

Please don't call this an accident, it never should've happened and doing so does nothing more than remove the obvious responsibility this women has in causing the completely avoidable death of her child.

It is Time,

I know what you're saying, but it was an accident. She didn't want her kid to fall in with the dogs. It was careless, and completely avoidable, but still an accident. To say it wasn't an accident, is to say that she fed her kid to the dogs on purpose, and there's no evidence of that.

Seriously Katy M!, are you a parent?, I don't think so!, and if you are, seriously?, an accident is being in a car accident, or preparing dinner, and accidentaly cutting your finger, or whatever, but that was not an accident!, would you allow your child to ride in a car with a drunk driver?, or let your son skateboard down a busy highway?, or allow your child to be with someone you knew molested children?, the mother put her child on top of the rail!, they should a visual illustration on the news as to what happened, she put her son on the rail, and was in front of him, didn't even hold his hand, stuck him on the rail, he then lost his balance and fell into the wild dog pit!, it wasn't an accident, it was preventable!, and a negligent thing to do, nobody said she did it on purpose, however it wasn't an accident, it was her being stupid!, even if her little boy wanted a better view, she could have explained to him, that it wasn't safe, maybe they could go home and learn more about the animals online on the computer, or if he was crying, let him cry!, I'd rather have the boy cry, and have him be safe, than to give in, and be the cause of his death.

showed an illustration, not should.

Katy - I can see what you are saying as well and understand where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree and in my view this is not an accident. Doesn't mean I don't feel empathy or sorry for what happened just in a factual manner I can't call in an accident. Sure it wasn't intentional (even with those who are questioning that like I posted above, IMO I don't think it was at this time) to have the boy fall, the situation that put him there to be able to fall was intentionally done. Since the two are directly related and you don't have the latter without the former it is not an accident.

Again my point is to make sure in no way that responsibility is somehow shifted away from this women. Not to kick her while down but to be sure that it is clear who is at fault and support not having to have another frivolous lawsuit because of someone's stupidity or moment of and cause the rest of us to pay for it.

The only way that this was an accident is if you are defining "accident" as "something that occurs without specific intent." In that case, yes, this was an accident, because the mother didn't intend for her child to fall in and die. However, that does not absolve the mother of her responsibility in this instance. The "accident" was avoidable, and only occurred due to the negligence of the mother when she placed her child on the top rail. If you are familiar with law at all, even if something happens accidentally, if it could have been prevented but was instead enabled by someone's negligence, then that person is still culpable for the result. If I accidentally shoot a person with a gun, and they die because of my negligence, then I still have consequences that have to be faced.

However, it seems that you are trying to define "accident" as something else which implies that the mother bears no responsibility for what happened. As I said, whether or not an event is an accident is irrelevent to whether or not someone is responsible for it. I don't believe that this woman wanted her child to die in such a horrible manner, but she placed him in the situation that made that event a possibility, and for that she should bear the responsibility for his death if she is found to be negligent.

Katy, to make your point logical, then anyone who falls asleep on the train tracks, then gets ran over by train, was killed by an accident. That person had no way of knowing that a train would come down tracks that only trains can use. Right?

The right answer is that you should not be on train tracks at all, because you may get hit by a train. It's inevitable that a train will come down the tracks, so if you are laying on the tracks, it wouldn't be an accident that you got hit, because you intentionally laid in the path that a train travels. Using the same thought, standing on a rail that has a 14 foot drop into a pit of dangerous animals and falling in can't be an accident either. You could fall in because the rail may break. You can slip and fall because the rail is slippery. Or you can use your balance and fall in the pit. There were high probabilities that something could cause you to fall off the rail. The obvious solution is to not stand on the rail so you can't fall in the first place.

Robin,

Most car accidents are caused by stupid things that you could have foreseen coming. It's still an accident if you didn't intend for it to occur. Haven't you heard of a "drunk driving accident." Of course, you know that if you drive drunk, you may very well have an accident. That's why drinking and driving is illegal and you may (and I think should) go to jail every time you do it. This mother should probably be put in jail as well. it doesn't make it not an accident, though.

@Katy M,

Just as a matter of clarification, there is not really a set consensus of using the definition of the term drunk driving accident. They are mainly called drunk driving crashes. The term accident when used with drunk driving has a connotation that the results (the crash) wasn't preventable (accident). However, a crash is preventable because driving under the influence is preventable.

The word accident is derived from the Latin verb accidere, signifying "fall upon, befall, happen, chance." In its most commonly accepted meaning, or in its ordinary or popular sense, the word may be defined as meaning: some sudden and unexpected event taking place without expectation, upon the instant, rather than something that continues, progresses or develops; something happening by chance; something unforeseen, unexpected, unusual, extraordinary, or phenomenal, taking place not according to the usual course of things or events, out of the range of ordinary calculations; that which exists or occurs abnormally, or an uncommon occurrence. The word may be employed as denoting a calamity, casualty, catastrophe, disaster, an undesirable or unfortunate happening; any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked for mishap or occurrence; any unpleasant or unfortunate occurrence that causes injury, loss, suffering, or death; some untoward occurrence aside from the usual course of events. An event that takes place without one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and unexpected event

I actually did think that this could be a case where the mother purposely wanted to do away with her child, such as Casey Anthony. She did so in a manner that makes her look simply stupid, but not a cold blooded murderer... and who knows, maybe she'll even turn a profit on her child's death by suing the zoo for millions of dollars.

Have to say, the same thought crossed my mind because as a mother of three, if I had decided to make the dunderhead move of putting a toddler on an elevated railing over wild animals, I would make damned sure I had a grip of iron on that kid.

@Sandie - Yep, instead of keeping this child in a death grip while holding him over a dozen deadly predators known for their social skills of killing small game, this woman gave her child the death slip sending him into the pit to be devoured by these animals. I agree with you, any normal person stupid enough to hold their child over such a exhibit would have been holding on tight. To me, that alone tips the balance more to the side of this being a murder and not just an act of stupidity and negligence.

I guess if we see her at night clubs dancing away in the next couple of days or getting a tattoo that says something like "Wonderful Life" sometime in the next few weeks, then I guess we'll know for sure. But that doesn't mean she'll go to jail.

I have been thinking the same thing. I hope detectives are investigating this woman and looking to see if this was not in fact the case.

Guess we'll have to see what happens from here. Seems there were plenty of witnesses to the incident.

OK- we know people are stupid and part of that is they seem to think everything is 100% safe. Most creative are the parents I saw (several of them) letting toddlers run along the boardwalk over the steam vents. With signs all over letting you know it was danagerous and potentially fatal to step off the walk, which had no rails. No wait, the awards goes to the idiot who held his small daughter over a boil, teasing he was going to "drop" her. I see parents in the zoo, or at the grand canyon, placing their small children on the rail. Think people! It is why we are separated now at many places by glass walls because the idiots climb over the fence!!

Oh Gosh I hope you are all wrong about her doing this on purpose, a la Casey Anthony. Stupidity is one thing, but to have actually premeditated... I can't even finish that thought.

I am willing to bet that this woman was not the only parent holding their child on the rail for a better view. If not at that specific exhibit, at other ones. You see this all over, and nothing ever happens. Then, OOPS. The unthinkable happens.

Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't ever happen. When it involves your children, just stop and think. Like wearing seat belts in the car - they're there for your safety in case the unthinkable happens.

Before I moved into my house, I used to have an apartment with a balcony over the road where I used to sit and watch people walking or driving by. One day, I watched this woman walking down the road intent on her phone texting and she walked into a tree. The next day, the same woman, the same phone and the same tree connected again! There's a commercial (I forget who it is for) but the people are at all these great world locations like the Grand Canyon, London Bridge and Eiffel Tower and all of them instead of looking at all these great sites are instead looking into their phone screens. That's the world we live in now!

I wrote sights perposely as sites (like websites) instead of real-world sights.

@mkultra:

"...nothing in life is 100% safe."

Even mothers.

I agree. I've seen this posted already but I'll repeat it, appears that the people are the ones that should be in the cages upon entering the zoo.

Hmmm...perhaps giant hamster balls for zoo guests.

Don't you mean George Bush's fault. I'm pretty sure Hurricane Sandy was Obama's fault though.

LOL

Well said!!

It is indeed sad but a two years old, I would watch him very closely. I am very sorry for the mother's loss... as well as the loss of one of the dogs. Those dogs are innocent.

I feel sorry for the father, wherever he may be.

She on the other hand can rot.

Post a sign at the front gate: "You may only enter if your IQ is this big." Now all that is left is to spend massive amounts of government money to (1) enforce the rule, and (2) find a correlation between IQ and common sense.

Unfortunately, having a high IQ does not mean common sense will be in force. I know people with a high quotient of common sense with average IQs and people with high IQs and very little common sense. Intelligence and common sense don't always go hand-in-hand.

I guess all exhibits of potentially aggressive animals should be put behind glass to protect the animals and prevent human error. Shame.

This incident just proves what I've always believed.

You need to license to have a dog, but any idiot can have a child.

Yes, and many do, unfortunately for the child.

I agree with Rule #1 and #2, but few people recognize Rule #3, as I'm sure they feel it doesn't pertain to them.

The mother may have thought she had the toddler under her control, but toddlers are top-heavy and he may have lost his footing, having such a narrow platform to be put on. Humans do stupid things all the time, but putting a child in danger, purposefully, is not acceptable. I'm sure she realizes now what a silly thing she did. Her tragedy cannot be taken away and she will suffer from this every day of her life. I cannot imagine seeing your little boy being torn apart by wild animals. Absolutely horrific.

The problem with stupid people is, they're too stupid to realize they're stupid

See also: the Dunning-Kruger effect

Not a freak accident at all. Just an accident waiting to happen. A freak accident would have been she was holding the child in her arms at a safe distance from the rail and lightening struck the platform, causing her to stumble and knock into the railing, throwing the child into the exhibit.

MaryG, To you and others calling this death "an unfortunate accident", stop it! It was not an accident! The outcome of committing such a stupid act is entirely predictable! Take another look at the picture above again. Why is the netting positioned below the railing? It is there to catch objects that may be dropped by foolish humans. It isn't designed to prevent toddlers from falling to be horribly killed by spotted dogs. The mother is a certifiable idiot, moron, dimwit, incompetent fool (take your pick) who intentionally risked the life of her child. (The child did not climb up on his own, she stupidly put him there.) The outcome of such a stupid act is entirely predictable and cannot possibly be considered "an accident".

Too bad she didn't throw herself over instead of risking the life of her child. She alone is responsible for the death of her child and there was no accident.

We don't allow children to play in traffic because the result of doing so is entirely predictable. This woman cannot escape the responsibility of her foolish behavior. She gambled with her child's life for nothing and the child lost. Throw this idiot in jail for committing such a terrible act...

Mary - NB is right. This was not an accident. Accident would suggest this was unforeseeable, unintentional, or possibly happened as a result of actions that were out of her control. True she didn't intentionally drop the kid (though some are wanting that looked into) she did intentionally set the kid up on the railing thru her own actions and the kid falling was a foreseeable consequence. Its not always clear cut and when you do have real accidents you can try to disect it as much as you want to find fault, something we do to much on the other end of this specturm but until we start holding people responsible and stop making excuses nothing will change. Her fault ,no one elses and totally avoidable.

accident: an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.

There is nothing in the definition of accident that says it can't result from stupidity, or even be prosecutable.

NB and It - This was totally preventable and a result of extremely, horrifically, bad judgement. There is no excuse for such stupidity and this incident should make people reflect on little acts that can have major consequences.

BUT using the word "accident" can also signify the opposite of intentional. There is a difference between her chucking the kid in, as some people have suggested, and unintentionally letting go (i.e. accidentally). You're not only preaching to the choir (i.e. Mary) but fighting with them over semantics.

Again for clarification purposes, it needs to be understood that it is not the intent that defines when an auto accident is different than an auto crash but what precipitates the actual event consequences. An auto accident is unavoidable due to ones previous controllable actions: i.e. a deer runs out from the dark and is hit. The deer cannot be controlled by the person behind the wheel. However, a crash can be controlled by an individuals behavior prior to the crash: i.e. don't drink and drive. One is not required to drive when drunk regardless if the driver intends to later be in a crash or not.

Right. And if you don't have the kids in their seats, it is your fault.

i think they put that head line because there are some people who think so and this is a wakeup call to watch out and be more cautious. at least i hope that people will learn from this mom's mistake.

Maybe she couldn't toilet train him.

I agree with most everything you've said except feeling badly for the mother. I have absolutely no compassion for stupid people who put their own flesh and blood in harms way. She should be prosecuted and have nightmares the rest of her life. To be so irresponsible is a crime in itself.

DEANNA, Thank you for such a succinct comment. I am so enraged by the references to "accident" that I posted a rambling rant. Your post is so much better...

Great minds with great names think alike. Hi!

Sure he isn't with the Dodgers?

The netting below is not meant to catch people, look at the size of it. It's there to catch cameras, phones, keys, etc. that might be accidentally dropped in.

You are right I think the woman who runs the zoo said exactly the same thing...who could imagine a child being in that net. I don't think zoos can be accountable for dumb behavior of humans.

AND - the rail she put the child on was tilted at a 45 degree angle which should have told even the dumbest individual that IT WAS NOT MEANT TO STAND ON! Good god, no wonder the child fell off! Unfortunately I agree, this woman was criminally stupid. But the poor child...