Alex.
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2014
- 9,894
- 4,979
- 2,095
- Banned
- #541
Actually your claim of a "standard" was the only thing that caught my attention. Otherwise i ignore people like you that are obviously under educated.If it were "my" opinion you are paying keen attention to my every keystroke.What "standard" are you speaking of? I hope you dont mean your opinion. No one is paying any attention to that.The mother failed to meet the standards required to keep her son, the gorilla and others safe. While she has no duty to "others" her negligence placed her son in "grave" danger.The inherent safety issues regarding the zoo, exhibits and 4 year old children are obvious and should be properly addressed and administered to by the parent.
So?
The standard is reasonable care and speaks to the "Best Interests of the Child" in addressing the the health, safety, and/or protection of the child. The mother's conduct falls far short of this standard.
The mother provided reasonable care. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.
"The mother provided reasonable care."
No she did not the child was in with the gorilla.
"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."
The Best of Interests of the child standard eclipses the Reasonable man standard in child safety cases like these. The question you should be asking is what reasonable person would not pay enough attention to the 4 year old child so they can place themselves in harm's way.
"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure"
The question the authorities are asking is whether the mother exercised reasonable care not whether the zoo is negligent that is another issue all together.
If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.
You are attempting to introduce an constructive liability standard on the mother to help her avoid any penalty for her negligence.
In the end all you are doing is trying to make excuses for poor parenting and enabling her to place the child and others in another dangerous situation.