Maddox Derkosh was killed when his mother, Elizabeth Derkosh, lifted him up over a railing designed to keep zoo patrons from stumbling into an exhibit of Lycaon pictus (the so-called "Painted Dogs").
Because the boy had poor vision, she raised him over the four-foot high railing where he could see the dogs better. But she lost her grip on the child. Maddox slipped out her hands and over the rail, fell 14 feet, bounced off the protective netting over the African dog exhibit and into the pit.
Eleven of the dogs descended on the toddler, mauling him to death.
"The mom picks up the child, has the child by the waist," explained Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala last year, when he announced that no criminal charges would be filed against Elizabeth Derkosh. "In almost one motion as the child is elevated the child moves forward with both hands and his face. Mom loses control of him."
One of the animals was shot during the attack as workers tried to save Maddox. The remainder of the dogs have since been shipped to other zoos and the exhibit at Pittsburgh Zoo and PPG Aquarium is closed.
The boy's parents sued the zoo, claiming wrongful death. They allege that the plexiglass around the exhibit was dirty, making it difficult to see the animals, that the viewing area was not properly protected and that the zoo's employees did not have the correct tranquilizer darts that might have stopped the attack, though the boy is reported to have died within seconds.
But the zoo not only denied all of the Derkosh's allegations, its lawyers fired back at the grieving mother, saying she "blatantly ignored" a posted warning not to lift children above the railing. She "knew or should have known he could fall into the exhibit," but lifted him up anyway while "failing to maintain a proper grasp" on her son, the zoo's attorney charges.
The lawyer, Dennis St. J. Mulvihill, also wrote that the railing met all legal safety codes. It was constructed at a 45 degree angle, so children -- or adults -- could not stand on it.
The family's lawyer expressed outrage at the zoo's allegations, which legal experts say are a routine part of any such lawsuit.
"I think their attack on the Derkosh family is awful," said Derkosh lawyer Robert Mongeluzzi.
Zoos are horrible, but how can you sue the zoo? You lift your kid up over a protective railing separating you from -- literally -- "a pack of wild dogs" and drop him. If it had been an apartment balcony, you wouldn't be suing the building. And there aren't warnings on every balcony not to lift your kid over the edge due to risk of death (wild dogs or gravity). Look, if your son can't see, put him on your shoulders if anything, not over the railing.
Mother should receive full responsibility for his death. I expect that the only reason that the state didn't press charges against her is that she's been the primary (living) person who has suffered from this tragedy, and it's more down to stupidity and bad luck than negligence to do something like that. Thus empowered by the lack of legal punishment for her, they sue the zoo. Why act outraged that the zoo is claiming that she is fully responsible? She lifted her kid up, she dropped him in. The zoo took measures to ensure visitor safety and she flagrantly ignored the warnings, her own common sense, and the entire Michael Jackson hanging baby history lesson. Excuses like "the plexiglass was dirty" are really reaching as "reasons" for her actions. What would she like, more heavily protected viewing area barriers, or more visibility? Those two things are mutually exclusive. The zoo has to balance those things. I'd bet that they clean that plexiglass all the time too, but plexiglass scratches and weathers quickly.
"I think their attack on the Derkosh family is awful," said Derkosh lawyer Robert Mongeluzzi.
Yes, that is also a routine part of any such lawsuit. Denial and counter-accusations by the defense lawyer. By that logic, the zoo should just roll over and assume full responsibility for the mother's actions. RIGHT.