Thursday, September 12, 2013

Kill your kid and get paid? Elizabeth Derkosh is trying.

Anyone remember Elizabeth Derkosh, the half-wit who propped her two year old son up on the edge of a wild dog pen at the Pittsburgh Zoo and then accidentally dropped him in? Well as it turns out, she' now trying to sue the zoo for a big bag of cash, claiming that somehow the zoo is responsible for her blatant act of stupidity and should pay her money for it.

Mother of a toddler fatally mauled by African dogs is to blame and shouldn’t be allowed to sue: zoo


Sorry, but the only stupid thing that the zoo did here was let her buy a ticket that day. I agree with the zoo 100% in that when someone does something so unbelievably careless or stupid as to shock the conscience of every reasonable person in the world, they should be cut off from suing others, especially others who were not unbelievably stupid or careless. All the zoo did here was provide a place where people could visit and watch exotic animals. They provided an enclosure for said animals that was designed to keep people of average intelligence out, and it's really not reasonable to anticipate that some idiot would plunk her toddler down on the edge of the enclosure and then lose her grip on the kid. The zoo did their part, and according to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums that certifies and accredits zoos, their enclosures exceed the required safety standards. Clearly though, if you try to make something idiot-proof, a better idiot will always show up. Derkosh is proof of this theory and should not get paid a cent. Her and her husband are seeking a jury trial on this issue though. I'm so bugged about it that I may just move to Pittsburgh for no reason other than to get into the jury pool. Not surprisingly, I'm backing the zoo. It's my opinion that she is solely to blame here and should not be allowed to profit from her negligence. I also think that her sleazy ambulance-chasing lawyer, Robert Mongeluzzi, should be sanctioned and kicked in the junk for even thinking about bringing this suit. And if Derkosh has any more kids, I sincerely hope that she never takes them to Niagara Falls or the Grand Canyon.

9 comments:

  1. She is a Victim. Therefore she is Entitled.
    Doesn't matter if she's a victim of her own stupidity and it doesn't matter if she's a "secondary" victim. She's hurting and someone must pay. And some %*#&% ambulance chaser will see to it.
    Sorry for the bluntness. Drinking tonight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She was negligent when she set her son on the ledge where he should not have been, had she of not put him there then she would not have been in the position to drop him.

      It is her fault that her son died a horrible death.

      Delete
  2. Do these people know absolutely no shame? If I was that parent I'd have died of a broken heart over my own fatal stupidity by now. That she hasn't and is suing instead tells me all I need to know.

    ReplyDelete

  3. "Sorry, but the only stupid thing that the zoo did here was let her buy a ticket that day."

    Hey, shouldn't they refund the cost of the ticket?


    "And if Derkosh has any more kids, I sincerely hope that she never takes them to Niagara Falls or the Grand Canyon."

    Heartily agree, but nevertheless ...

    The quality of Elizabeth's genes is now establishedm and it ain't very high. But what about her husband Jason? He is also a co-plaintiff. Is this merely a case of a man standing by his woman, or are his own genes of comparable competence?

    What I'm getting at is that if Elizabeth has any more kids, particularly if they are fathered by Jason, then those kids likely would face very steep odds even if they are never taken to venues such as Niagara Falls or Grand Canyon or the Empire State Building's observation deck.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not only should the suit be dismissed, she should be liable for any and all costs incurred by the Zoo, legal or otherwise.
    Six's comment is right on the bullseye!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Guess my question is why she wasn't charged with negligent homicide. If LE had pursued that, she'd have little cause for moving forward with her BS suit. She should, at minimum, be registered as a child abuser....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Man, I agree...this is enough to make me want to move to Pittsburgh and get on the jury! Just so I can scream a resounding "GUILTY!!!" at this woman for her fatal negligence, absolve the zoo of any culpability in the death of this child, disbar (and then tar and feather) the schyster lawyer defending her, and ensure that the "mother" in question is relieved of all motherly duties by taking away any children she is still currently rearing (FOR THE CHILDRENZ!!!) and tossing her into jail for so long that her grandkids will be octogenarians before she sees daylight. I'm the father of a 4.5 year old daughter who's inherited the family cats' curiosity, and as bad a father as I am (yes...I believe that the best Life Lessons usually involve bruises and/or scraped knees and that kids should NOT be wrapped in bubblewrap), I still have managed to keep an eye on her at our trips to the zoo. Screw this woman and her entitlement, and the society that has allowed her to believe that she's the victim and "someone else must be to blame". Screw them all. Thrice. Sideways. With a rusty, dung-encrusted pitchfork.

    ReplyDelete
  7. + 1 on Suz... sigh

    ReplyDelete