Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I thought this was an interesting article - I live in Indpls. and didn't hear about this incident last year, but apparently the mother of the child is now filing a lawsuit against the store (it wasn't their snake!)...read the below article for more info.

What do you bet she's sueing the store rather than the owner of the snake because she'll get a heck of a lot more money from the company than a private owner?

http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/101171-9610-009.html

Bippus, who investigated the attack. "My problem with this is the owner allowed the child to hold the snake. There's no way I would allow that if I were a snake owner. Animals are animals -- you never know what they're going to do."
....................................................
The guy Bippus is right, ten foot, in store lots of stuff going
on around the snake and the guy turns his back? come on... dumbsh...
I’m careful with a foot long king.... Around kids

Your right about filling against bills instead of the guy, but
Wouldn’t you do the same thing if counseled to do so? I mean of course if things were different? Like if you did not love and understand snakes, or if it was a dog etc etc .
I would, unless it was my fault for not keeping an eye or control
of my child (I would not have let my child get close to it)
Honestly though it is not the pet shops fault! It is first off
The mothers or father for not being smart enough or capable enough to restrict interaction to a safe level and obviously the
pet owner’s fault as well for just being a bumbsh.... In the first place,
Now I know I may be jumping and assuming that I understand the whole situation ... I did when I was a kid do that same thing
But the two capable adults (my parent and the pet owner) kept
The situation safe and controlled....
I’ll now pass the Mic and look forward to hearing everyone's
Opinion

it was somehow the Pet Store's responsibility to protect the child from "wild" animals, not the snake owner nor his mother, who was also there. I guess she is allowed to be irresponsible, but not the store owner.

I think the pet store should put in a rule that no child is allowed in the store, ever,...even with a "parent".

I think the mother should sue Bill Gates because the store used microsoft software. How could Bill Gates let this happen? LOL
This is why we should have a loser-pays judicial system!
-----
Chris Harrison

...he was beginning to realize he was the creature of a god that appreciated the discomfort of his worshippers - W. Somerset Maugham

ccccc

I have no children but if I did. I would never watch over them. It seems to me that it's not financially smart to do so. I would send my ten year old boy to Neverland ranch to sleep with Jacko and a ten foot burm. I'd be rich! Anybody who is poor in this country has no excuse. All you have to do is put your child in danger and you're set for life.
-----
Martin Whalin

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld
My Email

regardless of the parent's and snakeowners repsonibility to maintain safety, shouldn't a pet store be a safe place to bring your kids? I'm not saying it's right to sue them, it's just that this is the viewpoint. Is the petstore breaking a law? I don't think so...

What if you had a big python in it's own room in your house, a criminal breaks into your house, and is attacked, killed, and eaten by the snake... perfect security isn't it? What if the snake regurgitated, and you reported the mishap to the police, and the "victim's" family sued you... would that be right?

I can tell you that if that scenario happened in real life, the victim's family COULD sue and would probably win. Unfortunately the criminals seem to have more rights than the victims. Take for instance a more realistic scenario...a robber breaks into a home and wakes up a family. He runs out of the house and across the yard and the husband shoots him.

The husband was protecting his family, right? Wrong! The robbers family sues and WINS because the husband used lethal means when his family was in no immediate danger. Had he shot him when he was in the house coming after him, it would have been legal. But killing someone running away from you is considered illegal.

Just my two cents. I do agree though that the mother is very much in the wrong, but having thought about it for a bit - the owner of the snake most likely said the snake was very friendly and perfectly tame, thus creating a false sense of security. The vast majority of the public knows little about snakes and while most are afraid of them, if someone who seems knowledgeable about snakes says her kid is safe holding one, why would she say no? Common sense should kick in (small kid, big snake...bad idea), but her ignorance of the situation shouldn't make her at fault.

IMHO, the snake should never have been in the store in the first place. One can't walk into a petstore with a tiger on a leash, why a 10 foot snake? This is not to say the store is at fault though. Upon entering the store, the mother knew people could bring their pets in there so she should have watched her kid closer.

The area of town this was in also contributed to this problem - it wasn't the greatest part of town and most of the people down there have "aggressive" animals - big dogs, big snakes, and so forth. That location of uncle bills is very commonly known to sell huge snakes. It's a status thing.

nnnnnnnn

You probably couldn't bring a tiger or ten foot burm into a Petsmart, but they have no problem with you taking your 150 pound Rottie, Doberman, etc.

I think the practice of stores allowing people to bring their pets in is a BAD, BAD, idea IMO. I do not allow my children to approach these animals in the store. However, I think if the store allows it, then they are liable for any accidents involved. That is, unless they have the animal owners sign an idemnity clause prior to entry (which ain't gonna happen-LOL). I've had my daughter ask if she could pet dogs people were walking around in Petsmart, and the owner state that their animals weren't that friendly!!! Then what the heck are these dumb@$$es doing bringing these animals into a crowded public place???????????

I think Uncle Bills AND the owner should be sued! It was irresponsible for both parties to allow the animal in/to bring the animal in.

>>I think the practice of stores allowing people to bring their pets in is a BAD, BAD, idea IMO. ... I think if the store allows it, then they are liable for any accidents involved. unless they have the animal owners sign an idemnity clause prior to entry

agreed

>> I've had my daughter ask if she could pet dogs people were walking around in Petsmart, and the owner state that their animals weren't that friendly!!! Then what the heck are these dumb@$$es doing bringing these animals into a crowded public place???????????

that IS funny, and a perfect way to prove your point.

TD

>>Unfortunately the criminals seem to have more rights than the victims. Take for instance a more realistic scenario...a robber breaks into a home and wakes up a family. He runs out of the house and across the yard and the husband shoots him.
>>
>>The husband was protecting his family, right? Wrong! The robbers family sues and WINS because the husband used lethal means when his family was in no immediate danger. Had he shot him when he was in the house coming after him, it would have been legal. But killing someone running away from you is considered illegal.

well, yeah.

is it unreasonable that if someone is robbing us, we can shoot them to stop them, but once they've robbed us, we're NOT allowed to chase them down and kill them?

If I cut someone off in traffic--intentionally OR accidentally--the other driver could interpret that as threatening his/her family: should they be allowed to track me down and shoot me? I don't think so. The law sounds pretty well devised, in my opinion: the intruder's coming after you, you can shoot and kill; he's running away from your house, you can't. We had a radio talk show host here a couple years ago boast that if he ever caught someone who had broken into his house, he'd hold them at gunpoint, make them beg a while before blowing them away. The "heat of the moment" could be as intense for the homeowner with the guy cowering in the living room, as with him running away. I understand the emotional impulse. But i also see the appropriateness of the law.

Its the stores responcibility because when a child or anyone goes there they have to offer common sense safety.The same way a supermarket cant leave something spilled in the isle.
The owner of the snake is at fault to and he certainly can/should be sued but the petstore didnt provide comon sense safety .I am not a lawyer though I play one on TV heehee kidding but I learned this after the petstore I go to got sued after someone was bit by a Rottweiler in there since they allowed people to bring their dogs in.
They could ban all kids from going in there as you suggest but there would go half their bussiness and that snake could have bitten anyone.It was something that didnt have to ever happen if the petstore used common sense.I bet it doesnt happen again in there.
Bianca

I go to a petstore that USED to allow people to bring their dogs there.One day someone get bit by someones rottweiller they sued the store plus the owner.
If a store any store ALLOWS people to bring their pets in there they are liable for what happens.I think its actually rather crazy how any store allows pets its an accident waiting to happen.Once that animal enters the store and the store allows it even if they dont actually say its okay at that point they are taking a big risk.
Ofcourse you can only get so much in compensation if you get bit by a small cornsnake but that poor kid is hurt.I wouldnt be suprised if the petstore closes shop due to this lawsuit its going to cost them.These law suits force reptile owners not to take chances and thats the way it should be.
I dont even let my friends handle my snakes.They are small kings/milks and ringnecks lol nothinglike a ringneck attack.
Bianca

it's a huge franchise around here - you guys may not have them in your area, but it's similar to petsmart in that it's a large chain petstore. If this was a local store, it may have stood a chance to close, but I doubt one incident is going to bring down the entire line.

Good glad there not going to close.we dont have them in our area.the only franchaise here are Petland and petsmaert and those I would like to see close down.
The place I go to that had the rottweiller bite didnt close either but their insurance premiums went super high and it financially hurt the owner.Now even if you are going buy a reptile you cant handle it near other customers and only if your over 18 and after they tell you reptiles bite and you agree can you handle it.ofcourse it was rottweiller bite incident not a reptile but they take precautions now.
they dont sell large snakes anymore even babies.think maybe its the law around here now not sure.they do have snakes like corns,kings snakes upto 6 ft and not heavy built snakes.
Bianca

i think what we al have to remember is that most of these law about shooting someone while there running away from you after they rob you is that back when these laws were made it was ok to blast someone after they stole your chicken behine your log cabin. in my oppinion they should look at all the laws and really see which ones really go with todays society.

also in my oppinion i think that the mother, and the dude who owned the python are at fault. i mean come on you got a huge snake there and a small kid,.. who was peting a potential food source for that snake a few minutes ago put two and two together im sure most of us have been biten by our snakes because we forgot to wash up after holding a pinky or something.

well thats just my oppinion